brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts on the Agricultural Credit Bill and other matters referred to it.

Report and evidence to be printed.

brought up the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.

brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours on the Railways and Harbours Widows’ Pension Fund Bill and other matters referred to it.

Report and evidence to be printed.

brought up the Second Report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

brought up the Third Report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs, reporting the Natal Native Trust and Native Administration Supplementary Bill with amendments.

Report to be printed.

brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Working of Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1919.

Report to be printed.

brought up the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Report to be printed.

I would like Mr. Speaker to obtain your advice. I have a motion here which comes after the 29th Order of the Day. I think, however, it is hardly likely to be reached. Yesterday I was in the same position, and after what I can only describe as a piece of parliamentary trickery, I was prevented by the right hon. the Prime Minister from discussing it. After the speech of the hon. the Minister of Railways on the first reading of the Railways Appropriation (Part) Bill—

The hon. member is making a rather serious charge.

It is not a serious charge for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday when I brought this matter up, your Deputy, Mr. Speaker, was in the Chair, and he pulled me up saying I would have an opportunity later. I pointed out that in all probability the matter would not be reached, and the right hon. the Prime Minister, knowing he was going to move the adjournment of the House, did not intervene and inform the Deputy Speaker. I now want to know if I will be in order when the Railways Appropriation (Part) Bill comes on, in referring to the subject-matter. In all probability there will be no chance of reaching the motion, so that I will not be anticipating.

The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing the subjectmatter at a later stage.

On the second reading of the Railways Appropriation (Part) Bill?

The point does not arise at the moment, but when the Bill comes on, if the hon. member then raises it—I am not quite in a position to decide now—I am certain that my decision will be in the hon. member’s favour.

Before we come to the notice of motion, I wish to answer the question which the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has asked me, not in this House, as he might very well have done, but on the platform last night. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) said he wanted to ask a question which he hoped would appear in the press. It was a question for me. He said—

Then the hon. member goes on to make a somewhat unworthy insinuation in regard to that person unworthy of the hon. member, and of the position he occupies in this House and in the country. I have been at some pains to find out who this credible authority was that the hon. member was basing his information on, and the only information that I have been able to trace is a statement which appeared in a paper yesterday, and to which my attention was drawn this morning. Let me say at once that both the statements in the newspaper yesterday in regard to a prominent citizen, and of the statements which were made last night by the hon. member, are completely devoid of all truth. Not only did that gentleman not know, but the circumstances on Monday were such that neither he nor anyone else outside the ranks of the Cabinet could have known that a dissolution was impending.

So it was not Wakkerstroom?

No person outside the Cabinet could have known that the dissolution was impending. The decision of the Government was come to at a late hour that morning, and only two gentlemen outside the Government knew about it.

The Labour Party knew about it.

They know so much; the Labour benches know so much.

We will prove it in a moment.

I do not think that any of the hon. members on the Labour benches would have made use of that information to speculate on the Stock Exchange, and the insinuation, therefore, is not made against the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). Not only did that gentleman referred to in the paper, and to whom the hon. member referred to last night again, not know about it, he did not know but he could not have known that the Government had such an intention, and that the announcement of the dissolution was likely to be made that afternoon. I repeat once more that the statement made last night by the hon. member was entirely devoid of truth. I do not want to use stronger language, I do not want to use the language he used last night. It was entirely devoid of truth, and I say the insinuation, the charge which he made against that gentleman in another part of his speech was unworthy of the hon. member and the position he occupies in this House and in the country.

Are statements like these allowed to be made, Mr. Speaker, before the business of the day is embarked upon?

Yes; it is a statement by the right hon. the Prime Minister. It can be discussed when the First Order is reached.

Might I point out that it is most inconvenient and a great abuse of the privileges enjoyed by the Treasury benches that they should get up at any odd moment and make statements of a controversial nature, and that we be debarred by the rules of the House from making any remark.

The hon. member may ask a question.

I have asked that question, and I will have a few words to say on it, because I might say that I was informed before I came into this House of the right hon. the Prime Minister’s statement—

By another credible authority?

He was obviously an authority who was extraordinarily well informed because it proved a fact, and if things are allowed in that loose manner to get out the right hon. the Prime Minister has himself only to thank, if it is assumed that information which ought not to be given, is given. That Cabinet secret was obviously very loosely kept. I was told by my hon. friend here when I came into the House at five minutes to two.

I will tell the right hon. the Prime Minister in a minute.

And if that is the case, other people may have got it. It is the right hon. the Prime Minister himself who is to blame. He on various occasions, before matters were discussed in this House, has shown a partiality in certain directions.

But why should the hon. member make that charge against a particular individual? What justifies him in making that charge?

What individual?

The person against whom the charge was made.

There are dozens of people who, if they could gain valuable information like that, could use it. That is their trade—to make money if they can.

Libel and lie low is the hon. member’s policy.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Voordat ons daartoe oorgaan om die twede lesing aan te neem van die Wetsontwerp om die nodige voorskot aan die Regering te maak om met die besigheid van die land aan te gaan, sou ek net graag ’n paar aanmerkinge maak wat betref die verklaring wat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies hier gister gemaak het op die finansiële posiesie van die land. In die eerste plaas wens ek die Huis te herinner aan ’n Wet wat verlede jaar, gedurende die laaste sessie van die Parlement aangeneem was. Ek verstaan, dat dit gedurende die laaste sessie was toe daar nouliks 30 lede teenwoordig was, en die Wet het ’n baie belangrike verandering in ons finansiële stelsel gemaak. Dieselfde kwessie werd gedurende dieselfde sessie deur die Publieke Rekenings Komitee ondersoek, toe die Tesourie met ’n voorstel gekom het om die verandering in te voer. Die Gekose Komitee was ernstig verdeel oor hierdie kwessie en in die end werd dit ook net met die beslissende stem van die voorsitter aangeneem. Die verandering was wat ons in die Middele Wet kry van verlede jaar, waaronder die Tesourie kan besluit dat bedrage vir rente op kapitaal dadelik aan die betaalmeester uitbetaal kan word en nie in ons gewone Tesourie rekenings sal voorkom nie. Die Ouditeur-generaal het ernstige besware hierteen gehad, en ook die Tesourie en hulle het daarop gewys dat dit die Tesourie kontrôle ernstig sou verswak, en dat dit in die toekoms dit baie moeilik sou maak om ons finansiële posiesie te laat bespreek, omdat ons nie in staat sou wees om die noodsakelike en nodige vergelykings te maak met die uitgawe van die vorige jare nie. Elkeen wat hier kom en wat die begroting van uitgawe voor hom het, sal sien, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies skat vir ’n uitgawe van tusse die 23 or 24 miljoen, terwyl in 1921 hierdie Parlement ’n bedrag van oor 30 miljoen gestem het vir die uitgawe van die land. Elkeen wat nie bekend is nie met die ware stand van sake sal daarom dink, dat die edelagbare die Minister sedert hy oortuig gewnrd is van die noodsake likheid vir besuiniging, daarin geslaag is om omtrent 7 miljoen te besuinig. Dis natuurlik nie die geval nie. Dis net ’n geval van boekhouding en uitgawes wat vroeër deur hierdie Huis gestem werd word nou nie meer gestem nie. Ek vermeld dit omdat ek in die eerste plaas van oordeel is, dat dit ’n ongesonde stap vir ons is om te neem, en die stap was geneem in ’n Huis waarin net ’n paar lede teenwoordig was, en ’n stap waardeur, volgens die Ouditeurgeneraal die kontrôle wat deur Parlement behoor uitgeoefen te word, noodsakelik verswak sal word. Dit is misleidend en baie ongeriefelik wat betref die noodsaaklike vergelykings met vorige jare. ’n Ander punt is, dat in die verklaring wat die edelagbare die Minister ons gister gegee het, hy versuim het om ons die syfers van die inkomste van die vorige jaar te gee. Dit was syfers wat absoluut noodsaaklik was om ons in staat te stel om die nodige beraming te maak en die nodige vergelyking van wat ons kan verwag in inkomste oor die lopende jaar. Die edelagbare die Minister het ons ’n paar syfers gegee waar daar vermeerderings was, maar op die ander belangrike hoofde van inkomste weet die Huis glad nie wat daar verwag kan word nie, en daarom is ons in ’n moeilike posiesie om te weet wat ons kan verwag. Ons let vanmôre op, dat die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies in die halwe Begroting gister ingebring, deur die pers in die land beskou word as n bright budget” en dat besonder veel ophef gemaak word van die feit, dat die edelagbare die Minister vanjaar gaat eindig met ’n surplus. Dit is natuurlik, in aanmerking nemende die ondervinding wat die Huis gehad het in die verlede, ’n baie ongewone iets vir daardie Regering om hier te kom met ’n Begroting wat sluit en nog meer om te kom met ’n Begroting wat ’n surplus sal hê. Die edelagbare die Minister self het hier gister vertel, dat “the result is highly satisfactory”: baie bevredigend. Hy het daarby op ’n paar baie belangrike feite gewys, wat volgens sy beskouing die sienswyse sou regvêrdig. In díe eerste plek het hy daarop gewys, dat in die afgelope jaar daar ’n vermeerdering in die invoer gewees het en natuurlik het dit saamgebring ’n vermeerdering in die ontvangs van invoerregte, van doeane. Hy het in verband daarmee, soos gewoonlik, natuurlik ook daarop gewys hoeveel meer motorkarre in die land ingekom het. Ek wil net sê, dat in die verlede geblyk het dat die aantal motorkarre maar ’n baie onbetroubare gids is vir die voorspoed van die land. Dan het die edelagbare die Minister gewys op ’n ander bevredigende iets en dit is die vermeerdering van die inkomste uit die goudproduksie en diamante, ’n Andere verblydende pos wat hy genoem het, was die vermeerderde uitvoer, vernaamlik het hy daarop gewys, dat die bedrag vir wol en mielies toegeneem het. Dan ’n ander belangrike verklaring wat die lopende jaar betref, is, dat “the Budget will balance.” Dit is nou miskien die eerstemaal vir heelwat jare in die geskiedenis van ons land, dat ons ’n Begroting sal hê wat sluit. Die edelagbare die Minister het verder gesê “there are better days ahead,” “we have turned the corner,” “the light is breaking through.” Dit is die ligstraaltjies wat die Huis en die land kry uit die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister maar ongelukkig nie alleen vir die edelagbare die Minister nie, maar in nog groter mate vir hierdie land, is daar ’n anderekant aan die skildery, daar is ’n anderekant. In die eerste plek wil ek edele lede daarop wys, dat nieteenstaande die ophef, wat die pers maak, dat die Begroting vanjaar sou sluit, sluit die edelagbare die Minister sy rekeninge gladnie met ’n surplus nie. Die edelagbare die Minister kry die resultaat alleenlik nadat hy ’n bedrag van nie minder dan £525,000 nie uit Leningsfondse geneem het. Dit is die ou ongesonde gebruik, waar die Parlement al so langsamerhand aan gewoon geraak het gedurende die laaste jare.

Ons weet dit almal.

Ja, ons weet dit almal, maar ongelukkig weet die land daar buite, die mense daar buite dit nie almal nie en daarom wil ek daarop wys. Die edelagbare die Minister het die resultaat alleen gekry na meer dan ’n half miljoen geneem te hê van die leningsfondse, m.a.w. hy kry alleen ’n sluitende Begroting deur £525,000 te neem van die lenings fonds. Dit is die geval, sover die surplus betref. Nou ’n andere ligstraaltjie is die vermeerderde invoer en daardeur die vermeerderde inkomste in doeane regte. Maar as ons nie die toestand van die land daar buite, nieteenstaande al dit, beskou veral na die groot verliese deur droogte ens., en as ons die toestand van die boerdery bevolking sien, dan weet ek nie of ons kan bou op die syfers van invoer wat die toestand van die land betref. Dan ’n ander punt, wat die edelagbare die Minister genoem het, is dat die goudmyne op die oomblik floreer. Ja, dit is waar, dit is waarskynlik werklik die geval wat die toestand daar betref. Die goudmyne, gelukkig vir hulle en gelukkig vir die land, is in so’n florerende toestand, ek glo, dat ek kan veilig se—ek dink hulle eie orgaan het dit verklaar—dat die goudindustrie nog nooit so florerend gewees het in die geskiedenis van ons land nie en wat dit betref kan ons in die toekoms reken, nou die edelagbare die Minister die inkomste aan die Regering aan hierdie Huis gereserveer het, dat die land daaruit iets sal kry. Die andere vermeerdering was op diamante. Dit is ook verblyend, maar waar ek die Huis aan wil herinner is, dat in die verlede geblyk het dat die inkomste uit die bron maar baie wisselvallig was. Van tyd tot tyd het ons geweldige skommelinge gehad en ons het ondervind, dat dit ’n baie wisselvallige bron van inkomste is. Dan wat die uitvoer betref. Dit is waar dat daar n vermeerdering was in die uitvoersyfers van £16,000,000 soos die edelagbare die Minister gesê het. Vir ’n groot gedeelte is dit te danke aan die vermeerderde uitvoer van goud, diamante, wol en mielies. Maar ongelukkig is dit die posiesie alleen in vergelykng met die syfer van verlede jaar, toe ons besonder laë uit voersyfers gehad het en ek wil daaraan herinner, dat wat vorige jare betref, die syfers toe baie hoog gewees het. Dus is ons wat dit betref nog baie ver af van waar ons gewees het en waar ons die land weer graag sou sien. Die edelagbare die Minister het gesê: “there are better times ahead.” Nou ons hoop dat dit so is, maar ongelukkig weer vir die land, kan ons nie help daaraan te herinner, dat dit is wat ons tevore reeds dikwels gehoor het. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het gesê: “we have turned the corner,” maar watter hoek? Daar is soveel hoekies en ons wil graag weet welke hoekie ons om is. Ons hoop maar net dat in hierdie geval, die Minister nie weer net so’n onvertroubare gids is as in die verlede nie. Maar ongelukkig is ek baie bevreesd, dat nieteenstaande die optimisme van die edelagbare die Minister, die posiesie van die land, wat sy finansies betref, nog baie ernstig is. Ek wil ’n paar ongunstige faktore noem, wat ons nie uit die oog mag verlies in verband met die toekoms van die land nie en ook nie uit die oog mag verlies in verband met die lig, wat dit werp op die administrasie van hierdie Regering op finansieel gebied gedurende de laaste jare nie. Ek wil in verband met die budget daarop wys, laat ons dit maar ’n begroting noem, dat daar geen vermindering van belasting in die vooruitsig gestel is nie. Die edelagbare die Minister het hom onthou, om in verband daarmee iets te sê, maar ons moet wel bedink hoe die belasting in die laaste jare vermeerder is geword van tyd tot tyd, sodat selfs die Regering en die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies erken, dat die land in ’n posiesie geraak het, dat die volk moeilik verdere belastinge sal kan dra. ’n Twede ongunstige verskynsel, nieteenstaande dat die edelagbare die Minister van tyd tot tyd gesê het dat daar ’n ernstige noodsaaklikheid is om te besuinig, toon hierdie uitgawe maar weinig besuiniging aan. Die edelagbare die Minister met die Kabinet-kommissie het blykbaar maar baie min sukses gehad in verband met hierdie saak. Onse voorstel om ’n onafhanklike kommissie aan te stel, is van die hand gewys, maar die edelagbare die Minister sy eie kommissie het blykbaar min bereik in hierdie verband, want hy het gister nog gesê, dat wat die tekort betref dit nog wel moontlik sal wees om dit goed te maak deur besparinge. Die besparing moet kom op die addisionele som en hy stel dit in die vooruitsig. Soes die edelagbare die Minister erken, kan daar nog heelwat bespaar word op die Begroting, en dan rys die vraag op, was dit nie die plig van die edelagbare die Minister om dit te reflekteer op de Begroting nie, in plaas van dit oor te laat aan de toekoms om te sien, wat hier en daar afgesny kan word? ’n Andere ongunstige faktor is, dat soos ek reeds aangewys het, die Begroting verlede jaar nie gesluit het nie en baie waarskynlik ook volgende jaar ook nie sal sluit nie, maar die vernaamste is dat onder die stelsel van begrotinge te sluit deur toeëiening van leningsbalanse vir algemene uitgawes en nie die voorsiening te maak vir leningsverliese nie die edelagbare die Minister ons onproduktiewe skuld in ’n paar jaar tyd op onrusbarende wyse verhoog het. Daar is die drie dinge, wat van jaar tot jaar ernstiger word, die ophoping van tekorte in die Inkomsterekening, die toeëiening van leningsfondse om die tekorte te dek en die vermeerdering van die onproduktiewe skuld tot ’n onrusbarende hoogte, wat die gevolg daarvan is. En laat ons ’n bietjie ingaan en sien wat die werkelike posiesie is van die edelagbare die Minister se finansiële beleid gedurende die laaste paar jaar. In 1921-’22 toe die politiek begin het van toeëiening van leningsbalanse, toe die Begroting nie kon sluit nie, het die edelagbare die Minister oorgegaan om byna £1,000,000 of om korrek te wees £934.106, hom toe te eien uit die leningsfonds. Die tekort had moet kom of deur belastingwette of deur besuiniging, dinge wat in die gewone loop van sake al baie onpopulêr is vir ’n Regering om te doen. Inplaas van sy plig te doen, het die edelagbare die Minister toe vir die eerstemaal oorgegaan om ’n bedrag van die leningsfondse te neem. Soos ek gesê het was dit in 1921-’22, £934,106. In 1922-’23 is met die politiek voortgegaan en is £826,621 geneem. Vorige jaar is £525,000 geneem. Drie jaar is noual met die politiek aangegaan, maar dan behalwe die drie toeeieninge van die lengingsfondse, het ons in 1919-’20, vóór ons met die politiek begin het, gesien, dat die edelagbare die Minister ’n bedrag van nie minder as £460,425 uit die surplus van die vorige jaar geneem het, wat bestem was vir afbetaling van skuld. Die vier bedrae saam maak £2,756,255, wat die edelagbare die Minister op onwettige wyse—want die fondse was in die eerste plek nie bedoel vir hierdie uitgawes nie—geneem het vir die doeleinde. In elk geval is dit in stryd met gesond finansieel beleid dat hy vir sy gewone uitgawes die bedrae geneem het om sy Begroting te laat sluit. Oor die £2,000,000, byna £3,000,000 is op die manier geneem. Dan het ons tot 31 Maart 1923, ’n opgehoopte tekort op die inkomsterekening van £2,144,164. Dit is die tekort op die Begrotinge van die vorige drie jaar. Dan is daar ’n ernstige posiesie in verband met onse finansies, nl., dat op onse verskillende pensioenfondse daar geleen is £2,186,208. Ek noem dit hier, omdat ek daarop wil wys, dat as die geld daar nie is nie vir die doeleindes, dat dit dan die plig van die edelagbare die Minister is om voorsieninge te maak om die bedrag uit die inkomste te kry, om die tekort op die pensioenfonds goed te maak. Maar omdat dit nie gedoen is nie, sal die volk vroeër of later die tekort moet goed maak. Dit is iets waar die edelagbare die Minister ligtelik oor heengaan en die oë voor gesluit het. Ons kry dus die groot totaal tekort van £2,144,164 op die inkomsterekening plus aan tekort op pensioenfondse £2,186,208, is totaal £4,330,372. Dis nog nie alles nie. Ons het reeds afgeskrywe van leningsfonds voorskotte vanaf 1918 tot 1923, ingesluit lenings vir besproeiïngsskema’s, ’n bedrag van £1,409,112. Dit is verliese wat ons gely het op kapitale werke. Volgens alle reëls van gesonde finansiële politiek behoort die gelde te kom uit inkomstefondse, as die geld daar is natuurlik. Ons behoor daarby te voeg die andere verlies op die meel-skema van ’n paar jaar gelede, ’n saak waaroor ons blykbaar nog meer sal hoor, ten bedrage van £587,688. Omtrent hierdie saak sal ons volgens die koerante nog meer moeilikhede kry, want die posiesie wat dit betref is taamlik ernstig. Die verlies op die tabak, op daardie tabak eksperiment, waarteen ons geprotesteer het en waar ons die Regering gewys het van hierdie kant van die Huis op die dwaasheid van die ding, was £15,000. Alles bymekaar is dit £2,011,800. Dan is daar die ernstige posiesie in verband met ons besproeiïngs- en landnedersettingswerke. Die edelagbare die Minister van Lande het al ’n paar weke verklaar, dat dit noodsaaklik sal wees om die hele kwessie te ondersoek en dát daar nog grote afskrywinge op die landskema’s nodig sal wees om die op ’n gesonde basis te kan stel. Dus daar staan ernstige afskrywinge wat dit betref, voor die deur, maar ons kan die syfers nog nie in rekening bring nie. Ek wil net die bedrag van £500,000 in my berekening opneem, wat volgens die direkteur van besproeiïnge op Hartebeestpoort reeds afgeskrywe is. Dus, afgesien van verder afskrywinge op landnedersettinge, kom ons nou saam met die verlies op die meel- en die tabakskema weer tot ’n bedrag van £2,511,800. Dan gaan ons ’n bietjie verder en sien hoe dit staat met die posiesie wat betref waardevermindering van sekere fondse. Dan vind ons, dat daar ’n waardevermindering is in effekte van die posspaarbank en andere fondse, spoorweg- en hawefondse en algemene Regeringsfondse van £1,701,060. Die waardevermindering is daar en ons moet daar vandag rekening mee hou. As ons die verskillende totale syfers neem, soos hier opgeneem, dan kry ons die groot totaal van £11,299,487, saamgesteld as volg—

Die punt waar ek hier nadruk op wil lê, is dat in die gewone loop van sake die bedrag deur belastinge, uit inkomstefondse moes geneem word, maar gedurende die tydperk het die edelagbare die Minister hom daarvan onthou om onpopulêre belastinge te hef en daardeur oorgegaan tot die ongesonde finansiële politiek, wat ek hier aangewys het en is onse onproduktiewe skuld onrusbarend in die hoogte gegaan. Ek weet nie of die Huis genoegsaam die erns van die posiesie besef, soos deur die syfers aangetoon. Ek daag die edelagbare die Minister of enige man uit om te sê, dat dit ’n gesonde politiek was om die bedrae te neem in plaas van die uitgawes te dek uit die gewone inkomste van die land. Maar nou, wat is die gevolg nou? Ek glo nie, dat dit moontlik sal wees.in die toekoms, om te doen soos die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorwee gedoen het en die tekort af te werk. Ek glo nie dat dit moontlik is nie. Die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorwee het baie afgewerk, maar hy vergeet die twee miljoen pond wat hy afgeneem het van die. leningsfonds. Daar hoor ons niks meer van nie. Hy praat net van die ander besparing. Maar as die Regering nie die tekorte kan dek deur besuiniging, dan is daar net die andere alternatief, nl., die vermeerdering van onse Unie—of onproduktiewe skuld. Wat kry ons nou? Laat ons ’n bietjie op die kwessie ingaan. Ons het gister gehoor hoe die edelagbare die Minister so ligtelik daaroor gestap het en gesê het dat hy die Huis nie met teveel besonderhede sal ophou nie. Maar daar is baie dinge, wat belangrik is vir ons, wat ons nie voor is nie. Ek dink dis plig om feite in die oë te sien en te sien wat die posiesie is. Ek neem weer die syfers van die Tesourie tot verlede jaar, waar hulle tot die konklusie kom, dat onse onproduktiewe skuld nou £58,000,000 bedra. Dit is volgens die memorandum van die Tesourie. Maar dan gaan hulle en trek af die waarde van sekere publieke geboue en sekere bosaanplantinge en andere dinge en hulle set dit aan met £12,000,000. As ons dit aftrek, dan kry ons £46,000,000. Ek wil nie daarop ingaan nie of die publieke geboue heeltemal geen onproduktiewe skuld is nie, of hulle as sodanig afgeskrywe kan word. Laat ons die syfer van £46,000,000 aanneem tot laaste jaar, maar dan het ons nog die bedrag van £11,000,000, wat ek al voorheen genoem het en daarvan moet by die onproduktiewe skuld gevoeg word die bedrag vir afskrywinge van £2,511,000, vir tekorte aan pensioen en andere tekorte £4,330,372, en waardevermindering £1,701,060. Dis totaal £8,542,432. Soos die edelagbare die Minister van Lande al gesê hef, kom daar nog by andere bedrae, wat sal moet afgeskrywe word op besproeiïngswerke en landnedersettings, maar afgesien daarvan kom ons tot ’n totale onproduktiewe skuld van £54,542.432. Maar laat ons nou ’n bietjie dink wat die posiesie is met betrekking tot die aflossing van skuld gedurende die laaste jare. Dit was die plig van die Regering gewees ook daaromtrent medeling te doen. Op die oomblik is die wetlike voorsieninge, wat daar is met betrekking tot die aflossinge van skuld, die volgende. In die eerste plaas het ons die £40,000,000 lening van die Transvaal en die Oranje Vrystaat, waaromtrent die wet bepaal, dat elke jaar ’n sekere bedrag moet afbetaal word en gelukkig het ons sover elke jaar die bedrag gestem. Dan is daar verder die wetlike voorsiening, dat alle surplus Begrotings gebruik moet word vir aflossing van skuld, maar soos reeds aangetoon, het ons vir ’n aantal jare geen surplus gehad nie en gevolgelik geen afbetaling van skuld onder die hoof nie. Vir reeks van jare is daar alleen voorsiening gemaak vir aflossing van skuld wat betref die £40,000,000, omdat dit verpligtend is, dat daar voorsiening gemaak word. En dan kry ons hierdie nosiesie. In 1912 was die totale voorsiening deur ons gemaak ’n aflossing van skuld van omtrent 1 persent. Dit word beskou as ’n billike voorsiening, wat ook in andere lande geld en ook vroeër al in Suid-Afrika bestaan het. In 1911-’12 is, soos ek al gesê het, 1 persent afgelos. Dan kom dit af en ons vind, dat in 1917, toe nog ’n taamlik goeie bedrag betaal is, was dit .8 persent, in 1918 weer .8 persent, in 1919 .7 persent, in 1920, dit is die jaar toe die meeste afbetaal is, toe die edelagbare die Minister £460,000 van die surplus van vorige jare geneem het, toe was dit 1.4 persent en dan sak dit. In 1921, .3 persent. in 1922 .3 persent, in 1923 .2 persent. Dit is waar ons nou het gekom in verband met die posiesie van aflossing van onse skuld. Ons moet dit goed in die oog hou. Ons het nie die geld gehad nie en die edelagbare die Minister het nie gedurf om voorsieninge te maak nie, spesiale belastinge te hef nie, want hulle het op die kussings wil bly. [Gelach.] Die edelagbare die Minister die lag, maar kan hy ontken dat die posiesie so is? Dit is feite en dit kan nie ontken word nie. [An Hon. Member: “Wait, what we have to say about it.”] Ons het vorige jaar hierdie posiesie al onder die oog gesien en van hierdie kant van die Huis het ons gewaarsku, dat ons daartoe sou raak. Laat ons ’n bietjie nagaan waarom die edelagbare die Minister so optimisties is en net aan die vooraand van die verkiesing met ’n “budget” kom, wat sal sluit. In die eerste plek is dit niks anders as papiere “statements.”

Dit het hulle twaalf jaar geneem.

Die edelagbare die Minister het die Huis syfers gegee, vergelykende syfers, maar net vergelykende syfers met die inkomste van verlede jaar, en volgens die syfers wat hy voor die Huis gele het, sal daar ’n tekort wees van £83,000 en dan kom hy nog op sy gewone manier vertel hoe die bedrag nog wel besuinig kan word op die addisionele uitgawes, waar hiermee voorsiening gemaak word. Ek dink, as die edelagbare die Minister van mening is dat daar nog op die beraamde uitgawes besuinig kan word, dan was dit sy plig om dit te laat blyk uit die Begroting. Waarom het hy dit nie aangedui in die Begroting, wat voor die Huis lê nie? Maar laat ek net ’n paar syfers neem wat ons het. Laat ons die syfers neem. Die voornaamste bron is invoerregte, gebaseer op die feit dat wat invoer betref sal dit beter wees as verlede jaar. Ek weet nie of dit geregtêrdig is nie, want die toestand buitekant, afgesien van die goudindustrie, is treurig. Die edelagbare die Minister raam die vermeerderde inkoms op invoerregte op £192,000 bokant verlede jaar syne. ’n Ander pos wat ’n verbetering aanwys is poswese. Natuurlik sal die edele Minister voorsiening maak dat die vrye dienste van tot hier toe, voortaan vir betaal sal word. Maar ek weet nie of selfs die nie optimisties is nie. Dan kry ons die Inkomsbelasting. Tot nogtoe was die Minister in die posiesie dat ’n aansienlike bedrag as “carry over” aan te slaan wat nog nie ingesamel was nie, maar dit is uitgeWerk en in die toekoms sal hy moet tevrede wees om rekening te hou met die normale inkomste en nie meer die reg besit om van “carry over” te gewaag nie en dit sal die posiesie affekteer. ’n Ander pos waar hy op ’n vermeerdering van £100,000 reken is sterfregte. Ek dink dit is ook ’n baie arbitrêre beraming; dit kan tamelik reg wees of tamelik ver uit. Die naturellebelastings verwag hy ook ’n vermeerdering van £30,000 op. Waarop baseer hy dit? Ek het gedag dat die inkomste tamelik sekuur beraam kon word. Hoe dit sy, dit is duidelik uit die paar punte, deur my opgenoem dat nietteenstaande die optimisme van die Minister die finansiële vooruitsigte nie rooskleurig is nie; die ekonomiese posiesie is ewe ernstig as tot hiertoe. As ons die syfers van bankrotskappe gaan vergelyk dan siet ons dat dit verlede jaar 2,263 wat die hogste is in die hele wereld. In Engeland was dit verlede jaar per 10,000 1.27, Kanada 3.89, Nuseeland 0.66, Verenigde State 1.74 en Suidafrika 13.68 vir die blanke. As ons dit neem dan moet ons tot die konklusie kom, dat die finansiële posiesie ver van gesond is. Die goudmyne se posiesie is verbeter en dit is omtrent die enigste nywerheid wat floreer, maar dit word nie gereflekteer deur vermeerdeerd inkomste vir die mense van die land nie maar dit vloei vir die merendeel in die sakke van aandeelhouers oor see en hier word soveel moontlik witmense ontslaan om die profyt so groot moontlik te maak. Wanneer ons kom tot die grootse nywerheid, waarvan selfs die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) erken dat dit die voornaamste van die land is namelik landbou, dan weet iedereen uit hoofde van die wette wat ons onlangs aangeneem het soas die Droogte Noodlenigingswet en andere dat dit daar buite sleg gaan. Die boerende bevolking is arm, nieteenstaande die feit dat van die totale belasbare inkomste die boer £73,000,000 produseer in vergelyking met £39,000,000 vir andere nywerhede en £55,000,000 van die mynnywerheid. Ons vind dat op die belasbare verdienste van die boer op daardie produksie in 1921 £4,000,000 was; in 1922 £1,690,000; vir die myne is die syfers £9,596,000 en £5,552,000. Hier het ons die verklaring van die rede wat verskeie keer deur die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies gemaak is, dat die boer so min belasting betaal en die myne soveel. Dit is eenvoudig omdat die boer nie kan nie, omdat hy geen inkomste het nie. Terloops gesê, vind ek dit jammer dat die boer nie ’n bietjie meer belasting kan betaal nie, want dit sou bewys dat hy beter inkomste het. Dit wys weer die onbillikheid daarvan om die belasting te neem wat een nywerheid betaal en dit te vergelyk met wat ’n andereen betaal en op grond daarvan te sê die een is belangryker dan die ander.

Dit spyt my, maar die edele lid se tyd is verstreke.

Dit wys die onsinnigheid, die ‘diepe onsinnigheid van die Reglement van Orde, waaraan ons gebonde is; of altans hoe onsinnig dit in sy uitwerking kan wees. Ek moet sê, dat ek dink dat die les vir die volk daar buite van die grootste diens sal wees en behoort te wees en ook vir hierdie Huis. Walt die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) voor die Huis gel eg het is van die uiterste belang vir die Huis en die land en ’n regel van die Huis belet hom om dit te doen. Een grote les is duidelik wat blyk uit die weinig wat hy kon voorlê en dit is die ligsinnigheid waarmee ons bereid is om sommer geld uit te gee en ons te vertroos met ’n bietjie redenering en ’n paar woorde. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, nadat hy ’n aantal jare ons op die wyse metterdaad getoon het, hoe ongesond die manier is waarop die finansies beheer word en jaar na jaar, hoe hy omspring met die geld van die land, op ’n manier die geen gesonde leiding sal toelaat nie is van jaar skielik gekom en toon nou dat die Regering op die punt staan om tot die volk te gaan, nou is daar skielik ’n surplus en het hy te kenne gegee, hoe dit onnodig sal wees vir enige Regering na die teenwoordige om verdere belastinge op te lê. Die twee dinge, wat hy wou laat uitkom in sy verklaring, is dat die toestand, so nie florerend nie, dan tog bevredigend is en dat as dinge dalk gaan soas die Regerings kant vrees dat dit dalk sal gaan en dat ons op die Regeringsbanke kom, dan sou hulle met verontwaardiging uitroep, dat dit ongehoord is dat weer verdere belasting moet opgelê word—nl., deur wie na hulle kom. Of die teenwoordige Regering sal terugkom of dat hierdie kant van die Huis die Regering sal moet vorm—ek neem die een aan as so moontlik as die ander—ek wil die versekering gee, dat die volk sal nie verder belas word nie, wat ons betref. Dit verseker ek, wat ook al gesê word, want die volk kan nie verder uitgemergel word as wat die Regering dit reeds gedaan het nie. Ek haal net aan wat die edelagbaire die Minister self gesê het; en ons sal natuurlik nie, nog ons nog iemand anders meer belasting opset, want soos die gesegde lui: “jy kan nie water uit ’n klip tap nie.” Daar is niks so jammerlik nie as ’n volk, waiar net die myne en enkele individue in die, handels wereld floreer en die ander industrieë en die boerende bevolking is stadig aan aan uitdroe, sodat mens amper kan sê, dat hulle vandag soas ’n maer bok daar uitsien. Die edelagbare die Minister weet dat dit so is en die hele land weet dit en dan wil die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies kom en, op die vooraand van ’n eleksie, ons wysmaak, dat hulle die land in besit laat van ’n surplus van £200,000. As iets die finansiële politiek van die Regering meer kenmerk as enige iets anders, dan is dit die manier waarop hulle van jaar tot jaar heengaan, die ware finansiële toestand verberg, soas aangetoon deur die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) om instede van ’n surplus te hê soas hulle voorgee, hulle ’n tekort het van £300,000 as gevolg van die beweerde gesonde politiek, omdat uitgawe, wat bestryk moet word uit die gewone inkomste, betaal word uit die leningsfondse. Enige Regering in Suid-Afrika sou, solank as die land genoeg krediet besit, so kan handel en maar altoos leen en aan die volk vertel, dat daar geen belasting nodig is en ook geen tekort aangewys word nie. As die Huis so onsinnig is om die beginsel steeds goed te keur, sou enige Regering alle belasting kan afskaf en alles betaal uit leningsfondse. Maar die Regering het gesorg, dat hulle dit oulik genoeg doen, sodat die volk nie al te seer die wesenlike toestand besef en hulle nie van agter af uit die Ministersetels geskop word nie en met groot sukses, tot vandag toe, maar met die gevolg, soas die lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) aangetoon het, dat die dooie skuld van die Unie ruim £11,000,000 is. Dit behoort bestrede te wees uit die gewone inkomste, instede dat geld geleen word om dit mee af te betaal. Ek wil natuurlik nie te lank wees nie, maar wens net te sê, dat ons staan op die punt van ’n algemene eleksie en reken, dat ek mag hoop, dat ons tenminste in hierdie verkiesing minder sal gewaar van die vlaggeswaai, wat ’n konstante middel was, waaronder die Regering en sy volgelinge gedek, hulle oorwinnings behaal het. Ek weet, dat hulle baie hulpeloos sal voel, waar hulle die wapen nie meer het nie. [Een Edele Lid: “Die lid vir Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) sal die wapen nooit afgee nie.”] Natuurlik sal die edele lid vir Fort Beaufort die wapen hou; hy is begonne met vlaggewaai, maar daar is ’n man as die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, die nie sy loopbaan so begint het nie en ek hoop, dat hy nie so sal uitskei nie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister was gister boos.

Nee, nie boos nie.

Nee, die edelagbare die Eerste Minister is te geniaal om boos op te word en ek was nog nooit boos vir hom, behalwe wanneer ek hom nie sien nie en selfs dan net vir enige minute. Hy het ’n sekere genialiteit, wat my dwing om hom veel te vergewe. Hy was gister uit sy humeur en ek sou dit nie vermeld, as het nie so onverdiend was in my geval nie. Hy kon egter boos wees, as hy die verslag van my toespraak te Parow gelees had, soas gerapporteer in die Cape, Times. Toe ek die verslag lees, het dit byna my asem weggeneem.

Dit is net soas die van Reuter.

Ja, ek kan hom oortuig en sal voorlees, wat in die Cape Times staat—

Denk u, dat ek ooit instaat sou wees om soiets te sê van die Regering? Die Eerste Minister weet wat ek oor dieselfde onderwerp gesê het en ek het net die teenoorgestelde gesê van wat daar staat en dit bewys dadelik, dat dit die grootste stuk verdraaiïng en leuen is, wat te bedenke is. Wat betref die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, laat hulle my sê: “Their Ministers would have been branded as murderers and outcasts.” Ek het geen enkele woord van moordenaar of verskoppeling gebesig nie, maar wel het ek verklaar, dat as die edelagbare die Ministers in Engeland of enige ander konstitusioneel geregeerde land gehandel had soas onssyne gehandel het in sekere gevalle, hulle nie deur die volk toegelaat sou gewees het om verder op die kussings te bly nie. Dit bewys, hoe die hele saak met opset leuenagtig voorgesteld word. ’n Ander geval is hierdie—

As daar een ding is, waaromtrent ek sou weet dat dit onwaar is, as die edelagbare die Eerste Minister daarvan beskuldig word, dan is dit rassehaat. Ek sal hom egter wel beskuldig en ek bring dit ook uit, dat ek vraak dit sterk en veroordeel ten sterkste die gedrag van Generaal Smuts en sy mede-ministers, wanneer hulle na die platteland gaan en daar die gevoelens oprui deur op die rassegevoel te werk van die mense daar teen die Arbeidsparty, omdat laasgenoemde Engelssprekend is en die mense daar meestal Hollandsprekend is; en ek vraak eweseer die gedrag van die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese en Industrie, toe hy probeer het in die verlede om in die dorpe die arbeiders te waarsku teen die boere daarbuite, die hulle sal bedrieg. Hy weet die mense is Engelssprekend en die ander Hollandssprekend. Daar is m.i. niks veragterlikers, as om misbruik te maak van die rassegevoel vir eleksiedoeleindes. Die edelagbare die Ministers en nie die Minister nie, die Eerste Minister sy hele beroep op die volk by die laaste eleksie was bereken om niks anders te doen nie, dan om die Engelssprekende in die harnas te jaag teen die Nasionaliste, omdat hulle merendeels Engelssprekend en die Nasionaliste Hollandssprekend is. Ek is tenminste bly, dat ons die keer na die land gaan sonder daardie eleksiekreet.

Dus met ’n eenstroom politiek?

Ons kan met een of twee strome gaan, net soas ons wil, hulle gaat daarin verdrink; hulle gaat nie weer deurkom nie.

In watter stroom is die edele lid?

Miskien is dit Wakkerstroom, waaroor ons ons kan verheug. Hoe hinderlik dit ook vir die edelagbare die Ministers en hulle ondersteuners mag wees, dat die wapen verbroke is, kan ons verheug, dat ons sover gekom is, dat ’n eleksie gedryf kan word meer op die meriete van die saak as andersins. Natuurlik kan die Ministers nie teen hulle gemoed ingaan nie en dink, dat hulle met ’n Arbeider saam kan handel nie, en verklaar dus dat hulle sal uitloop op bolsjevisme. Nee, agter die gordyn moet hulle nie nog ’n gordyn ophang nie en sê hulle het die Arbeiders lief, as die Arbeiders net net hulle wil saamwerk. Maar daar hulle dit nie kan verkry nie, wil hulle kapitaal slaan uit die “pact.” Ek maak hulle ’n present daarvan. Die edele Minister van Mynwese en Industrie is baie in sy skik gewees. Ek sal hom ’n aanbod maak, hy en ek kan saam op een platform die saak van Arbeiders bespreek, al was dit Malmesbury.

Nee, Smithfield.

Ja, daar kan ons die “pact” bespreek. Nee, ek hoop, dat ons eerlik sal wees by die volgende eleksies.

Ja, hoor, hoor. Ek is baie bly om die edele lid te hoor, want so ver is dit seker ’n kwaliteit wat ek in die laaste jare nergens daardie banke gevond het. Ek is daarvan oortuig, dat daardie banke wat nou om eerlikheid vra, wat nou eerlikheid toejuig na hulle kiesafdelings sal gaan—en hoe sal hulle dan probeer om uit die stemminge te draai wat in die laaste tyd plaasgevind het?

The hon. member can always say that his speeches are misrepresented.

Wel, ek sal Hansard vat— maar die edele Minister sal dit miskien self nie wil neem nie. Wel, ek sal Hansard nie neem nie, die Notule van die Huis is genoeg. Wat ek hier wil sê is dit: Wie hier terug sal kom weet ek nie, niemand kan dit sê en ek is nie van plan nie om enige weddenskappe aan te gaan; maar wie ook terug kom, dit wil ek sê, dat dit te hope is, dat die Regering wat in die toekoms die land sal moet regeer sal weet hoe een ding te doen en dit is om meer beslistheid en oortuiging te hê wat betref ’n vaste politiek. Ons het hier jare lang gesit, en daar is van die allerernstigste onderwerpe waaroor die Suid Afrikaanse bevolking hulle besig hou—daar is die naturelle kwessie; dis ’n vraagstuk wat van die grootste gewig vir die hele land is; daar is die werkloosheid vraagstuk, waaroor ons baie tyd bestee het in hierdie Huis om ’n oplossing te kry—wat het ons gedoen? Dan is daar die kwessie van die vroue stemreg; om daardie vraagstuk en daardie ontwerp deur die Huis te kry was iets wat ek sou gemeen het die aandag van die Eerste Minister, waard was. En ek wil net sê, en die Eerste Minister weet dit—ek het op meer dan een geleentheid, privaat en hier in die Huis my dienste aangebied, en die dienste van ons altemaal aan hierdie kant, om te probeer daardie vraagstuk op ’n behoorlike manier op te los. En dit spyt my, dat ek dit nou moet sê—die Minister van Mynwese was so dankbaar aan ons, dat hy verlede jaar rondgegaan het en op Kimberley en ooral geprobeer het om dit ’n party saak te maak. Dit was die dank wat ek gekry het. En as dit nie ’n vraagstuk van so groot belang was nie, dan sou genoeg wees om te vra “ja, wil jy ons daaroor beveg, wil jy dit ’n partysaak maak? Indien so, laat dit dan wees.”

Die edele lid het nooit op my vraag geantwoord nie.

Nee, ek het die vraag nooit beantwoord nie, omdat uit die oogpunt van die aanbod wat ek gemaak het om die hele kwessie te behandel as ’n onpartydige kwessie, die vraag van die edelagbare die Minister niks anders was nie as ’n tersydestelling van die belange van die volk en die behartiging van sy eie belange. En.ek gaat myself nie veria nie om myself op die standpunt te plaas waar die edelagbare die Minister gestaan het. Ek gio, ek is daarvan oortuig, dat wat die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese ook mag sê, die volk daarop sal toesien, dat daar saamwerking tusse beide kante sal plaas vind om tot ’n oplossing te raak. Maar ek wens nou terug te kom op die gebrek aan beslistheid oor die groot vraagstukke van die dag. ’n Paar jaar terug het die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese hier in die Huis die politiek van segregasie goedgekeur.

Landelike segregasie.

Ja; het die Regering dit gedoen?

Ons doen dit.

Hulle doen dit? Hulle is nou veertien jaar in die setel en hulle doen dit maar hulle is nog nooit daar gekom nie. Nee dis een van die dinge waar hulle ’n sekere distansie gaan en dan hardloop hulle weg. Laat ons die kwessie van industries vat. Wat is die politiek van die Regering wat industries betref?

What is the policy of the opposition—is it socialism or republicanism?

Natuurlik—die hoogedele die Minister van Landbou het net maar een ding op sy brein en dit is die republiek.

En die vlag.

Ja, ons wil ’n republiek hê; ja, en die vlag. Ja, die vlag sal daar tot aan die einde wees; en nou is dit die republikeinse vlag by hom; wel, ek het geen beswaar nog teen die ene vlag, nog teen die andere.

Die Rooi Vlag;

Maar wat is vandag, wat is na al die jare die politiek van die Regering, wat is die industriële politiek van die Regering? Hulle het ’n Raad van Industries—wat noem hulle dit nou weer?

Raad van Handel en Nijverheid.

Ja, hulle het ’n Raad van Handel en Nijverheid.

Professor Fremantle.

Hulle heg so veel belang aan daardie Raad, dat die arme Raad nou maar net uit een lid bestaan terwyl daar drie behoor te wees. Ek weet nie waar een van die lede is, en die ander is uitgestuur om ’n ondersoek in te stel na dit of dat, na iets wat glad niks daarmee te doen het nie. Maar die Regering stel nie die minste belang daarin; hulle het nog nooit aan die Huis of aan die land laat weet of hulle “protectionists” of vryhandelaars is—

Of ’n “nuisance.”

Hulle het ons nog nooit vertel wat hulle politiek is nie. Nee; ons kan op daardie manier nie aangaan nie. Ek hoop, dat wanneer die volgende Regering hier kom, dat hulle dan tenminste iets sal doen sodat ons sal weet wanneer daar groot probleme is, wat die houding van die Regering sal wees, en as hulle eenmaal daardie houding opgeneem het, laat hulle dan die gewone parlementêre party sisteem volg en sê “dit is ons politiek en as julle van ’n ander politiek is en as die volk wat julle ondersteun in die meerderheid is, dan gaat julle in.” Maar die ervaring wat ons in Suid-Afrika gedurende die laaste paar jaar gehad het is dit gewees—jou Regering gee daar niks om nie om die klere van sy teenstanders te steel en daarmee rond te loop. Nee, as daar een ding is wat ongesond is, dan is dit dit—

Someone must have stolen the hon. member’s republic and put it in his pocket.

Ek sal volstrek nie verwonder wees nie as die hoogedele die Minister van Landbou die eerste sal wees om die Nasionale Party te ontsteel van sy republikeinse liefde. Ja, soos my edele vriend hier sê—hy was alreeds ’n lid gewees van die Bond.

I cannot steal it until the hon. member tells me what he has done with it.

Presies.

I do not know where it is at the present moment.

Ja, die hoogedele die Minister van Landbou is hard in die rigting om ’n republiek te kry, net soos die Eerste Minister by die laaste verkiesings was. Wie het by die laaste verkiesings gegaan en die kwessie, van ’n republiek geopper by die volk? Ja, die Eerste Minister was die enigste, en ons liet die posiesie aangeneem wat ons nou aanneem teenoor die Minister van Landbou. As hy ’n republiek wil hê, dan wens ek hom veel heil toe. Ga voort, sê ek, maar ek het te veel ondervinding gehad—

Hoor, hoor.

Ek het te veel ervaring gehad van die vertroue wat ek in die hoogedele die Minister kan stel, en daarom sê ek “doe dit, maar op jou eie risiko.” Wel, ek is bly om te sien, dat daar vandag werkelik toenadering is tusse die Regerings Banke en die Opposiesie. Ek wil net een ding sê, en dit is dit. Ek het reeds gewys op die aanbod wat deur en namens ons op hierdie banke gemaak wat betref saamwerking op die naturelle kwessie. Wel, ek hoop, dat wat ook die posiesie in die toekoms mag wees, en wie ook op die Regerings banke mag sit, dat die stand van sake anders sal wees as wat dit nou is. Daar is heel wat kleinere dinge, heel wat formele dinge waar ek meen, dat ek as leier van die opposiesie die reg had om aanspraak te kan maak op die welwillenheid van die Eerste Minister. Dit was hier in die Huis op vallend vir my gewees—of dit opsettelik was of nie, dit kan ek nie sê nie, maar dit was vir my opvallend met watter minagting die opposiesie en ekself behandel werd in hierdie Huis deur die Regering. Ek wens dit aan niks anders toe te skrywe nie behalwe aan die gevoelens wat opgewek was deur Ministers self, vir die merendeel buite hierdie Huis, en ek hou die Kabinet self verantwoordelik vir alles, want dit is ’n refleksie, dit is ’n reaksie op die gemoedere van die Ministers. Ek wens nie onnodig nie te verwys op wat gister hier plaas gevind het, maar wat hier plaas gevind het was onwaardig gewees, en as ek my sterk sou uitgedruk het, sterker as ek gedoen het, dan meen ek, dat ek waartoe die volste regverdiging sou gehad het. Ek wil net dit sê, dat ek hoop, dat of die teenwoordige Eerste Minister en sy kollegas in die volgende Parlement daar of hier sal sit, en of ek daar in hulle setels of hier sal sit, ek hulle die versekering kan gee, dat ek hulle die respek en agting sal gee in hierdie Huis wat hulle altyd van my gehad het.

Ek staan nie op om ’n eleksie toespraak te maak, maar ek meen, dat dit van my geverg is om ’n paar woorde te spreek in antwoord op wat van die leier van die opposiesie geval het. Ek het baie aanvalle van hom op hierdie kant van die Huis gehoor, en ook op die Regering gehoor, en ook op myself persoonlik, maar dis die eerste maal, dat ek hierdie aanklagte van hom gehoor het, namelik dat hierdie kant van die Huis, die Regerings kant van die Huis, en ek persoonlik hom nie met die respek bejeen het wat hom van ons toekom nie.

Dikwels.

Die insinuasie, die beskuldiging is nog nooit teen ons gemaak nie en dit het ook nog nooit by my opgekom nie, en ek moet dit nou opneem. Ek weet werklik nie waarop die edele lid sinspeel nie.

Ek het nie gesê nie, dat die Eerste Minister dit opsetielik gedoen het.

Ja, dit is so, maar as daar ooit iets voorgeval het waaruit dit sou lyk as of hy nie met die volste respek behandel is nie, dan moet dit onwillekeurig gebeur het en nie met opset nie. Maar ek kan geen enkel geleentheid onthou nie; in teendeel, my gevoelens was altyd gewees dat ons hier sit as “gentlemen,” ons is teen mekaar wat politiek betref, en ons bestry mekaar onder die beste reels, en dis die gevoelens wat ek het en wat ek hoop te behou.

Wat omtrent die Minister van Finansies?

Nee, dit is van toepassing op ons almal. Maar as dit hier ’n kwessie is om beskuldigings te maak, dan sou ek hulle self ook kan maak, maar ek wil dit nie doen nie. Ons gaat hier nou op ’n groot stryd in, en dit is die reel voordat die vegters begin, dat hulle mekaar die hand toereik, en dat die stryd begin in die beste gees en onder die beste reels, en ek gaat nie tu quoque sê aan die edele lid nie. Laat ons op die stryd ingaan, in die beste atmosfeer, want, glo vir my, dit gaat ’n groot stryd wees, en ek hoop ons sal die stryd op so’n manier voer, dat ons nie sal vergeet, dat ons van ons verskillende standpunt veg vir die hoogste belange, nie van party nie, maar van Suid Afrika. Ek hoop, dat dit van alle kante van die Huis en deur alle partye besef sal word, dat hierdie stryd gevoer word vir groot beginsels; dis nie ’n stryd vir party belange of om aan die bewind te kom nie, maar ons veg hier op groot beginsels wat deur die volk verstaan moet word en deur die volk begryp moet word en waarop die volk hulle beslissing sal moet gee. Laat ons dit in die gees aanvat. Van my kant het ek nie ander bedoeling nie as om die hele kwessie in die reine lig te plaas voor die volk om hulle beslissing te kry. Laat my toe te sê, dat volgens my mening die volk voor ’n moeilike tyd staan. Daar is groot kwessies voor ons en ons is in ’n belangrike stadium van ons bestaan, Ons is nie langer ’n klein nasie nie. Ons status in die wereld is verander, ons volk het opgegroei, en dit sal ons tot groter kwessies en tot moeiliker tye bring. Die hele maatskaplike kwessie, die kwessie van die relasies tusse blank en swart, kwessies van ons eie natuurlike ontwikkeling—daardie kwessies sal groter en swaarder word en dis nie in ’n party gees, dat ons daardie kwessies sal kan oplos nie. Wel, ek hoop, dat ons in daardie gees op die stryd sal ingaan, en dat ons nie sand in die oë van die mense sal gooi nie, dat ons nie die volk sal mislei nie, maar dat ons die volk sal help om tot ’n beslissing te kom wat die land sal help.

Moenie vir hulle vertel dat miljoene die land in sal stroom nie.

Maar die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het die voordeel oor my—dat hy altyd alles ontken wat aan hom toegeskrywe word in die koerante.

In die koerante van die Minister.

Ek is in die ongelukkige posiesie, dat ek die vergaderings van my edele vriend nie kan bywoon nie, ek kan nie persoonlik kennis maak nie met sy welsprekendheid in sy publieke toesprake, ek kan dit net uit die pers neem, maar die edele lid is in die posiesie, dat waar hy ook praat, wanneer hy ook gerapporteer word en onder alle omstandighede, daar is altyd misverstand en en hy word altyd verkeerd gerapporteer.

Nee, dis nie waar nie.

Ek word soms ook verkeerd gerapporteer—ek gaan daar dikwels onder gebuk, maar wanneer ek in ’n moeilikheid is probeer ek nie altyd nie om te ontken wat ek gesê het. Daar is soms misverstande, maar die edele lid praait miskien nie altyd so duidelik nie en die rapporteerder kan dikwels die mening van die edele lid nie verstaan nie. Hy het die voordeel oor my, dat hy so te sê vryspraak het, hy kan maar sê wat hy wil, en as die verslae van sy toespraak in die pers verskyn, dan ontken hy dit, en dan sê hy, dat hy dit nooit gesê het nie. Wel ek wens dat ons by die komende verkiesinge duidelik sal wees en dat ons nie met woorde of met taal sal speel nie. Ek sal ’n voorbeeld gee. Gisteraand het die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) ’n baie belangrike onderwerp bespreek op Stellenbosch. Ek haal dit net as ’n voorbeeld aan en ek is nie van plan: om op die naturelle kwessie in te gaan nie—ek is altyd ’n bietjie bang daarvoor.

Ja, dit lyk so.

Maar die edele lid het gister aand ’n toespraak gehou en ek het dit ernstig oor gelees, want wat hy in sy toesprake sê is altyd baie interessant vir my.

Het die edelagbare die Minister dit in die Burger of in die Cape Times gelees?

In die Burger— ek lees die koerant so veel as ek kan. Hy het oor segregasie gepraat en sy oplossing vir die naturelle vraagstuk was dit—wat betref die kleurling bevolking in enigeen van die provinsies, vat hul en set hulle onder die blanke bevolking en gee hulle gelyke stemreg met die blanke bevolking. Dis sy eerste punt. Dan was sy twede punt—neem van die naturel, van die swart, man wat hy het, neem die stemreg van hom af; hy het gesê, dat dit ’n fout was gewees om hom die stem te gee, en dit moet afgeneem word.

Nee.

Wel, dis soos dit gerapporteer is.

Nee, dis nie so gerapporteer nie.

Ja, dit is so gerapporteer, ek kan dit aan die edele lid voorlees, as hy dit wens. Maar ek wens nie die kwessie nou te bespreek nie; ek wens net alleen, dat ons tot duidelikheid op die kwessie sal kom. Hy sê, dat om die stemreg aan die mense te gee ’n fout was, en ons moet nou terug gaan en die stem afneem en) die mense kan dan die stemreg kry in hulle eie gebied, in hulle gebiede waar hulle afgebaken sal wees en waar hulle sal kan ontwikkel. En nou ontken die edele lid reeds, dat hy dit gesê het. Ek het dit tweemaal oorgelees om te sieni, dat ek dit behoorlik sou verstaan. En nou stry ons daaroor. Ek wens, dat oor sulke kwessies waaroor ons stryd sal loop, dat ons oor sulke kwessies baie duidelik sal praat. Die edele lid het gesê, dat dit die politiek van die Nasionale Party is en dat hulle dit sal uitvoer. Ek wens, dat die volk die politiek van die edele lede sal ken; ek wil nie sieni nie, dat die volk in die duister daaroor sal wees, en ek wens dat waar die edele lid ook mag gaan, dat hy sy politiek duidelik sal maak; hy moet sy politiek duidelik maak op die platteland, en ek hoop, dat hy ook duidelik sal verklaar wat hy bedoel met sy segregasie politiek, of dit alleen landelike segregasie sal wees of ook industriële segregasie. Hy het sy politieke segregasie gister aand duidelik gemaak—die stemreg moet weg geneem word en die naturelle moet in hulle eie gebied woon. Wel, ek sal bly wees as hy sal uitlê wat industriële segregasie is; die naturel moet nie vir die blanke werk nie—die witman moet vir die witman werk, en die naturel vir die naturel.

Nee—

Wel, die edele lid vir Heilbron (de hr. M. L. Malan) is nie so’n groot autoriteit nie en as daar onsekerheid oor die leerstelling is, dan behoor ons dit te verstaan, want ek nieem aan, dat as ten gevolge van die eleksies die edele lid Eerste Minister word, dat dan die politiek in die eerskomende sessie deur die Huis geset sal word. Die land wil weet waar ons staan en ek wens die edele lid aan te raai om duidelik te verklaar, so duidelik as moontlik, wat sy posiesie is, so dat die volk sal weet wat hul beslis. Die edele lid het gesê, dat ons beginselvas moet wees. Ek weet, dat dit n ou beskuldiging teen die Regering is. In die ou dae was daar beskuldiginge van papbroekerigheid, van weghardloop, van lamlendigheid, magteloosheid en allerlei ander dinge. Dis ou beskuldigings, en ek ken hulle goed. Ek slaap met hulle in die nag. Maar nou het daar weer ’n beskuldiging gekom, en dis dit, dat sedert die “pact” ekself en my kollegas niks anders gedoen het nie dan rassehaat teen die verbond op te wek en teen die Arbeiders Party. Die beskuldiging wat oorspronklik teen die ander kant, gemaak was word nou teen ons gemaak, namelik dat ons rasse gevoelens opwek. Ek wens net ’n enkel woord daaroor te spreek en dis dit—die edele lid praat oor beginsel vastheid en rasse gevoelens. Ek gee nie om nie, dat daar saamwerking is tusse edele lede daar, en edele lede hier. Die kwessie van rasse gevoel gaan my derhalwe nie aan nie. Maar ek kom nou op die kwessie van beginsel vastheid. Ek is goed bekend met die programma van beginsels van die Nasionale Party, en ek ken, teminste ek het die programma van beginsels van die Arbeiders Party gelees. Nou kom ons op die kwessie van beginselvastheid, waaroor die edele lid vir Smitheld (Gen. Hertzog) gepraat het; miskien sal hy aan die land wil uitle hoe dit kom dat die twee programmas van beginsels saam kan werk. Dit gaan my verstand te bo, hoe die beginsels, nie so as ek hulle opvat, nie soos hulle aan die party aangeskrywe word, maar soos hulle vasgelê is in die programma van beginsels van die Nasionale Party, hoe dit moontlik is om die beginsels aan te pas en op die beginsels saam te werk met die sosialistiese beginsels van die Arbeiders Party. Dis die kritiek wat ek voel I en dis wat deur heel Suid-Afrikai gevoel word.

Dis vuur en water wat saamgeset is.

Die land kan dit goed verstaan en die land sal oordeel.

Ja, die land sal oordeel.

Wakkerstroom het geoordeel.

Wel, soos ek gesê het—ek kan dit nie begryp nie. Ek wil graag sien, dat die land ingelig sal word hoe die twee programmas van beginsels saam kan werk, hoe die Nasionale Party sig kan vereenselvig met die Arbeiders Party; ek hoop, dat die volk op daardie punt die posiesie duidelik sal verstaan. Hoe kan die twee partye saam werk?

En in 1920?

Die edele lid wens te weet wat ek in 1920 gedoen het. Wat was hulle beginsels toe, on wat was die posiesie in 1920? In 1920 het ek hierdie voorstel aan die vier partye gemaak; daar was vier partye gewees wat elk ’n minderheid had in die Huis en ek het toe skriftelik ’n voorstel gemaak—dit kan uitgelees word—en die voorstel wat ek toe gemaak het was as volg

Ook van die Unioniste?

Die voorstel wat ek gemaak het was as volg—Geen een van die vier partye had ’n meerderheid gehad, en geen enkel van die partye kon die land regeer. Ons had net ’n verkiesing gehad en dit was onmoontlik om dadelik weer ’n verkiesing te kry en ek het toe voorgestel dat ons. ’n Regering uit die vier partye sou vorm, nie ’n party Regering nie, nie ’n Regering om die beginsels van een van die partye uit te voer nie, maar ’n Regering wat die besigheid van die land sou voer totdat daar ’n behoorlike meerderheid sou wees. Die hele voorstel is in geskrifte en kan weer gepubliseer word. Maar dis nie dieselfde ding as wat vandag plaas vind nie. Wat vandag plaas vind is om te probeer ’n Regering te vorm op die beginsels van die twee partye wat soos vuur en water saam is. Dis een van die kwessies waaroor die volk sal beslis en ek wens, dat die posiesie heeltemaal duidelik sal wees. Ons moe nie ’n toespraak in die middag maak nie en dit dieselfde aand ontken; laat die volk duidelik verstaan wat die posiesie is. Ons het hier oor die vlag gepraat en die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het gesê, dat ek die enigste een was wat gedurende die laaste eleksies oor die republiek gepraat het. Die edele lid vergeet wat net tevore gebeur het en waarom die eleksies gevoer was. Hierdie party aan die regeringskant het aan die Nasionale Party gesê op die konferensie op Bloemfontein: “As julle van die sesessie beginsel afsien, dan sal ons bereid wees met julle te herenig,” maar die antwoord was: “Ons, sal daar nie vir ’n enkele dag van afsien nie.”

Dis nie so nie.

Wel, ek verstaan, dat daar nou vir vyf jare afgesien is —vyf jaar of 500 jaar. Wat betref die vlag kwessie het ons die versekefing van die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell). Wel, daar is nie ’n versekering van die ander kant nie, en die land sal derhalwe die woord van die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) moet aanneem, dat die vlag kwestie verby is en dat ons nie meer van sesessie sal hoor nie. Die land sal die groot waarheid van die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) moet aanneem wat borg staan vir die party.

Hulle sal nie borg staan nie vir die Eerste Minister.

Ek staan borg vir myself; ek vra nie ander mense om dit te doen nie. Die edele lid het gesê, dat die vlag kwessie nou verby is, maar laat my toe dit te sê—ons sal heel wát oor die vlag kwessie hoor gedurende hierdie verkiesings; ons platteland sal die rooi vlag moet hoor. Ons platteland sal nou van die rooi vlag moet hoor, en, Mr. Speaker, dis die beskuldiging wat ek maak op die standpunt wat deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) en sy party opgeneem is—hulle het hulle van ons af geskei op die standpunt dat hulle staan vir die reine, vir die pure siel van die Afrikaanse volk. Wel, die dag wanneer die platteland van Suid Afrika die rooi vlag aanneem, die dag wanneer sosialism gepredik word, soos dit nou gebeur, en wanneer dit deur die platteland van Suid Afrika aangeneem word, dan wil ek weet wat geword het van die siel van Suid Afrika, van die beginsel waaroor die edele lid van ons afgeskei het, soos hy verklaar het. Ek sê, dat ons baie duidelik behoor te wees op hierdie kwessie; ons moet die volk nie mislei nie. Ons gaan aan die oordeel van die volk een van die ernstigste kwessies voorlê wat ooit opgebring is in Suid Afrika en die beroep wat ek op alle kante van die Huis wens te maak is “laat ons nie sand in die oë van die volk gooi nie, maar laat ons die waarheid aan hulle vertel en dan kan ons die beslissing aan hulle oorlaat en by die beslissing sal ek berus.”

This is a most entertaining afternoon. We all express in the most heartfelt manner what will happen at this election, because it has been our unfortunate experience that it has never happened at any former one. I heartily reciprocate the hopes and wishes of the right hon. the Prime Minister that in this election we shall fight like gentlemen. We shall, most of us, all of us, but the trouble is—

The Prime Minister won’t.

The right hon. the Prime Minister I have known for a good many years, and I am not going to allow these little jangles across the floor to produce a spirit which we do not want.

Hear, hear.

I am going to talk very plainly in a few minutes on some of these points. The right hon. the Prime Minister said: “Let us fight like gentlemen, and let us have the atmosphere of a clean fight.” The trouble is in this country, as in most countries, that the atmosphere is made by those who command the power of printing. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has rendered a great service this afternoon by giving one specific case at the beginning of the campaign, showing how wickedly we, who are trying to serve the public, are misrepresented outside. The right hon. the Prime Minister may think from his experience that this is a great deal exaggerated. The right hon. thé Prime Minister, although he may occasionally complain of being misreported, must know he is on the side that is much better reported, and he is almost certain of the best reports.

I think the press is quite fair to all parties.

It certainly is not.

The right hon. the Prime Minister must allow me to differ from him. He said we are fighting big principles. I hope we are, but I am bound to say that my complaint in the past has been that I have been unable to observe the principles for which the South African Party stands. To us, who look on from the outside, we judge by the effects, and they transgress entirely one clear cut line which this country must pursue; they seem to us to transgress the rule that we must make it our rule to extend civilized life in this country. As far as we discern the principles, those are the views we take. These arguments will be fought out during the campaign. The right hon. the Prime Minister went on to refute the accusation that the South African Party tried to make capital out of our racial divisions, by attacking what is known as the “Pact.” I say my conviction, which I have held for the past 15 or 20 years, is that the whole stock in trade of the South African Party, which was formerly the Unionist Party, has been racialism. It has appealed to the very worst racial prejudices of the races from which he and I spring. I tell you, sir, I have as much right to express myself as an Englishman, as any hon. member on those benches. The right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, a few years ago had the impertinence, the stupendous impertinence, when I was leading the Labour Party, to state in a cold blooded interview that the rank and file of the Labour Party could be trusted, but the leaders could not be. No one, who does not agree with the politics of hon. members opposite, is fit to speak as an Englishman. Our accusation against them, and which is felt bitterly by tens of thousands of Englishmen, is that they try to identify their particular brand of politics in this country with the principles of loyalty, which we hold more than they do. The right hon. the Prime Minister will remember in days gone by, in the days of our first acquaintance, which then had ripened into a fairly intimate friendship, I was on the same platform with him at the Wanderers Club when he was speaking on the introduction of Chinese labour. He told the audience that one of the principal members controlling the industry had come to him in 1902 and said to him: “You ought to side with us; by getting the Chinese in, we will stop the Englishmen coming into the country, and if you side with us all your difficulties will come to an end.” The right hon. the Prime Minister replied to him: “These are the counsels of the devil, get thee behind me Satan.” All honour to him for his saying that. He then stood bold-fronted up against those capitalists’ interests.

That is where he stands to-day.

He does not. That is the great mistake I deplore. The right hon. the Prime Minister fell into the same pitfall which other great men have fallen into before, that is instead of making use of a power, it made use of him and became his master. You lean upon it for support, and that support becomes such a danger and becomes so necessary, that you lose your freedom of action and freedom of justice.

And your soul.

The Unionist Party in this country may deny it as much as they like on every platform throughout the country, but they have stood as political representatives which have favoured the big financial interests of South Africa.

The hon. member does not know anything about it.

I say with the utmost freedom, that if orders came from those who can give orders to the press, to turn its guns against hon. gentlemen opposite, there would not be five per cent. of them returned to this House. Those are the facts. I well remember when the hon. the Minister of the Interior came back to this country, after resigning his office when responsible Government came in. We looked to the hon. the Minister of the Interior to teach the people in this country what real English was, and particularly in Johannesburg, but we did not think that for political reasons he would throw in his lot—

Was I bought too?

Certainly not. The interjection is unworthy of the hon. the Minister.

But I have turned myself in with the moneybags?

I do want the hon. the Minister to think that I mean that he has thrown himself in with the moneybags, but I certainly do not want to insinuate that he has been paid. There is a certain class of man, possessed of powers, who wishes to use them for a wide class. The hon. the Minister of the Interior threw in his lot with the moneybags in the political sense, because he thought it would be the means of doing good work. That was a mistake he made, and that mistake has been disastrous to any real effective influence he would have in this country. This country is sick and tired of having their policy being continually engineered, and continually being influenced by interests whose identification with this country are financial and purely ephemeral; whose interests ultimately cease when they have sucked the orange, and who can leave the country when things go wrong. The hon. the Minister of the Interior often sneers when reference is made to Chinese labour, and I look back upon those whose advice was then taken. Where are they how? Those people, technical and otherwise, who then advised that only by Chinese labour would financial success be achieved. They are out of the country now, and we axe still here. When we go to the country, we will prove that it is to be governed by a party which recognizes that the country economically must be tree to apply its own determination. I have nothing whatever to defend in the Pact. I look back on my share in putting Chinese labour out of this country, and I look upon it as being in the interests of the country. I look back upon the work I did with the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) last year, in arranging that electoral co-operation between us, and setting at rest that continual and absurd bogey by which the opposite side was trying to frighten the English section of the people, as one of the best works which I have ever, in my humble way, done for South Africa. Let them go on to the back veld and talk about the Red Flag and Bolshevism, but they will find that the people in the country are going to believe the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog); and when you go into the towns and try to frighten the people there with the republican bogey, I think the people of the towns will tell hon. members: “We have had enough of your trying to use our emotions, affections, and sentiments, in order to establish yourselves, and trying to govern the country by methods of which we highly disapprove.” The right hon. the Prime Minister said that they had only got my word for the Pact. In the correspondence between the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and myself appears, what I wrote to him and his reply to me. He said: “I have read your letter and nothing remains for me to do but to confirm and endorse it.” The right hon. the Prime Minister asks for a little fair play, and in that I am more than ready to meet him half way, but his views and mine of a little fair play, do not coincide. In the ordinary course when a person writes a letter to another, and he replies that he confirms and endorses the contents of that letter, it is tantamount to saying that what is written is correct, and that he accepts the contents.

Does that mean they said to the hon. member they would drop secession?

The right hon. the Prime Minister gets very much annoyed, and says it is unworthy to say so and so and so and so, I say it is a bit of parliamentary trickery on his part, and not in accordance with our ideas, as it was not doing things according to the ways of a plain man, in urging that a matter might be reached later, when he knew he was going to move the adjournment of the House. I think that “parliamentary trickery” are the only words that I can use. I value too much the recollection of the old friendship between the right hon. the Prime Minister and myself, to allow that the things he did say should be received by me with personal animosity and antipathy, but I have again to say that Parliament should go on with straightforward work, and not by little tricks which might be all right to a nimble and quick mind, but do not strike us as things of which advantage should be taken—scoring little tricks over each other. As to information being given about the dissolution to Government supporters outside the House, my comments could not in any way be construed as a charge that the right hon. the Prime Minister himself would make any financial use of the situation.

Not an important personage?

That was not what I said, and I am perfectly certain that no one in the audience thought I had referred to the right hon. the Prime Minister himself.

But given by him to a strong supporter.

My point was that the information was given, and it was wrong that such information should be given to those people before it was given to us. That was what I said.

The hon. member desires to convey that information was given for a certain purpose.

Do the hon. the Ministers know that information of this kind is to some people almost a kind of merchandisable property? I have seen a letter signed by a very important supporter of the right hon. the Prime Minister, in which the following phrase occurs: “We will use all the influence we can with the Government in order to do so and so and so and so.”

Then the chemists tried to use their influence with the Government.

Not in that sort of way. I blame the Government for trying to make use of such people. The right hon. the Prime Minister is much too simple for this class of people. Instead of using them they are using him. Coming to another point on quite a different subject altogether. Early in the session a deputation consisting of three members, one from each party in the House, was prepared to wait on the right hon. the Prime Minister to ask him to secure the release of the remaining nine persons still in gaol in connection with the disturbance on the Rand in March, 1922, and my hon. friend here approached him. We quite understood that the right hon. the Prime Minister was very busy, but finally he saw us and told us that the matter had been before the Government time and again, and that the Government hoped an early opportunity would occur when the clemency of the Crown might be extended to them. I want to say this, that we understood when the Prince of Wales visited the country, that clemency would be extended. We were quite prepared to leave it there. I merely remarked in passing that it is an old custom that a visit of a King is often signalized by the release of persons who have committed offences against the Crown. It has come away down from the middle ages, but it is a little bit extending that, I think, to keep people there for the purpose of releasing them. Hon. Ministers, with the one exception of the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries, do not know what a very weary business it is being kept in gaol. But he does know. If you were in gaol for three days you would be weary, and I am going to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister—and it is the wish, I am sure, of all quarters of the House—that clemency should be extended now that the Prince is not coming, that the Union Government should see its way at the very earliest possible moment to release those men. Those tragic occurrences of March, 1922, were occurrences during which men did things they would never dream of doing otherwise, and however guilty these men may seem in the eyes of the Government, in view of their previous position they have suffered enough, and if we are right in thinking that the Government intended advising their release when the Prince came, let that stand, and let their release in anticipation of the Prince’s visit be carried out.

Will it not be said they are doing it for electioneering purposes?

I shall say it is done for electioneering purposes if some statement signed by them is published or anything of that sort. If any such document is signed, let me earnestly ask the Government to keep it in their own possession, or in the possession of the prison authorities, and do not let us again be confronted by a coincidence by which the plain and not the suspicious man draws inferences, which we, none of us, want to be drawn into, and make us think the country is being governed in a manner we do not wish.

Will the hon. member not use it for electioneering purposes?

I am not going to use it if the right hon. the Prime Minister responds to this request. He will not use it, and I will not, and there will not be any electioneering business with us; let us leave that out. In this light we are entering upon, let us earnestly hope it is going to be for the good of South Africa. We from this side of the House in cordial co-operation with the party represented by those hon. members, believe that we are taking a course which is not only not in violation of any principles we hold, but is in pursuance of the bed-rock of those principles, and that is the coming generation having to be provided for, representing the mass of men and women who are going to live their lives out in this country, whether they belong to that party or whether they are followers of us, we represent the big mass of the little people who, if bad times come to this country, will not be able to move themselves and pitch their camp in some more prosperous land. With that in common between us, we look forward to the future of South Africa as being better governed by a Government which has its feet firmly planted in South Africa, and which is looking at our problems from the point of view of the men, women, and children, who have to grow up, live, and work out their destiny in this country; and a party supported as they are by those influences which control the press, which feed them with huge sums of money in order to fight elections—because that last one was not fought on twopence halfpenny—which supply the funds, those influences which, if things go wrong in this country can transfer themselves and live as prosperously as might be elsewhere.

I want to address a few words to the leader of the Opposition, and I hope he will remain here. But he has thought fit to leave this House—

Discourtesy!

That will not deter me following the line I intended to follow. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) who has patted himself for this wonderful pact he entered into last year, has also left the House, but I hope he is proud of the pact as a loyal British subject. The question I want to put to the leader of the opposition is: “Did he not in 1921, close upon the last election issue a manifesto wherein he congratulated the Nationalists on having achieved the first steps towards destroying the Labour Party, and that they had been shattered upon the Nationalist rock of Afrikanderdom and only existed in name?” Further, whether he did not conclude it by saying that the victory of the Labour Party was pure gain to the Nationalist Party?

I want one moment as representing not what the leader of the Labour Party has described as the smaller people who belong here and cannot go away, hut I want to say something as representing the still smaller people, who not only belong here, but never came from any country outside, and who are the aboriginals of South Africa. It is profoundly regretful that the hon. member —the leader of the Opposition—is out of his seat, because I would have liked once more to take an opportunity of getting away entirely from these misunderstandings, and being misreported; and I would like to ask them with absolute definiteness whether (a) he is prepared to make good what he is reported to have said at Stellenbosch, to introduce legislation; but, failing that, if in the next session of this Parliament he is Prime Minister, he will introduce legislation, or, failing that, if he will give a measure of support to a Bill which I will introduce as a private member’s Bill, that is to say, a measure giving the vote to the coloured people in the Transvaal and the Free State? That is a perfectly clear question; it is a question which the coloured people are entitled to have answered. If he says “yes,” then we know exactly where we are. The second question I would like to ask him is this: Whether it is not a fact that he has stated publicly that the native vote has to be blotted out if the welfare of this country has to be considered? That doctrine has been preached in this House without cessation. I expect the only difference is that he said it in Dutch and not in English. That has been indicated by every member of the Nationalist Party with the maximum of clarity, and it is only on the floor of the House that one can get them to say whether it is so or not, because, as has been pointed out, if it is said anywhere else, there is prevarication and denial of what is reported. Let me give an example, which every memoer will have in his mind. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has stated with a maximum of clearness that the hon. the Minister of Education threw in his lot with the money bags. That was a perfectly clear statement, which everybody in this House could hear. He then proceeded to repeat the same words with an interesting addition, which entirely altered the whole meaning of the words. He said: “What I said was, that he threw in his lot with the money-bags’ political influence.” The money-bags’ influence! If, under the eyes of their parties, with a Hansard and a full press gallery, the hon. member can so get away from the obvious and immediate interpretation of his own words, and get away from “throwing his lot in with the money bags,” which has a necessary direct and poisonous innuendo of bribery—that is what it means—if it had not had that innuendo, he would have repeated it. We are asked to fight this election as gentlemen. If there are men in this House who are prepared to change their own meanings and words, in the face of this House and in the face of double reporting, what will those gentlemen do when they are off by themselves on a platform, where they do not care what they say, because they are prepared to say that the report has got it wrong? I am sorry the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) is going out, because I would like to say a word to him. I would like to tell the House something about the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan), because it is not uninteresting of what I call complete misrepresentation in the backveld. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) went to Uitenhage. I am speaking on the question of the coloured vote of which the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) at Stellenbosch last night attempted to improvize on, divide and conquer. Let me say quite candidly that he will not be able to do it for one moment, but he tried that at Uitenhage, and the document was issued, not to the natives— they do not dare send it to the natives—but to the coloured vote. Every coloured man got a fascinating little document, one which I am sure will please the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), in those moments when he feels that his common heritage is calling so strongly to him—a little document pointing out to the coloured voters at Uitenhage, that the British race had infected the Indian race of America with smallpox, and which went on to say that in every country conquered by England, the aboriginees disappeared. That was issued over the signature of the Nationalist Party at an address by the chief organiser, Mr. C. W. Malan, also the member for Humansdorp. It was issued by him, and I asked him at a meeting at Uitenhage: “Mr. Malan, did you issue this?” and I could not get an answer. I said: “Do you agree with this?” and he said: “If it is true, it is true, and if it is false, it is false.” That is pure electioneering, as they understand it. I call it impure electioneering. But when I had the honour to see the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) addressing a meeting in his capacity as organizing secretary for the Nationalist Party at Mossel Bay, a couple of months later—then what a different tale before an English audience! What a different tale! I got up and asked him if he was responsible for that document, and despite the fact that he had refused to answer that question at Uitenhage he had the effrontery to admit that he was responsible for the document. When that information reaches Uitenhage, I do not think Uitenhage will want to see the organizing secretary of the Nationalist Party again.

Hear, hear!

I congratulate the hon. member on his outburst of candour. I then put it to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan): “Do you agree with what was said in that document?” He said: “No, and with regard to that particular reference, I wish to withdraw and apologize for it.” 1 then said to him: “If you take this view now, why did you not take the same view at Uitenhage, and withdraw and apologize?” He replied with amazing political disingenuity: “On, it was election time.” If we are going to fight this election as gentlemen, let us fight it in the sense that it is not election time according to that answer. It was perfectly disgusting. It was said in the presence of an audience of from 1,200 to 1,300 people, and it was said with a candour that defies analysis. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) should take a firm line with the organizer of the party with which he is connected. I do trust, therefore, that when we do go down to the constituencies we will go down in, a perfectly honest, open way, and try once and for all to say what is in our hearts, and not immediately afterwards, as is often done, deny it, because it is contrary to policy. That sort of thing is invariably done by hon. members on the other side. Politics at the best, we know it perfectly well, is a game which may easily degeneiate into an offensive game. It is an activity in which one should be actuated by the highest possible motives, but it is difficult at all times to keep clear of the sentiment that the means justify the end. But if we go to the country with the intention to say what we believe, and if we do that, there will be no doubt as to what the answer of the country will be. We have heard ad nauseam that the old Unionists were connected with high finance. Well, all I can say is, I have never been able to get near enough to high finance, to be even insulted by it. There are other members of this party who have given years of their lives in trying to do their duty to the country.

Hear, hear!

We have been attacked for holding principles which we have held fearlessly, but there is one difference between us, and the gang which is now attacking us.

Who?

The gang. You will find it in Webster’s dictionary. It is not yet a prison gang. A few years ago they had a principle. A few years ago they had the principle of republicanism. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler), who has gone away, I think in disgust, in his heart and on his lips is to-day an ardent, convinced republican, who desires nothing else and has no other political ambition but to get a republican South Africa, and every single man on that side knows it. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) knows it. He cannot deny it. Junior members on this side of the House will have an enjoyable time if the hon. members opposite are returned to power, seeing whether they conform a constructive policy. That republican idea held by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) used to be the one national claim of the Nationalist Party, but they have now guaranteed for the next five years that they will condemn themselves to political fatuity by not pressing the one thing which they believe in. On the other side one has this extraordinary proposition that the red flag, the wild extremist, the semi-socialist is to be tied, and the poor little foundlings have to be exposed to the inclemency of the weather. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) said that this side had been founded in sin, but on that side there is a liason which as soon as it becomes serious, will be broken off. The native and coloured people in South Africa will really appreciate to the full the way in which their bread has been buttered for their consumption by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). I do not think for a moment that the hon. member would have made that passionate appeal at Stellenbosch to the coloured electors of the Cape Province if he was not perfectly certain that he could get into power without their assistance. [An Hon. Member: “What about yourself?”] That party has no more hope of getting the coloured support of South Africa than of getting a republic. The coloured people of South Africa will remember that the attempt to get their vote at Uitenhage was so despicable, that the party organizer of the Nationalist Party apologized for his tactics, and they will realize the complete lack of fairness by the entirely unnecessary attack upon the native voter. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) cannot have it both ways. He must choose one of two things; either he is going to cut the country into two parts, the one black and the other white and coloured, in which case the answer to the question put to the right hon. the Prime Minister is this: that the native of South Africa shall no longer work for the white man, or that he shall do the work for the white man, and that he shall not have the vote. When the Committee on the franchise sat upstairs, and when I asked that the wives of the coloured people should have the franchise, what happened? The members of the Nationalist Party opposed with all their power the granting of it to the coloured people. There is the greatest opposition to the granting of the franchise to the coloured people by the Nationalist Party; they are the greatest opponents of the granting of it. Seeing that some of the members here represent them, they have out of sheer self-preservation to do so. In the division which the hon. member represents there are abut 100 coloured votes, but if there were 1,300 votes of coloured people in the division, I am prepared to state he would be more prepared to play the game to them. This is rather tragic. This is not an election speech, but I appeal with all earnestness and seriousness to the coloured and native population not in any circumstance to vote for the Pact. I appeal to the coloured and the native voter, and I know that the challenge will be accepted by them, to stand By the one party the great majority of which will stand by them, and who love the coloured cause and are pre pared to make the most substantial sacrifices. There are one or two members of the Labour Party with whom I have the greatest sympathy, as I know that if they support the principles enumerated by others of the Pact, they will never be returned again to the House. I also make a final appeal to some of the members of the South African Party. I recognize that some of the members can in no conceivable circumstance support a vote for the coloured people or the natives—to recognize the right of these people. There is the proposition put forward by the Labour Party, that they are prepared to accept the coloured man or the native into the ranks of trade unions provided he will accept only the white man’s wages, and live up to the white man’s way of living. That has been laid down by the trade unions and demonstrated by the Labour Party—that party has been pleased to accept it. This means that the native or the coloured worker voluntarily goes into a sphere of work which could be done more economically by him, and now places himself in a position by which only the white man will get the job. The position of the Labour Party is indefeasible. By telling the native or the coloured worker that they are prepared to take him into the union if he will only accept the white man’s wage, and also the white man’s standard of living, simply means that instead of the coloured man getting work in Johannesburg, he will be cut off from work in the Cape. It is much more effective in practice; they get the men under control, to belong to the trade unions; they can handle the funds that come from them, and they have the men body and soul. The hon. member has suddenly discovered that I am using some catch phrases of the Labour Party. I am, because I represent to-day the real labour of the country. I come here to represent the entire labour body. They represent at the outside about 100,000; I represent nearer a million and a half to two million working men. In my constituency alone I represent very nearly 800,000 souls. The hon. members on that side who get returned by an electorate of 1,700 voters—

Where?

Hon. members need only study the Act of Union and their own electorates.

Only in Natal?

I beg the Free State’s pardon; it is up to 2,000, nearly half a Cape seat. One would imagine that the hon. members were more important. As things stand to-day the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. C. A. van Niekerk) is returned to the position which he holds with so much enthusiasm, by one haff of the number of people who vote for a similar member in Cape Town.

Who would dare oppose him?

Possibly. There has never been a cock in this world who would not be king on his own dung-hill.

Not like the hon. member.

But this large representation of 6,000,000 is represented in this House only by a few members, who from time to time have been outspoken enough to stand up and speak for them. Under these circumstances, I have this sure and certain feeling, that whatever the position may be in the country in this election, the mass of the population is solidly behind the right hon. the Prime Minister. The mass of the population in this country do not want to see these two turgid sections united for this one single purpose. They do not want to see them in any circumstances in a position in which they may wreak indefinite and permanent injury on the whole relationship of the white and black in this country. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), if he means anything, means that he has definitely announced to the House that he intends to repeal a section of the Act of Union at the earliest moment. I do not wonder at it; there are very few parts of the Act of Union that he has not tried to smash, directly or indirectly, in the course of the last few years; very few indeed he has not had a go at, and if he has a go at the native vote, I can tell him that the reason the native vote distrusts him is because the native vote knows well enough that his representations to the coloured men, are as dishonest as it is possible to be. Let me take this one point on conclusion. Last year, owing to amendments that were put into the Urban Areas Bill, the right hon. the Prime Minister drove that party into the position in which they had to get up, and put the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) up, in order to move that the Pass Law regulations on coloured women in the Free State should be withdrawn. He was put up to do it, and he knew he did it because the right hon. the Prime Minister had pointed out to him the inequitable position, and that unless he took steps, he could not do it in any other way, and that it was the only way to get the thing through. When that was done, a document was sent down to Uitenhage stating the whole of that legislation which had been initiated and carried through by the House, had been carried through as a result of agitation by the friends of those who were suffering under the Pass Laws. It was stated that the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) had done it alone out of the fullness of his heart. He had made representations for the coloured people, and I remember the hon. member of Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) got up in his seat there, in tremendous agitation, because not even the opinion of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) could make him stand for this appalling insult to the Free State. When I happened to interject, he turned round and said: “Yes, I know that this is being done, you put us in the position that we had to do it. You are responsible for it,” and he pointed to me. When I got to Uitenhage I found that there were several people there who were responsible for it When a representative of the coloured people comes up to take the oath, what do we get? Jeers, and that sort of thing. There it is, from that side by gentlemen who are now prepared to tout by every effort of the imagination, and in every way they can, for the votes of the coloured people, simply and solely in the hope that having failed to do it as one party, they may do it by taking in another party and amalgamating with it. Good Government is a rare thing, but a bad Government such as we will get then, will be a calamity and disaster.

At this late hour I am not going to inflict an electioneering speech on the House, but I believe that at this present juncture I must appeal to the Government to try to pass to-morrow, or, if not to-morrow, on Monday, the pensions which have been approved by the Pensions Committee. I know that it is not customary to pass this amount during a single sitting, but I believe if the Government wish, it will have the unanimous approval of this House. There are a large number of very pressing cases under these pensions which have been granted by the Pensions Committee, and I appeal to the Government at this late hour to allow the money to be voted, so that these people who are being granted pensions can reap the benefit. That is really the only point I wished to make, but after the elaborate speech of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart), I must say that for an hon. member of this House to get up and abuse the Nationalist and Labour Parties in the way he has, knowing that last November he was appealing to the natives in Liesbeek to vote for the Nationalist candidate—Mr. Stuart was on public platforms advocating that the salvation of the native arid coloured people was in supporting Mr. Lageson, the Nationalist candidate, who was standing in the Liesbeek division—and for him to come here and state that if the non-European element vote for the Nationalists it means suicide, I call it ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of this House.

I want to take advantage of this opportunity to ask if something cannot be done with regard to the extension of the Rents Act. Hon. members know that the Act expires on the 30th June unless it is extended by this Parliament and it is an exceedingly important matter to the house occupiers in this country, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister if it is not possible in any shape or form to secure an extension of the Act, because I can assure the hon. the Minister that if it comes off the Statute Book, it will inflict grievous harm on many people, and I can assure him that if it is extended for a short period to cover the interval between the old and the new Parliaments, it will be greatly appreciated.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee.

On Clause 1,

I would like to deal with the point which was raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). We have had no reply in regard to it. It is a very serious matter. The Rents Act will lapse on June 30th, and if the Government’s policy is to do away with the Rents Act, we can understand what the position is, but if the Government do not want to do away with it, they must realize that the Rents Act will come to an end before the new Parliament meets, it will be off the Statute Book on June 30th, and there will be wholesale evictions and raising of rents, and the new Parliament will be unable to deal with the situation, because it can hardly bring in legislation to deal with the matter retrospectively. Under those circumstances seeing that the Government is specially asking Parliament to give them this amount of money to tide them over, they should bring in an emergency measure which will carry the Rents Act on for a month or two, and then the new Parliament can act. Unless that is done great hardship will be inflicted upon a great number of poor people in the country, and I hope that the Government will bring in an emergency Act.

Ek wil net graag ’n vraag stel aan die edelagbare die Minister en dit is, of die ooreenkoms tussen die diamantproduseerders en die Londense Sindikaat vir die verkoop van diamante verstreke is op die 31ste Desember van laaste jaar en of die profyt, wat toegelaat was aan die maatskappy, aan die sindikaat in Londen, vermeerder en of dit behou is onder die kontrak. Is die kontrak reeds vernuut en indien dit nie gedoen is nie, of die Regering die versekering wil gee, dat hulle die goedkeuring van die kontrak terug sal hou tot na die eleksie.

Ek wil ook graag weet omtrent die pos-kontrak, omtrent die vervoer van ons pos tussen Engeland en hier. Ek verstaan, dat die nuwe kontrak met die Union-Castle Line afloop aan die einde van September. Ek wil graags die edelagbare die Minister vra, of tenders reeds gevra is vir die nuwe seeposkontrak.

Ek wil net graag antwoord gee op die vraag van die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) en wens te sê, dat die vorige kontrak vir die verkoop van diamante ten einde kwam op 31 Desember, met ’n verlenging van twee maande om ’n nuwe kontrak te maak. Dus was die finale datum die 29ste van Februarie. Gedurende die maand Februarie werd ’n nuwe kontrak aangegaan vir die verkoop van ’n besliste aantal diamante vir ses maande. Die kontrak is op die 29ste van Februarie deur die Goewernement goedgekeur en kom dus ten einde op die 30ste van Julie, maar daar is ook weer twee maande tussentyd, waarin die nuwe kontrak moet aangegaan word.

Wat omtrent die profyt?

I should like to say with regard to the Rents Act, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this session to extend the operation of the Rents Act, but now that is impossible. It does not follow, however, that great hardship is going to be inflicted upon the poor people as indicated by the hon. member, because it will be quite possible for the next Parliament, during the first few days of its existence, to pass through a Rents Bill, as was done in 1922. In 1922, although it was passed during the last few days of June, it did not come into operation until July. I have just turned up Act No. 10 of 1922, and there it is provided that the operation of the Rents Act of 1920, as amended by the Act of 1921, shall continue in operation during the period between the 30th day of June, 1922, and also between the 30th of June, 1923, and the commencement of the Act, i.e., 4th July, 1922. So it will be quite possible when Parliament meets again to pass a Bill which will have the effect of covering the interregnum from the 30th of June next. So no hardships need be experienced by anyone. In regard to the mail contract which was referred to by an hon. member, I should like to say this is a matter which will be discussed in London between the representatives of the Government and the Union-Castle Company and also the British Post Office, in the month of June next. There is an international postal congress to be held at Stockholm, if I remember aright, in the month of June, but prior to that the Post-master-General will be in London, and he has already been authorized to take the matter up with the British Post Office and the High Commissioner. Hon. members know, it has already been stated in the House, that the British Post Office pays by far the larger proportion of the subsidy to the Union-Castle Company, and we must work in close co-operation with them in connection with the mail contract. The Committee may rest assured that the interests of South Africa will be safeguarded in every possible way by this Government as long as it remains in office.

Previously we have always passed the Bill through both Houses before June 30th, but there has been a delay in the publication in the Gazette. The Rents Act expires on June 30th and I have to disagree with the hon. the Minister that the course of action he suggests will meet the case. We do not think Parliament will be able to deal with this matter until about August or September, and how long will it take before the Bill passes both Houses? What will happen to these people during the three months?

I want to emphasize the point that this question has nothing to do with politics at all. The Government, knowing that the Rents Act will expire on June 30, should make some provision for these people, and if it is possible to do so, I can assure the hon. the Minister that it will be very much appreciated by them.

Ek wens te vraag of die profyte van die Londense Diamant Sindikaat onder die verlening dieselfde is as onder die ou kontrak en of die edelagbare die Minister sy goedkeuring sal terughou by die verstryking van die termyn, tot na die verkiesing.

Die teenwoordlge kontrak is dieselfde as die vorige. Daar is geen sprake van winsverdeling nie, maar die diamante word teen ’n vaste prys verkoop. Die verlenging van die kontrak sal afhang daarvan of die aandeelhouers onder mekaar dit weer eens kan word.

I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether it is possible to do anything in connection with the report of the Pensions Committee, as it is an important matter. Would it not be possible to pass a small order for the payment of the pensions?

Let me explain the position. I came down here with notice of Bills, one being to give effect to the report of the Pensions Committee. I am informed, however, by officers of the House it is quite impossible to get it through this session. There are two reports to be considered first of all in detail, and I understand it would take us until Wednesday next to get them through. Then they would have to go to the Senate. By allowing the matter to stand over, no substantial inconvenience or loss will be caused. Parliament will have to re-assemble during the next few months, it will revise the general recommendations, and it will be possible to ante-date the awards. The pensioners will not suffer in the least in connection with the matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

moved—

seconded.

Die edele lid vir Bloemfontein Noord (de hr. Barlow) het gister ’n vraag gestel omtrent die posiesie in verband met die pes te Bloemfontein, maar ek denk ek het reg om te vra omtrent die hele Vrystaat en ook ander dele van die Unie. Dit is nie meer as reg nie, dat die Regering, voordat ons uitmekaar gaan, verklaar welke stappe daar geneem word om die euwel te bestry. Daar het b.v. in die pers gestaan, dat ’n familie van sewe lede almaal aangetas en dood is aan die longepes. Wat is die planne en wat word gedaan ter bestryding?

Yesterday I said that on the second reading of this Bill I would make a statement about the plague, but I regret to say that during the second reading debate I forgot that we were discussing the Bill. I am very glad to have the opportunity first of all to say what is the present extent of the plague. The present prevalence of plague in man, began in the early part of December last, first in the triangular area of country between the Vaal and Zand Rivers, and the Bloemfontein-Johannesburg railway line. The total cases and deaths from 8th December to date have been as follows: 49 cases among Europeans, and 19 deaths, among natives there have been 234 cases and 124 deaths. So altogether there has been a total of European and Natives of 283 cases and 143 deaths. Up to the end of January there were no cases outside the Kroonstad district, but since then cases have occurred in the Winburg, Vredefort, Albert, Wolmaransstad, Venterstad, Colesberg, Bethulie, Bloemfontein, Boshof, Hoopstad, Lindley, Senekal, Krugersdorp and Brandfort districts. In all these areas evidence of rodent mortality has been found and in the great majority of cases infection has been derived from rodents. Plague mortality in rodents has also recently been found in Thaba ’Nchu and in grain stacks at Marseilles and Vinies, so that there is grave risk of spread of the infection to the large grain areas of the eastern Free State which have hitherto been clear of it. The great majority of the cases have been of the bubonic type; there have, however, been about 30 casss of pneumonic type, including small groups of cases in the Viljoenskroon area, and on Welgedacht and neighbouring farms in the Brandfort district. The measures and precautions taken to prevent spread and deal with the outbreak include the prompt notification of all deaths, and of the occurrence of any case of suspicious illness, disinfection of infected premises and articles, destruction of rodents in grain stacks and localized infected areas, prohibition of removal or handling of plague infected articles pending disinfection, isolation of cases, quarantining or medical surveillance of contacts and the deverminizing of their clothing and effects, prohibition of movement of natives from infected areas except after medical examination, prohibition of removal of grain from infected areas until certified free from infection, or after being passed through “elevators” in which the grain is carefully screened and winnowed, restriction of removal of forage or other articles until certified free from infection, disinfection of grain stacks, and destruction of rodents in infected burrows with carbon bisulphide, hydrocyanic gas, dynamite fumes and other agents. Regulations enforceable by the local authorities regarding the rat-proofing of stores and business premises, the destruction of rats and the prevention of rat infestation of all premises have been put in force in urban areas throughout the Union. Regulations have also been put in force in both urban and rural areas requiring owners or occupiers of land or premises to report as to the prevalence of rodents, and to carry out measures for their destruction and prevention. For the Union as a whole, the position is distinctly a serious one. Although the pneumonic type of the disease is highly infectious so far, once the existence of the disease in a particular locality has been discovered and precautionary measures instituted, it has always been possible to effectively control the outbreak and prevent spread of the disease in man. The problem of effective control and eradication of the infection in rodents, and especially in the wild rodents and associated small animals of the veld is, however, an exceedingly difficult one, and up to the present no measures practically applicable to the enormous tracts of country involved have been devised. Active research work along several lines has been instituted but rapid progress cannot be looked for. Meanwhile local authorities and occupiers of premises in the urban areas should inaugurate a persistent campaign against rats, in the direction mainly of permanent preventive measures. In the country districts, farmers and all concerned are urged to take active measures for the destruction of wild rodents in their lands and specially in and about dwellings or other buildings or stacks of grain or forage; to exclude grain and other produce likely to attract rats from dwellings and out-buildings unless these are thoroughly ratproofed; to make rat-proof their stores, grain sheds, etc., to keep their dwellings and vicinity free from refuse, garbage, or any material likely to attract or provide cover for rodents: to protect and encourage natural enemies of rodents, including wild cats, owls, harmless snakes and the domestic cat; to keep the dwellings, bedding and clothing of themselves and those under their control free from fleas; to maintain a sharp lookout for suspicious illness in human beings, or suspicious mortality amongst rodents and to promptly report the same to the authorities for investigation. That is the position we are faced with: we have this infection of the veld rodents over large stretches of the Union. It is an infection which may at any time, as it is doing now, pass among the human population with very serious results, and I would like to emphasize again that the problem is not so much to deal with the disease among human beings, because so far it has not got among the large centres of population, but the problem before us is to exterminate these veld rodents and rats in houses, and to break the link between these creatures and the human being to which the plague is conveyed, and that can be done only by cleansing all premises of rats and animals of that kind by cleansing the clothing and the surroundings, particularly of native servants who are living near farms, and by keeping a sharp lookout and reporting at once any suspicious cases to the authorities. As soon as the Government has found some means of dealing with these rodents on a large scale effectively, they will be put in force thoroughly, but in the meantime a great deal can be done by the people themselves in keeping their surroundings clean and destroying as far as they possibly can all rats and rodents which come about them and in taking care as to the cleanliness of their personal surroundings and of their servants.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.

moved—

Die verklaringe en uiteensettinge soos gedoen deur die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorwee—ek is bly om dit te sê—omtrent die posiesie van ons spoorweë kom aan duidelikheid niks tekort nie. Ek dink die posiesie is baie duidelik deur die edelagbare die Minister verklaar en daarby het ons nog die opgawe, wat vandag op die tafels van edele lede gelê is en waarin die posiesie baie duidelik geskilder word. Waar ek vandag ’n paar aanmerkinge maak, wens ek die te maak met volle waardering van die moeilike taak wat die edelagbare die Minister gehad het en vir die betreklike suksesvolle manier, waarop hy die taak volvoer het.

Die edele lid kan gerus sê, heeltemaal suksesvolle manier.

Ek sal net nou my rede gee, waarom ek dit enigsins kwalifiseer. Daar is wat betref die syfers ’n paar dinge wat merkwaardig is. Die eerste is dát, terwyl die edelagbare die Minister laaste jaar voor ons gekom het met begrote inkomste ván £22,850,000, hy werklik ontvang het die som van £24,450,000, sodat waar die edelagbare die Minister in die begin van die jaar ’n tekort verwag het van £513,000, daar sluit hy nou sy rekening met ’n surplus van £1,300,000 m.a.w. die edelagbare die Minister en sy Departement was verkeerd in hulle Begroting met ’n som van £1,900,000. Nou dit is seker ’n merkwaardig feit dat dit so is en ek dink die edelagbare die Minister sal dit my nie kwalik neem nie, wanneer ek sê, dat hy by die maak van sy Begroting van inkomste moontlik—ek wil nie sê moedwillig nie—maar met voorbedagtheid sy inkomste te laag beraam het. Anders is dit onmoontlik om te verstaan hoe die Minister en sy Departement plus minus £2,000,000 met die Begroting uit was. ’n Andere feit, is, dat edele lede nie onder die indruk moet kom, dat wat betref ons spoorweë ons bereik het wat ons het wil bereik. Dit is waar, die posiesie is verbeter, maar die feit bly, dat die syfers soos deur die edelagbare die Minister aan ons gegee, nog ’n tekort aanwys van £830,000, en eaele lede moet nie vergeet nie, dat die edelagbare die Minister laaste jaar die outoriteit van die Volksraad het moet inroep om die syfers te verkry deur ’n buitengewone maatreël wat die edelagbare de Minister toe hy nog in opposiesie was ten sterkste afgekeur het in die vorige Regering en dit is, dat die edelagbare die Minister van die Vernuwingsfonds die som van £2,000,000 geneem het om die opgelope tekort van plus minus 4 miljoen pond te verminder. En waar edele lede die Minister vandag geluk wens daar moet niet vergeet word nie, dat die verbeterde posiesie wat betref ons Spoorwee geskied het ten koste van die Vernuwingsfonds en dat die toestand alles behalwe gesond is met die oog óp belangrike feite, waarby ek later die aandag sal bepaal. Wat betref sy nuwe Begroting, wil ek die edelagbare die Minister daarop wys, dat hy m.i. weer sy inkomste te laag begroot. Hy begroot sy inkomste op die bedrag van £24,000,000 teenoor £24,500,000 verlede jaar, m.a.w. die edelagbare die Minister verwag iets meer as £400,000 minder in inkomste, nieteenstaande die feit, dat honderde myle van nuwe spoorweg geopen is of nog geopen sal word in hierdie jaar. Hy sê aan die Huis, dat die Huis moet bedink, dat hy met ’n halwe miljoen die spoorwegtariewe gaan verminder en dat die gevolg gaan wees verminderde inkomste. Maar dieselfde argument het die edelagbare die Minister laaste jaar ook gebruik, toe ons daarop gewys het dat verminderde tariewe nie noodsaaklik verminderde inkomste beteken nie, maar groter vervoer op jou spoorweë. Ek wil nie daarop roem nie, dat ons die voorspel het nie, maar die syfers van die edelagbare die Minister bewys dit self, want as hy verwag het deur die vermindering van die tariewe ook ’n vermindering van inkomste te kry, dan dink ek is die edelagbare die Minister tog altans nou sekerlik ontnugter en het hy gesien, dat nieteenstaande sy verlaging van tariewe, hy beter af is, want vanjaar het hy gekom met ’n surplus. Wat betref sy uitgawes het die edelagbare die Minister weer die andere manier gevolg. Sy uitgawes is wesentlik hoer begroot, dan die werklik gewees het. Die edelagbare die Minister het besuiniginge aangebring en dit het saamgewerk om die surplus te kry. Nou begroot die edelagbare die Minister sy uitgawes hoër en daar die argument baie sterk geld dat die aanleg van nuwe lyne meer uitgawes beteken, vermeerder hy sy uitgawes op daar die basis. Dit sal beteken, dat as hy nog Minister yan Spoorweë is aan die end van die boekjaar, hy weer met ’n groot surplus sal kom. Maar die Huis het die reg om van die edelagbare die Minister en van sy Departement te eis, dat die Begroting so noukeurig moontlik sal wees. Wat beteken die kontrôle van die Huis oor die Begroting indien sy Departement met syfers kom wat bewys ongeveer £2,000,000 buite die Begroting te wees? Of die edelagbare die Minister en sy Departement het groot gefouteer of aan die kant van die edelagbare die Minister was daar voorbedagtheid om aan die end van die jaar met ’n surplus te kom, terwyl hy gesê het, dat hy ’n tekort verwag. As daar een ding uitstaande is uit die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister, dan is dit seker die toestand van wanbeheer en gebrek aan finansiële kontrôle wat daar vir jare geheers het onder sy voorgangers in die Spoorwegdepartement en niemand sal dit eerder erken, as die edelagbare die Minister self. En die edelagbare die Minister het dan ook toe hy aan hoof van sake gekom het die warboel wat sy voorgangers, die Minister van Poswese en die edelagbare die teenwoordige Minister van Finansies ingevoer het, in orde moet set. Daardie Regering—en edele lede moet dit nie vergeet nie—soos die land dit nie sal vergeet nie, dat dieselfde Regering wat die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë gelewer het, ook die Minister van Finansies en Poswese gelewer het, wat die Departement voor hom in ’n toestand van verskrikkelike verwarring op finansieel gebied gebring het, sodat die teenwoordige edelagbare Minister verplig was om die Unie-Akte wat betref die Spoorwegbeheer verbreek. Die Unie-Akte lê duidelik neer, dat ons Spoorweg-Administrasie beheer moet word op besigheidsbeginsels en dat die buite alle politiek moet staan. Die politiek van die Minister behoor geen plek te hê in ons Spoorweë-Administrasie nie. Daartoe is in ons Unie-Akte vasgestel ’n Spoorwegraad om kontrôle uit te oefen deur manne buitekant die politiek. Wat is gedoen deur die Regering— nie deur hierdie edelagbare Minister—maar deur sy voorgangers? Dit, dat hulle ons Spoorweg-Administrasie gestel het tot ’n politieke masjien om uitvoering te gee aan die politiek van die Regering. Ek wil die bewys die edelagbare die Minister lewer. Ek wil hier duidelik sê—en ek wil nie graag, dat edele lede my later sal mispresenteer nie, dat ek taus niks wil sê van die oorlogdeursien van die kant van die Regering nie.

Laat die edele lid dit maar sê.

Die edele lid weet goed wat ons posiesie was.

Wat was die posiesie dan?

Ek wil net daarop wys hoe die gevolg van die politiek gewees het, dat die Ministers eenvoudiglik die Unie-Akte opgeskeur het.

Was the hon. member opposed to seeing the war through?

Die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou wil ek aanraai om sy kanonne agtermekaar te sit vir die veldtog in Fort Beaufort, want hy sal vind, dat hy nie met lompe en kinderagtige interrupsies daar by sy kiesers kan kom nie teenoor sy teenstander nie. Elke edele lid en die Regering daar weet net so goed as ons—ons het dit dikwels verklaar—wat die posiesie was.

Wat het julle gesê?

Ons het van die begin tot die end die dolle oorlogspolitiek van die Regering afgekeur. Die gevolg is gewees dat die Spoorwegadministrasie eenvoudig as ’n masjien gebruik is om die politiek deur te sit, helemaal teen die beginsel van die Unie-Akte in. Ek wil ’n paar feite noem, vrye troepevervoer, vervoer van oorlogsmateriaal, van ammuniesie, waens en perde. Dit word bereken, dat dit minstens ’n paar miljoen pond gekos het. Die som moes in terme van die Unie-Akte gekom moet het uit Inkomstefondse, maar nou is dit weggesteek geword onder uitgawes op Spoorweë. Dan word gesê, dat ons Spoorwee nou in ’n beter toestand geplaas is, maar dit het geskied gepaard met veel lye en ellende. Die Regering het ’n militêre lyn gebou sonder die behoorlike magtiging soos neergelê in die Unie-Akte, van Prieska na Nakob. Tot die oorname ’n paar jaar gelecle was die tekort op die lyn £210,000 wat op rekening van die gebruikers van die Spoorweë kom.

Hoeveel maal is die argument al aangehaal?

Die Regering het die som eenvoudig geneem uit die spoorweginkoinste en toe die Minister later gekom het om die goedkeur van die Volksraad het hy van sy eie voorstel weggehardloop. Ons voorraderekening balans is opgegaan gedurende die oorlog en daarna tot 5½ miljoen pond met goedere wat gekoop is in ’n dure en abnormale mark en dat die waarde van die goedere sodanig verminder het dat die Regering moet vra om £500,000 verlede jaar en van jaar weer ’n groot som om die voorraderekening in ’n enigsins gesonde posiesie te kry, alles ten nadele van die spoorwegfondse, omdat die Regering die Unie-Akte verbreek het. Die edelagbare die Minister maak waar sy voorgangers die wet oortree het, deur die spoorweë te gebruik vir politieke doeleindes die fout om ook Artiekel 127 te oortree, deur in één jaar ’n profyt te maak van een en ’n kwart miljoen. Aan die een kant verbreek Ministers die Unie-Akte en die teenwoordige Minister van Spoorweë verbreek dit weer op ’n ander wyse. Sy antwoord sal seker wees dat hy dit moes gedoen het om ’n gesonde posiesie terug te kry, maar laat die Regering goed weet, dat die oortreding altwee kere gebeur het ten koste van die gebruikers van die spoorweg, van die handel, die industrieë, die landbouers en van die gewone indiwidue. Met alle beslisheid sê ek dat ons land nooit sal kan bereken die verlies wat deur daardie verkeerde optree veroorsaak is nie, deur hoë tariewe en die gebruik, van ons spoorweë as instrument van politiek. Die treurigste daarvan is, dat dit gedaan werd toe die land in ’n abnormale toestand van gedruktheid was en deur ’n ongeewenaarde kriesis gegaan het. Dit sou baie gehelp het, as ’n vermindering van tarief kon gegee geword het toe die land gely het onder die naweeë van die oorlog. Nou het die Minister in sy ywer om sake weer in ordeté kry ’n groot onreg gedaan aan die personeel deur mense te ontslaan uit die spoor en hawensdiens. Daar werd korter ure in die werkwinkels ingevoer omdat, soos hy verklaar, daar geen geld was nie. Hy sal nie onken nie dat alhoewel hy verklaar het, dat daar nie ’n algemene skema van ontslag was nie, daar aansienlike aantalle van ontslag veral van blanke arbeiders voorgekom het. Dit werd op allerlei wyse bedek o.a. deur die verplasing van blanke werkers van die taklyne na die hooflyne en op andere wyse. Ek is bly, dat die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gegee het, dat dit nie meer gedaan sal word nie. Sy regverdigheid dat dit gedoen is om op ons taklyne te besuinig het geen waarde solank die opgawes oor taklyne so onbevredigend bly. As die Minister die rapport lees van die Ouditeur-generaal, dan sal hy daarin sien, dat die taklyne se opgawes beskou word as “bloot seksioneel”; dit word nie geouditeer nie. Die Minister het die beskuldiging van ontslag van blanke arbeiders probeer ontmoet deur die getalle van blanke en andere arbeiders te gee, maar hy skyn te vergeet dat ’n groot deel van die blanke werkers tydelik op konstruksiewerk aangeneem is en dus nie permanente employees op die spoor is nie. Hulle is nie eers gereelde arbeiders nie, maar is tydelik aangeneem op konstruksiewerk; en word gebruik as dagloners en word ontslaan, sodra hulle dienste nie meer nodig is nie. Hy moet ons nie kwalik neem as ons sy verklaring met ’n sekere mate van suspiesie ontvang. Toe verlede jaar die Spoorweg-Diens Wetsontwerp onder behandeling was in die Selek Komitee het die Minister bewys gelewer dat hy die mense behandel as toevallige arbeidskragte sonder die minste reg om aan te sluit by die diens, sonder die gewone regte van spoorwegamptenare. Daar is ’n amendement aangeneem, wat later op ’n beter basis gestel het as wat die Minister voorgestel het. Een edele lid gewaag van die kleurling op die spoorweg. Ja, ek is daarvoor, dat daar nie die politiek gevolg moet word nie oih as die Administrasie besuinig, die blankewerkers ontslaan en kleurlinge of naturelle in hulle plek aangestel word en dan weer omgekeer in tye van voorspoed, wil ons geen onreg laat geskied nog teenoor die blanke nog teenoor die kleurling of die naturel, ons moet in spoorweg bedryf regverdig handel teenoor alle seksies van die bevolking. Wat betref die som van £283,000 wat die Minister wil bespaar deur vermindering van werkure en personeel wil ek graag weet, hoeveel daarvan verkry sal word deur vermindering van die staf. Ons vernuwingsfonds is een van die grootste belang. Edele lede moet in gedagte hou, dat ons het by ons Spoorweë en Hawes geen Delgingsfonds nie; daar word geen voorsiening gemaak vir die terugbetaling van die som van plus minus £100,000,000 wat as kapitaal bele is in Spoorweë en Hawes. Daar is ’n ander konsiderasie, die lyne na die binneland is aangelê met die oog op die ontwikkeling van die minerale bates. Die myne is egter ’n verdwynende bate, en na ’n sekere tyd sal ons spoorwee deur die verdwyning van die bates aansienlik kom te ly want die vervoer sal verminder. ’n Ander rede is, dat die Algemene Bestuurder jaar na jaar voor die Selek Komitee verklaar, dat daar ’n tekort in ons vernuwing is van twee en ’n half miljoen pond. Ons kom dus tot die posiesie dat vir die vernuwing van rollend materiaal, van die permanente weg, ens., nie genoeg geld in die fondse aanwesig is nie. Indien die Administrasie vind, dat die verlede die bydraê tot die Vernuwingsfonds te groot was, laat hulle dan vasstel wat ’n billike som is om jaarliks by te dra, maar laat hulle die los en vas manier laat vaar van 7 persent op begrote spoorweginkomste by te dra. Hoe eerder die saak op ’n gesonde basis geplaas word, hoe beter, ’n Ander saak wat ek onder die aandag van die Minister wil bring is die fabrikasie van goedere in ons eie winkels. Wanneer gaat ons die uitbreiding kry? Of sal dit eenvoudig by die kwasie-vrome verklaring van die Minister bly soos by sy voorgangers, dat hulle ten gunste daarvan is om onse eie benodige in ons werkwinkels te doen fabrieseer? Ons vra dit veral met die oog op die sestien duizend jongelinge, wat elke jaar die skole verlaat en werk vra. Ons is moeg en die ouers is moeg oor die herhaalde verklaringe van die Ministers sonder praktiese optree. Waar die Sentrale Regering tien persent voorkeur gee aan plaaslik vervaardigde goedere gee die Spoorweg Departement slegs vyf persent. ’n Mens hoef nie republikeins gesind te wees om te pleit vir ons eie fabriekswese nie, maar moet net gesond as Afrikaner dink om te besef, dat dit ’n teenwoordige posiesie onhoudbaar is en ek maak ’n beroep op die Ministers om hierin verandeing aan te bring.

Does the hon. member really believe it?

Ons vra die Minister om handelend op te tree. Die Departement het ’n amptenaar benoem om die koste te bereken en hy het bereken dat dit £5,000,000 sal kos, maar het iemend ooit gesê dat die £5,000,000 in een jaar gespandeer moet word? Maar die Minister skuil daaragter en doen niks. Die ontwikkeling van ons land en sy belang vorder dat daar groter voorkeur moet gegee word en fabriekasie hier sal geskied. Dit is noodsaaklik as daar ’n werkkring sal gekry word vir die seuns van ons land. Ek wil nog enkele woorde sê oor ’n beskuldiging wat in die publieke pers verskyn het en is bly oor die geleentheid om daarop te antwoord, die beskuldiging n.m. wat mnr. Littlejohn Philip teen die Ouditeur-generaal gebring het. As daar ooit iets skandeliks was—

Die edele lid kan nie verwys na getuienis voor ’n Selek Komitee wat nog nie gedruk is nie.

Maar dit is op die Tafel gelê.

Ander lede het dit nog nie gesien nie en dit is ’n vaste praktyk, dat sulke stukke wat al die lede nog nie gesien het nie, nie aangehaal moet word nie.

Ek wil net sê, dat die beskuldiging sonder grond of regverdiging werd gemaak. Sommige lede van die Selek Komitee was diep teleurgestel oor die houding van die Minister in sake die ondersoek deur die Komitee en hierdie kant van die Huis waardeer die houding van die edele lede van Bokshurg (de hr. R. H. Henderson) en van Kaapstad (Haven) (Maj. van Zyl) om waar die Minister geweier het om die ondersoek dadelik deur die Selek Komitee te doen maak, hulle manmoedig by ons gestaan het om die naam van ’n hocfamptenaar sonder versuim te suiwer en die verklaring van die heer Littlejohn Philip en wat geen greintjie waarheid bevat het nie, te logenstraf. Volgens die opvatting van hierdie kant van die Huis is die rapport van die Ouditeur-generaal heeltemaal gestaaf en dis jammer, dat die Minister en sekere volgelinge ons nie gesteun het nie. Ek wens die Minister te vra om die Huis die versekering te gee, dat wanneer die Solomon Kommissie rapport uitkom, hy dit dadelik sal publiseer. So’n kommissie moes lank reeds aangestel gewees het en die rapport behoor dus dadelik na inhandiging publieke eiendom te word.

I told the hon. member the other day that I would do it, and what more does he want?

Die Minister moet nie met publiekasie wag tot na die eleksie nie. Dit behoor voor die einde van April te verskyn. Ons gio dat dit ’n onpartydige kommissie is en die publiek wens te weet wat hulle bevinding van die saak is.

Dit spyt my, maar die lid se tyd is verstreke.

Ek eindig met te sê, dat ek oortuig is dat ons Spoorwee ’n sukses kan wees, maar dat dit in diskrediet gebring is by die publiek deur die voorgangers van die Minister sodat die publiek onder die indruk gekom is, dat die staatsdiens nie ’n gesonde onderneming is nie. Dit is nie juis nie. As ons Spoorwee en Hawes op ’n behoorlike manier bestuur word, kan dit dien tot bevordering van landbou, industrieë en ander bedrywe en ek vertrou dat dit so sal bestuur word om aan die volk van die land en die personeel daarin werksaam die grootste mate van hulp en bystand te lewer en ’n vrugbare arbeidsveld te lewer.

It was only quite recently we had an opportunity of discussing railway matters fully, and I only wish to support the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) in the protest he has made in one or two respects. The hon. member raised the question again of manufacturing more of our own requirements, and I think the Government should take this matter into very serious consideration. I do not want to repeat myself, but I want to point out to the hon. the Minister of Railways, or any Minister of Railways who may come after him, that a departmental commission should be set up to go into this question more fully. We believe we could manufacture most of our own requirements, and I am quite certain, if you get your technical officers and workshop representatives together in a sort of committee or conference, and went into this question, the hon. the Minister would be surprised to know, given efficiency all round among your technical staff and the artisan staff, what we could manufacture in this country, and the cost of the same. I am assured by competent men, engineers, fitters, electricians and coach-builders, that if we only gave them an opportunity of coming together and discussing this question with the technical officers and paying due regard to overhead charges, the hon” the Minister will be surprised to know how much we could manufacture of our own requirements. We know the hon. the Minister is doing his best to pull the railways together according to his business ideas, but if such high overhead charges were paid in his own business that are paid to-day in the railways, no business could possibly pay. That is very unfair to this country, and grossly unfair to the men who do the work. I see to-day that the Cape Times came out with a very big head line saying we had a wonderful surplus of nearly a million and a half pounds, but although the hon. the Minister may be congratulated on this surplus, it is well known where most of it comes from. It comes from the pockets of a body of deserving railwaymen, and they feel it very much. When the hon. the Minister took office, we remember the marvellous speech he made, or was it an article in the Railways and Harbours Magazine, when he promised the railwaymen a square deal. But the hon. the Minister from the very start has quite forgotten the wonderful contrast between a body of ordinary workmen employed by a private enterprise, and men working for a State organization. The men who were employed in a private concern would have the opportunity of striking if their interests were imperilled, but Slate employees are prevented by law from striking, so it is a case of “Hobson’s Choice” with them. As regards the question of short time. I may say I worked for many years at the Salt River works, but the position is very different to-day. Now you have first-class fitters and boilermakers hanging round the town on Saturday mornings. During all this short time period when many men have not been earning a living wage, you have been bringing materials into this country that could have been made here. The railwaymen would not care so much if they did not know you were bringing these materials into this country. Take another point. I only want to mention the question of the Railway Service Bill. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the wonderful piece of writing which appeared in Mr. Archibald Crawford’s paper, the Weekly Herald. In this week’s number we have an analysis of the Railway Service Act. That evidently has been prepared by some railway service officials, and it appears in bold print as the work of Archie Crawford.

This man is used as a tool by the South African Party and he has made charges against myself and others as being responsible for holding up the Railway Service Bill, but I am not responsible for the Bill not appearing, as he alleges. If the Bill appeared on the Order Paper and we obstructed it, then you have a right to say that we did obstruct it, but the Government are responsible for the Bill not being placed on the Order Paper. The information in this article has been provided to Mr. Crawford by the Government. I do not want to go into any other matters of detail, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) has gone into them very fully, but I should like to say that as regards the present Minister of Railways, we ought not to grumble. We on the Labour benches regard him as a great asset, and we know perfectly well that during the coming election the railwaymen will show the hon. the Minister what they think of him, and the manner in which he has carried out the promises he gave to them in regard to their being given a square deal.

I wish to add my word to the earnest request made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan), that that report on the grain elevator will be published as soon as it is rendered. It is something we are thoroughly entitled to, and I am informed that it will be completed within a week. If this House was sitting we would have that report before us, but a much more comprehensive tribunal will be in being at that time, and that is the whole country. The question of this grain elevator interests a very great number of people in this country, and they have the right to have this information before them. I know the House at this stage does not want to be kept by long speeches, but before this Parliament is dissolved, I, who am responsible as the innocent agent in bringing up a topic which resulted in the hon. the Minister of Railways making a very grave accusation against the person outside this House, think it my bounden duty to leave no stone unturned to get the hon. the Minister of Railways to do what he would do if he was outside this house, and which he would feel was due to him if any hon. Minister laid a similar charge against him. Last March, I do not know that I need go into the details, the House is so familiar with them, but in the Committee stage of the Part Appropriation Bill, I asked the hon. the Minister to give his reasons for refusing to recognize the National Union of Railways and Harbours servants. I little knew what a storm I was raising. In his reply, the hon. the Minister, inter alia, brought this very serious charge against the secretary of that society. It is not a case of whether it is Mr. Moore or Mr. Smith or anybody else, but in this matter I have a personal responsibility because my question instigated the whole matter. The hon. the Minister, in his reply, stated during the disturbances in March, 1922, that Mr. Fisher was the most desperate leader on the Rand. He went on to say—

He went on to explain that not only had a telegram been sent announcing the General Manager’s departure, but a telegram had been sent announcing the Prime Minister’s departure, and he stated that a certain incident had taken place the morning afterwards. I am no lawyer, but I venture to say that if that were repeated outside this House, and taken before any judge in this country, it would be interpreted, as we interpret it here, as meaning that the hon. the Minister of Railways insinuated and practically stated that Moore was guilty of bringing about a conspiracy to wreck those trains. We had a debate on the subject. We tried to persuade the hon. the Minister to withdraw or else substantiate the charge. We moved for it to be referred for investigation to the Standing Conciliation Board of the Railways, and Mr. Speaker ruled that Parliament could not divest itself of the sole responsibility. It is useless, I know, to pursue this subject as I would have liked to, for a Select Committee, but on the last opportunity in this Parliament I would like to say that the hon. the Minister of Railways has the universal respect of this House as a man. He says what he believes and he believes what he says. I believe that others in this House, possibly, would have made the same insinuation in a way we could not get hold of, but this is not the hon. the Minister’s way. He said what he believed, and he believed what he said. On reflection he must see that he is going rather far, to make use of the privilege of this House to make such a statement about a man outside, who is debarred from any chance of presenting any defence. The right hon. the Prime Minister in that debate said the matter could not be left here, but the right hon. the Prime Minister left it there. What does Mr. Moore want done? He has written to the press, with regard to the statement that he was m touch with Fisher. I need not trouble the House to read it, but in a letter to the press immediately afterwards he categorically denied it as follows—

I do not think anything can be fuller than that. With regard to this telegram Mr. Moore immediately afterwards, on the 23rd of March, wrote to the Postmaster-General stating that a certain telegram, supposed to be sent by him announcing the departure of the right hon. the Prime Minister, to Johannesburg, had been sent, and asking the Postmaster that, as he had no recollection of sending it, could he supply a copy of it. The Postmaster-General replied on the 26th of March—

Mr. Moore asked whether such a request had been made—

The Postmaster-General replied that no such request had been made. What more could Mr. Moore do to clear his character? The hon. the Minister is in this dilemma. If he had knowledge within six months, obviously it must have been a short time, surely it was his duty to put the matter in the hands of the officers of the law, and for the public prosecutor to see that the information was preserved, otherwise information that came to him after 6 months —and the hon. the Minister had better be chary of such information, he is making himself almost an accessory after the fact. What further did Mr. Moore do? He wrote a letter to the hon. the Minister of Railways requesting him to make good what he said or withdraw. The hon. the Minister made a formal reply, and Moore wrote to the right hon. the Prime Minister, who, after all, is the head of the Government of this country and is just as much bound to respect the regard a man has for his own character, whether it is Mr. Moore or anyone else. There was a person of much greater note referred to in the House this afternoon on several occasions and doubtless hon. members noted the care taken not to mention his name. But Mr. Moore was the secretary of a society very much disliked by the General Manager, and no such care is taken in regard to his name. I ask the hon. the Minister to imagine himself outside this House where his good name would be just as precious whether he was a poor or a rich man, and to be accused of practically entering into a conspiracy not only to murder the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Railways, but to wreck the train, and had he reflected, to imperil and probably lose the lives of certain of the very men who belonged to the society he represents. I want to put it from the point of view of the men who organized in that society. Had he any right to refuse to recognize that society on the ground of charges the hon. the Minister could not prove, and will not take the steps to prove? Let hon. members imagine a person they dislike very much. Is it not right that that person has some right to his own name? I wish to put it to the hon. the Minister, because I remember the 1914 strike, and I remember then that the Administration and the Government had spies in the ranks of the labour organization. A spy Is notoriously a very untrustworthy person. Ex parte, statements like that unless tested are very dangerous. I will not keep the House any longer, it is impossible to do more than appeal to the hon. the Minister. I may refer to it again in the Committee stage if his reply is unsatisfactory, but I want to refer to an incident of which I was a witness 12 years ago, when the hon. the Minister made violent charges against the Auditor-General. He made a most unfounded and wild charge against a man he did not know.

And he was very severely reproved by the Minister.

He was very severely reproved by the Prime Minister.

We are really reviewing the hon. the Minister’s financial statements for the past year.

I am dealing with a parallel case, because I am dealing with the same man. On that occasion the hon. the Minister rose in his seat and like a man said he had investigated the case and found he had no right to make those charges. In doing so he rose in the estimation of the House and the country, because we know the rugged honesty of the hon. the Minister’s character, and I say if he would take cognizance of feelings of the man outside, and reflect that the information he has got cannot be tested outside, and cannot be regarded as testimony at all, he will do the same thing now, and freely without reservation, withdraw the statements which he made, or else like a man go outside and repeat them. I agree with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) that the privileges of Parliament are meant to defend us against tyranny. When they were invented they were meant to defend us against the tyranny of the Crown; to-day they are used to defend us against the tyranny of money and those who command it, but in this case when we know what the hon. the Minister is, when we know that the power of money cannot affect him, I say let him either withdraw, or go outside and repeat these charges and give the man a chance of vindicating his character.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister one question. I want to know whether part of this appropriation will be devoted to building the Messina line to the Limpono, and whether that includes the bridge over the Limpopo, and, if so, what is the sudden hurry? What has suddenly come over the mentality of the Government, to build this in such a hurry?

That is one of the assumptions which the hon. member is always making. We have no intention of building that line or the bridge. I wonder where the hon. member got it from?

What about the line from Frankfort to Parys?

Oh, that will come in due course.

Yes, we will build it.

Well, I have been accused of making my estimates for 1923-’24 too low. Of course it is easy to make accusations of that kind. I said I made them on moderate lines and judging from previous experience I said it was necessary to make the estimates not too high. Hon. members must bear in mind that we have reduced the rates during the year to the extent of £280,000, and I say that I was perfectly justified in making the estimate which I did. And then I estimated for a deficit of £513,000. Well, one does not do that without serious consideration. Then I am told that the estimates for 1924-’25 are too low, as a matter of fact if we had taken them on the basis of the rates as they are to-day, we should have brought them higher, but having in view the reductions which are going to be made, you have to make some allowance and to think that it will all be made up straight away is very foolish indeed as the hon. member will find out when he gets into office. If he thinks that he can reduce his rates by half a million and then make it up at once, he will be sadly mistaken. Didn’t I tell the hon. member that to-day we are still taking 5 millions out of the pockets of the people of this country, five millions more than we did in 1914 in the shape of extra rates and fares.

Yes, that is due to the Government’s mismanagement.

We shall certainly if the traffic does keep up, as I hope it will keep up, then we shall be prepared to make further reductions. It has always been the policy of this Government, ever since it has been in office, to make the rates as low as we can. Now to say that the railways are run on political lines is absurd. Of course, when you are at war, you have to make use of your railways. Does the hon. member mean to say that when the war was on we should have sat still and not have made use of our railway facilities?

I told the hon. the Minister what he should have done.

It all depends on the view one takes of the war. Of course, the hon. member was against the war.

I said it should have been paid out of the consolidated revenue. The hon. the Minister should not misrepresent me.

We received in the shape of rails from the Imperial Government a present to the value of £500,000 after the war, and that went a long way towards liquidating any charge we might have made.

What did it cost us?

I do not suppose that it cost us anything like the £500,000.

Oh, nonsense.

Well, it is purely a matter of opinion and my opinion is as good as that of the hon. member. At any rate we got this £500,000 in the shape of new rails. Now there is another old complaint. It is astonishing that members cannot find anything new. Here we have this Prieska Nakop business again. It is just for want of something to say.

Oh, that is not so. Why does not the hon. the Minister face the position?

This matter was taken into consideration in the general settlement of the railways in South-West Africa. We got for about £500,000 the whole of the railways in South-West Africa which are set down as being worth 3 millions.

Why is not that given in the Act? Is the Minister afraid to face it?

Oh, no, it is a very good bargain. So we forewent this debt balance against this. I hope that when hon. members get here they will have something fresh to say.

Nonsense, they will never get here.

Now, a lot has been said about the stores stock. During the war, as my hon. friend should know, there was a great deal of interruption of communication with Great Britain. At one time we could not get rails at all and naturally merchants’ stocks and others went up enormously, as we had to hold larger stocks and to buy at increased prices. Could hon. members have done any better— would they have stopped the maintenance of the lines?

The railways were not building new lines and yet they were accumulating their stocks.

Maintenance has always to be maintained and it requires a good bit of new material. Of course we had a big stock, but we have taken steps to write it down.

Out of revenue?

Of course out of revenue. Does my hon. friend expect that we should borrow it? As a matter of fact, that is what every merchant in the land had to do—he had to hold big stocks, and my hon. friend could not have done better if he bought any supplies at all. I think we took quite the right course.

The Minister is easily satisfied.

Now we have heard a great deal about injustices to the staff. I want to know where these injustices come in, and I say that our railway servants are in a privileged position and have suffered less in their emoluments than most classes of people in this country. They are well off, they have permanency of employment, they get privileges which are worth some shillings per day in the shape of concession tickets, contributions towards pension fund, medical attendance, etc. I say that they have had a generous deal in the position of this country, and I do not think myself for one moment that there is that amount of discontent, from what I can learn, which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) says there is. What have we taken away?

All their privileges.

Oh, nonsense. Yes, the cost of living allowances, that is all. We have not revised the scales, only for the new men and for the men promoted, but we have not made any general reductions of salary.

And the hours.

Yes, they are lengthened, and I want to know how one can carry on any service in a country like this with a sparse population and with long distances on eight hours. Look at the people in the country districts especially, who have to work longer hours, more than 10 or 12 even. We have not touched the hours at all so far as the artisans are concerned. Take the artisans, at Salt River. In pre-war days their pay was 13s. per diem and now it is £1.

And then they were better off.

The artisans wages are 47 per cent. above pre-war and the increase of the other staff is about 33⅓ per cent. That is the position. So my hon. friend, I think, if he really consults the staff, will find that the big bulk of them, of course there are always grumblers, are satisfied with the position.

Oh no, that is not so.

And surely other people in the country have suffered. Take the farming community. Have not they suffered? Or the commercial community? and so it goes right through. We have all suffered. As the right hon. the Prime Minister said when addressing the municipal people “We have to live on a simpler and more economical scale”.

He didn’t say so three years ago.

Now, a good deal has been said about the reduction of the number of European labourers and about chasing them away. None of them have been chased away. Apart from any misconduct, I do not suppose we have dismissed a single European labourer. Yes, we have reduced the number on the branch lines, that is so, but we had to economise somewhere. I do not understand hon. members. They make a great virtue of calling for reductions in rates, but have they ever raised a finger to assist the Government to reduce working expenses. They have voted in the other direction several times, and when we try to economise, what do they do? Take the line from Hutchinson to Calvinia, a line upon which we lose £51,000 every year. In some countries, America for instance, it would be abandoned in all probability. We do not do that here. But that line pays us badly. We have reduced, considerably reduced, the maintenance staff on that line, but we have not dismissed them. But, wherever possible, the men have been transferred to the main lines.

Apparently we have low-grade railways as well as low-grade mines.

Yes, unfortunately we have and I want the hon. member to show where we can improve them. Our losses on these low-grade lines were over £430,000 last year.

Those accounts were never audited.

Well I know what the loss was and I have to bear that in mind.

It is a book loss and nothing else.

When the line to Calvinia carries only about 18,000 tons in the course of a year, you cannot expect much profit on that. That line is over 200 miles long. Now my friend has a good deal to say about the Renewal Fund. One would think it was a new discovery which had just been made by him. Well we have had this fund since 1910 and I know the importance of it and I have always held, and held strongly, that the fund should be kept up.

Yes, while the hon. the Minister was in opposition.

Did the hon. member have anything to say when I took £2,000,000 out of the fund to make up the deficit.

Yes, I did.

Well, what did it mean? If I had not done so we would have had this big deficit hanging round the neck of the railways and we would not have been able to reduce the rates. But we have not weakend the Fund. As I showed, and shall show again, at the credit of the Renewals Fund on the 31st March, 1924, there stood £2,300,000. Last year we voted £1,564,000 and we only spent £1,380,000 of that, though we are now following a policy of charging all we fairly and reasonably can to the Renewals Fund. That is to say that expenditures are taken out of the fund which in previous years were charged to capital account. It is my policy to charge anything we fairly can to the Renewals Fund instead of to capital. There are the electric engines which we are getting for the Natal electrification, every penny is charged to Renewals Fund.

Yes, and we are not justified in taking that.

Oh yes we are, and we still expect to have a balance of over £2,000,000, and during the year we expect to contribute £1,700,000 odd. Since Union we have contributed to the Renewals Fund out of revenue a matter of 20 odd millions. That is the position and I do not think that there is any railway in the world which is more liberal so far as renewals or depreciation are concerned than the South African Railways, and I say that it is in a good sound position, and then we contribute £250,000 to the Betterment Fund which also exists for the purpose of improving the railways.

That is 2½ millions short.

I should like that to be gone into.

The hon. the Minister should read the evidence.

It is not my evidence.

I do not think the hon. member understands it.

I only want to say this, that I think we dealt generously with the Renwals Fund and I think it is to-day in a good sound position. Now there is just one other point and that is the manufacturing of our requirements in South Africa. I have never denied, that with money you can do anything, but I must point out this, that although it could be done, although you could manufacture many things here, you would have to pay higher rates in South Africa. If you spend more on your rolling stock it means that you have to increase your capital account, and consequently you have to increase your rates. It has been my policy to get rates down to the lowest point and that is the reason why I have opposed this. I say within reason let us purchase here. We have recently ordered several lines locally at considerably more than they would cost in England. For instance, we ordered some lighters the other day for Algoa Bay, and I think the cost was about 11 per cent. higher than if we had ordered abroad. We have not always drawn the line at 5 per cent., not by any manner of means during the last twelve months. So my hon. friend is wrong.

But the hon. the Minister said he was opposed to it.

Of course I am opposed to laying down a definite rule, as is done in the general Government, for the simple reason that our purchases are much larger than those of the general Government.

The principle is the same.

Of course it can be done and I have never denied that, but then you have to pay the cost. You cannot have low rates, with expensive rolling stock at the same time. If you are not particular about the rates and if you are prepared to pay the cost, then you can get it, but I think the soundest policy is to have cheap transportation. I would also like to say this: I would like to know of any Government which existed in South Africa which would endeavour to run the railways for development of the country more that we have done, while it has always been our policy and our endeavour to reduce the rates to the lowest possible point. We have given away in the way of reduced rates £850,000, irrespective of any reduction in coal rates, and we are now giving a further £500,000 in reducing rates and fares. That has been our policy, while this agricultural demonstration train mentioned by the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture is being hauled by the railway department free of any cost. Also to assist in the development of the agricultural industry we have gone a step further. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture was very wishful to send his experts round the country giving advice to the farmers, and we are assisting to do so. If a man is certified as an expert in any branch of industry, and is going round to give advice to farmers we grant him the necessary facilities in order to assist the agricultural industry. It has been the policy of the Government to do all that we possibly can to encourage the agricultural industry in this country. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) also mentioned the question of manufacture, and says if the men got a chance they could manufacture in South Africa. That is perfectly true, because I believe that we have as good artisans in South Africa as in Great Britain, but it is the pay that stands in the way. To manufacture at the same rate as is manufactured at in Great Britain, the pay of artisans would have to be 13s. This is not the opinion of any outsider, but it is the report of one of our leading officials in this country. And to say that these savings we have got, come out of the pockets of the railway men is, in my opinion, simply absurd. They come out of the pockets of the men who use the railways, and I say we have taken too much out of their pockets already. Had we carried last year’s goods at the same rates as we carried before the war these people, who use the railways, either as passengers or goods, would be £5,000.000 better off. I want the people to know it too. The rates to-day, after making allowance for this £500,000 for the reduction we intend to make, are still 36 per cent. above those before the war, notwithstanding the reductions we have made. And if things go this year as was the case last year we hope to make further reductions. We have also made reductions in regard to fares. As for short time, we do not like short time, we know it is expensive, but we had to do it to meet the position so that the men would not be turned off. Nothing would please us better, from an economic point of view, than to give the men full work. In reference to the grain elevator, I do not think it necessary to answer a question of that kind. I have promised as soon as the report is received that it will be published. I shall get it some time this month, and then I will publish it at once. In reference to the matter brought up by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), I wish to make a statement about that. The House must remember that when the events took place, about which I made the statement which is complained of, something like a state of war against the Government existed on the Witwatersrand, and it is common knowledge that strong efforts were being made to induce or compel the railway servants to join the movement. These efforts were not confined to persuasion, but threats and acts of violence were freely used. In the circumstances it was absolutely necessary and right for the Administration to obtain all available information that might enable it to counteract these efforts. The hon. member wants to obtain a disclosure of the information given to the Administration in the circumstances which I have described. To agree to this would be a violation of the conditions under which this information was given, would expose certain persons to grave risks, and would be entirely contrary to public policy. I am not prepared under any circumstances to do so. The statements which I made in regard to the sending of certain telegrams were made by me in good faith, and I am satisfied that my statement was in accordance with the facts. I did not impute to the petitioner any intention of conspiring against the life or safety of the right hon. the Prime Minister or the General Manager of Railways, I simply gave the facts as reported to me. For the reasons which I have given, however, I must refuse to disclose the information on which my statements were based.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee.

On Clause 1,

With regard to the statement the Minister has just made, I am sorry he should have repeated the obvious meaning and intention of what he did say. Let us analyse it. One of the links is that a certain telegram was sent from here, and a state of war was existing at the receiving end. If there was any fault it was the fault of the censorship. If the Minister had the information he should have given it to the military authorities. There is not a tittle of evidence it was ever sent, and Mr. Moore categorically denies it. The second point is, and this is to me the more important one, that the Minister said that there was a state of war existing. There was a state of revolt certainly among a few of the wilder spirits, but the Administration and the Government have got into the habit of looking upon labour organisations as dangerous things. What is the result? I am not saying that when that state of war broke out they were not entilted to that information, but some person purporting to act with the more violent strikers gives information to the Government on this condition, that they shall never disclose his identity. What possible security has any citizen that his name may not be used or accepted by the Administration, and without the faintest possibility of testing whether that man is not equally false to the Administration, as to the people he pretends to be acting with. The character of no man is safe if he is going to be taken away on testimony of someone who is, from the nature of things, pretending to be one of the more violent strikers, and in their counsel and who, at the same time is communicating with the Administration under the seal of secrecy that his name shall never be divulged. I must say I would like to know to whom this secret service money goes to. I will not mention any names, but let me tell the Minister that he and the Government are far too fond of thinking they can select the best kind of working men to be their agents with the workers of this country. There is nothing more to be said on the matter. The Minister refuses to withdraw, and refuses to allow the evidence to be sifted, and he discloses a state of things which in a time of great turmoil the Government accepted, and acted upon the word of persons who were part and parcel of the revolutionary crowd, and whose names they had promised not to divulge. Am I misrepresenting the Minister in any way?

I am not saying anything at all.

That seems to be the position that on the one hand you have a person who, in order to obtain that information, must be acting in the inmost confidence of the revolutionaries, and on the other hand is communicating with the authorities, and they believe him on the condition that his name was never to be disclosed. What possible security have they that his information is correct, and what right have they to take away the character of a man on such information?

I want to deal with just two points. What I am pleading for is in regard to this manufacturing or requirements, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister he is entirely wrong when he says that the only thing which stands in the way is the wages of the men. There are so many things in connection with the organization of any factory that the hon. the Minister knows, that wages generally form a very small portion. I want the hon. the Minister to appoint some departmental or other committee of enquiry, on which the workers shall be represented, to go thoroughly into this question and see if it is not possible to do something in this matter. It affects South Africa; not only the railway workers. He is not going to solve the problem by working for low wages. Henry Ford is not a low wage man; all the great capitalistic industries of the world to-day are highly paid men, because by that you get efficiency, and the hon. the Minister must get away from the idea of low wages. He will solve the problem by giving the best pay and securing the best possible efficiency. With regard to the service, the hon. the Minister did not refer to anything like that. I have been charged with delaying the Railway Service Amendment Bill. I may say, that the person responsible for holding up the Bill is the hon. the Minister of Railways himself. If he had not used his casting vote in Committee to kill things which would otherwise have passed the Committee, I would have done my best to help it through.

I want to ask the Minister of Railways if he will delay ordering manufactured material or placing, any orders overseas until after the general election.

No, I certainly will not. It would never do to hold up orders, but we only order what is absolutely necessary. My hon. friend can take that from me. I would like to reply to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). I appreciate as much as anybody the necessity of providing work for the youngsters, and we also recognize that we cannot get all of them through their apprenticeship examinations; that leaves a large number outside. I have now given instructions, and a committee has been formed to see what can be done towards getting these boys into the shops who have not been able to pass the examinations. They would not be in as high a position, but let me say I think it should be possible to dispense with some of the native labourers who assist the artisans and put the boys in their places exactly as they do in workshops in England. We are going to try that experiment right through of giving the preference to the sons of railwaymen. That is where I think the youngsters are very much handicapped in this country, but some artisans themselves prefer the native assistant. That is the information conveyed to me. For one thing the native is more amenable and stronger and the artisan has not to take the pains with the natives that he has with the boys. Our policy is at present wherever we can use a European boy for the purpose of assisting we intend to do so and the native who perhaps has been on the job must be dispensed with. I think that is some little step forward. As regards wages I am not asking for lower wages in any shape or form. As regards the Service Bill I do not quite agree with my hon. friend because I have been very anxious to Íet that Service Bill through for two reasons, believe it is very much better for the staff and was a big step forward in regard to superannuation. The superannuation fund is not in a sound financial position at the present time. We have taken one step to make it right by increasing the rate of interest from 4 to 4½ per cent. Under this Bill we are going to make it compulsory for any man who comes on the railway service to go on the pension fund. We have done away with the idea of waiting till he comes on the permanent staff; from the morning a man comes into the service from that morning he is on the pension fund. That will be of tremendous assistance not only to the man himself but to the superannuation fund. My hon. friend was not content with having his amendments discussed and defeated in Select Committee, he must put them on the paper and have another fight. That is not the way to get business done. We spent days and nights in committee fighting the amendments put up by my hon. friend, and for the most part they were voted down, and then to put them on the paper again was not much encouragement. 1 should have thought that the matter having been fought the hon. member would have recognized his defeat and we should have had the Bill through.

The hon. the Minister put them on himself.

Only two, not those which were defeated.

Ek wil net graag ’n vraag aan die edelagbare die Minister stel. Dit sal miskien die laaste wees. Die edelagbare die Minister het toegestem, dat die Spoorwegraad sekere dele van die Vrystaat sou gaan besoek met die oog om die posiesie na te gaan, spesiaal wat betref verdere spoorweg uitbreiding, maar nou die Regering besluit het om die Parlement te ontbind, verstaan ek, dat die Spoorwegraad nie meer na die dele sal gaan nie. Die Spoorwegraad staan tog heeltemal buite die Regering en die politiek van die Regering en dit moet geen invloed op hom hê nie of die Regering nou val of nie. Die Spoorwegraad behoort aan te gaan met sy werk en dan rapport uitbring aan hierdie Regering of aan die toekomstige Regering omtrent die posiesie. Ek wil graag weet, waarom die edelagbare die Minister nie toestaan dat die Raad gaan me.

The hon. member must see clearly, it would never do to send the Railway Board round during election time. Supposing I sent them to any district it would immediately be said that it was election times, and the Board was going around to make people believe we were going to make a railway in that district. I have given instructions that during the elections the Railway Board will stay at home, so as to give no reason, in any shape or form, for saying that the Government had exploited them for the purpose of getting votes.

Ek is bly oor die plesierige en hartelike eerlikheid, wat die edelagbare die Minister vanaand aan die dag lê. Het die edelagbare die Minister nou besluit om die Spoorwegraad te stuur na die Regering besluit het om die Parlement te ontbind, dan sou daar nog grond bestaan het vir die suspiesie, wat die edelagbare die Minister kon verwag. Maar die besluit is deur hom geneem voor die Regering besluit het om te ontbind. Dit is bekend gewees voor die Parlement besluit het om te ontbind en dus kan die edelagbare die Minister nie beskuldig word van enig politiek gebruik daarvan te wil maak nie. Ek kan die versekering gee dat my kiesafdeling geen suspiesie sou gehad het nie en dat dit daar van geen invloed gewees het nie. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister weet dit net so goed as ek. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister slaat hierdie keer die bal mis. Die nood in sekere dele daar is baie groot en daar is noodkrete gerig tot die Minister om ’n spoorwegraad te stuur en ek sou graag sien dat dit nog gedoen word.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported without Amendment and read a third time.