as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

House to go into committee on the report on 25th April.

The mover and seconder of this resolution “that the House go into Committee of Supply,” the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways and Harbours, presented an interesting contrast. The Minister of Finance debonair, almost jaunty in fact with one and three-quarter million pounds in his pocket to be disposed of, to be given in largesse unfolding the tale of the prosperity of the Union as shown by its finances. The effect on the House was such that even the ranks of the South African party could scarce forbear to cheer. Then we had the Minister of Railways. He throws off a succession of figures interspersed with platitudes with the rapidity but hardly the precision or effectiveness of a machine gun. Nothing in his pocket, but tales of deficits and derailments and complaints of what he calls unfair competition and problems which are receiving the earnest consideration of himself and of those advising him whom he has chosen to advise him and who can be depended upon to give him at any given time the advice which he would like to have. A budget debate is the time when one wishes to take stock of the position of the country and when one gets these things put forward arising out of the same set of circumstances, it is a little puzzling to know what the position is. But one does get one or two side lights to help one. For instance there is the position of the Minister of Labour who, I see, is receiving deputations from the unemployed. If one may quote from the “Argus” of yesterday, I see a crowd of unemployed men arrived at the House of Assembly yesterday and a petition was given to the Prime Minister. “We appeal to you to put a stop to the trifling of the Department of Labour,” said this deputation, “and to take the matter of unemployment into your serious consideration. Give us work at once or give us food.” They go on to talk of the Minister of Labour and they say he has no executive power and all his schemes are constantly in the air. They go on—

And so on. And then they go on to say—-

In the meantime we have neither money nor food, but we have obligations. Many are actually starving, and so on.

Who signed the petition?

I do not know. I am reading what the paper says—

Not my own words. I am quoting what occurred yesterday according to this paper. Take another Minister’s department, the Minister of Mines. One hears some wails from Lichtenburg. Is everything prosperous up there? Is everything lovely in the garden?

Have you ever showed a better way?

I have never been a Minister. The Minister seems to be getting excited; I don’t know why. I am merely quoting facts. Take the Administrator of the Cape. He has issued an appeal to the whole Union for help in the distress caused by the widespread drought, and the Minister of Finance himself has put £100,000 on to assist in the relief. So when one wishes to find out what the real position of the country is, it is somewhat puzzling when one gets these conflicting things. As regards the Minister of Finance there is no doubt about one thing, that he has a surplus of 1¾ million and I congratulate him upon having that surplus. Once again I would say that, when he has the money, he does make prudent use of it and, with one exception, I have no criticism to offer. That one exception is the one mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and that is I do think he might have made some provision for relief for the poorest of the poor, that is, the natives of this country. That I look upon as the one blot on his use of the big surplus he has. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has pointed out one way in which very real relief could be given to these people and I hope that even yet the Minister will take into consideration the question of reducing that very high duty upon the blankets that are worn chiefly by the natives. Without wishing to seem in any way ungracious to the Minister, I am again this year going to apply what I look upon as the real test of a Finance Minister. The ideal Minister settles with firmness upon what expenditure is required and then he taxes to cover that expenditure and no more, and, with that test applied to the Minister, I cannot congratulate the Minister on his success from that point of view. Take a few of the surpluses showing how much he was out in his estimates. The customs surplus, £991,000; the post office, I am not sure of the exact amount, but I think the Minister mentioned £41,000; income tax, £417,000 difference; stamp duties, which the Minister mentioned as being one of the surest tests of prosperity, £80,000 increase; death duties, £165,000. So when we look at his figures for the coming year the Minister will perhaps not expect us to take them too seriously because in past years he has not taken them too seriously himself. Taking the figures as he has given them to us, it comes to this, that for this year the Minister is budgeting on the working of the year for a big deficit and that is to be financed out of the surplus of the past year. That is the position so that as regards the taxation for this year, unless there is some reduction in expenditure, the taxation has to be put on again, either in the form in which it has been taken off, or some other form, so we are really in the position of having a suspended sentence for one year.

Is that, what you say the result will be?

That is what I say the Minister says the result will be.

Then why should you say “suspended”?

They are taken off for one year. Suspension means that. The Minister is budgeting for a deficit on the year’s working.

You maintain there will be a deficit?

Yes, take the Minister’s own statement. Of course the serious part is that the expenditure has not been reduced in any way, but has, in fact, been increased. The Minister of Finance went on to discuss the merits and the demerits of his protection policy. I do not intend now to go into the question of free trade and protection, but I do wish to take up one point which the Minister mentioned. He said—

He referred to the by-election at Three Rivers. I do not intend to argue that, and no one knowing the circumstances would argue that. Three Rivers is a big manufacturing constituency, and three-quarters of the people at least would approve of the Minister’s protection policy, and the hon. member who has been returned (Mr. Gibaud) is an ardent protectionist.

I had in mind statements made during the election criticizing that policy.

I did not know they had been made, because hon. members on this side of the House who went round there were, I may say, all protectionists—the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is, and the member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) is.

And the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)?

I think, if the Minister will think a bit, he will see there are other reasons for the extraordinary result of that election. There was no lack of people put forward on the other side; there was the Minister of Defence, and we know how convincing he can be—at a first hearing. His position in the Labour party shows that.

There is no division in the Labour party.

There was the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), who also went round. They turned the majority or 800 into one of 1,800. In that constituency there are three rivers but no mountains, so a clear view can be taken, and the constituents are able to look well ahead and also behind.

Mostly behind.

Perhaps the Minister of Finance might think there were other reasons for the extraordinary result of that election; one of them, contributing from the material point of view, and there were other things besides the material things, was the continued and considered neglect of the midlands of the Cape, about which I hope to say something later on. The Minister gave us some interesting information about the public debt, and I refuse to allow my flesh to be made to creep either by the Minister or by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) about the state of the public debt. I can see nothing-in the public debt to alarm us. We have, as the Minister told us, a public debt all told of £218,000,000, and £150,000,000 of that at least is invested in the railways. If, at any time, it is the wish of this Parliament or the Government to turn the railways into a company, there is no difficulty in floating them into a company with £150,000,000 capital, and something in addition. That leaves you with £68,000,000. This talk that we must not increase the public debt means that we must stop development. The whole of that development has been paid by borrowed money—that has been the policy of this country for the past 60 or 70 years, ever since it has had a policy, and with a developing country that must be the policy. The measure of what we spend in loan money is the measure of our development, provided you get well-considered schemes, covered by sound redemption schemes; and provided we have that I do not see anything to alarm us. I do not mean to say you should invest a large amount of public money in an iron and steel scheme, or inducing ostrich feathers to ape diamonds in a syndicate and the like. With regard to the grain elevators, I think we have gone ahead of our time, and also in the electrification of our railways. Those schemes could have waited. If we have well developed and well considered schemes like the harbour at Algoa Bay, I say we are looking at it in an entirely wrong light if we are afraid of our debt going up. In my opinion it is accompanied by that good redemption of which I spoke. Last night we had a most interesting speech from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who put his case with absolute clearness and argued it in a most convincing way. There is one thing he said to which I would like to refer; he said, this thing being a party thing, or rather, to be exact, there had been in the Public Accounts Committee a distinct party vote, and it was from this party vote that this thing emanated. I was not on the Public Accounts Committee at that time and do not know what went on there, but I accept what the hon. member said. But when the question came into the House I, for one, supported the scheme the Minister put forward, and spoke in favour of it. This question of whether there should be a fixed definite amount or a haphazard scheme has never been a party issue in this House. When the Bill came forward incorporating the Minister’s scheme, I find on reference to Hansard that only three members spoke on the question—the Minister, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and myself. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) then said that he thought the provision made in the Bill was a liberal one, and I was in favour of the Minister’s scheme. The only question between the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the Minister is which is the better scheme, as both aim at the same thing. The former thinks that better results would have been obtained under the old scheme, but the latter is of opinion that a more favourable result would be achieved under his plan. I think that no one can definitely judge at present, but I think the Minister’s scheme, which will bring in £69,500,000 in 40 years, is a sound and adequate one. However, as its effect will be cumulative I think it would have been fairer to the different generations if it had been divided into 40 equal annual payments. With an adequate scheme of redemption, and a wise expenditure of loan money, I see nothing in the state of our public debt to alarm anyone. It is not easy to criticize the railway expenses, because the figures come to us in lumps, but there is the stark fact that with an increased revenue and with no change in the railway rates, except one small reduction, yet the Minister cannot make the railways pay. The reason is a lack of proper control of expenditure. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) went very thoroughly into that point, so I do not intend to go over the same ground. The Minister complained bitterly of road motor competition, but he misjudged the position. The people who are running motor trollies do not choose the traffic they will carry. They have one rate and people may send what traffic they like. The only way to meet the motor competition is for the railways to do the same thing—quote one rate for all traffic. It has been done before, and even more drastic things were resorted to in the old Cape days to cope with the ox-wagon traffic, but I do not think this Parliament would agree to such drastic measures, besides which there is not the same excuse to-day. Several years ago it was declared to be illegal to carry goods by ox-wagon from Port Elizabeth to Grahamstown and from East London to King William’s Town. Transport riding was a very attractive form of life for a lazy man, and it was felt that these men should be forced to take both their oxen and themselves back to the land. Now, of course, the competition is by means of mechanical transport, and we shall have to recognize that for distances up to 100 miles the road motor is more convenient than the railway, because it picks up the traffic at the door of the sender and delivers it at the door of the receiver. When goods are forwarded by railway they have to be taken to the goods shed by wagon, and the same thing happens in the reverse way at the other end. Thus in the case of motor transport there is only one handling as against three in the case of the railway, and the result is a saving in time and labour. The policy of this Government is to drive the people into the towns. The policy of back to the land belongs to the old Cape days and belongs to this side of the House, not to that side. I said I would speak about the neglect of the Midlands. It is very largely a want of sincerity in this matter that is felt at any rate in my constituency. There are three things that we specially require there. One is the building of an adequate harbour; the other is the providing of cold storage at Algoa Bay for the shipment of fruit; and the third is a detail perhaps the Minister, being only acting Minister of Railways, will not be conversant with, the cutting out of the Bellevue bank—a gradient between Port Elizabeth and Alicedale which affects the whole of the running on that line. I will quote the results of the working of the various harbours, taking the revenue and deducting the charges, but leaving out depreciation because that is not allocated to each harbour. The Administration’s own estimates of what they expect to get this year are: Table Bay, £102,000; East London, £10,000; Durban, £131,000; Algoa Bay, £164,000. Having said that what we complain of is want of sincerity, I am bound to justify that statement. It is a long and an old story about the question of the building of a harbour there. When the present Government came into office, the position was that my hon. friend here had refused to spend a large sum of money then, because he wanted further information. He thought the engineering possibilities were doubtful. An engineer was imported and his report was entirely satisfactory. Then the present Government said that they wanted to have a report upon the prospects of the trade of Algoa Bay and they engaged three entirely independent men, who brought up a report that certainly surprised them. As the chairman of the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce said, it could not have been more satisfactory if he had written it himself. I think that report probably was a surprise to the administration of the railways. There was just one loophole. They said there should first of all be an estimate of the cost. Soundings had to be taken and £6,000 were put on the estimate and the whole thing was to depend on whether that report was satisfactory. Again it was satisfactory, showing that there was no difficulty whatever. Then, after dangling this before us for years and giving us to understand beyond a doubt that it merely depended on whether these reports were satisfactory or not, they said the Government was not prepared to spend any large sum of money on Algoa Bay. It is not only the refusal of it that we feel. We had the refusal of our own member here. It is a feeling that the whole thing has been insincere on the part of the Minister of Railways. It was the same with the foreshore work. In May last year the Minister made a statement that it was absolutely necessary for the proper working of Port Elizabeth that a certain bottle neck should be dealt with and that he was putting the money on the estimates and the work must be urged forward at once. The money was voted in May. The authority was not passed on to Algoa Bay for the work to be done until December. When I came down here in January the first steps were just being taken for work that the Minister declared to be absolutely urgent work, in order to carry on the proper work of the port. Then look at the train service we get. From Cape Town to Maritzburg, 1,182 miles, we can travel in 42 hours. From Cape Town to Port Elizabeth, only 673 miles—not much more than half the distance via Mossel Bay—it takes 41 hours. Of course, it is said that that is owing to the old Cape Central having light rails. Well, those rails were going to be replaced, but via De Aar it takes 39 hours, almost the same time, and the whole of it by main line. I do not want to boast, but Port Elizabeth is nearly as important as Pietermaritzburg. The journey from Cape Town to Kimberley, 647 miles, is done in 27¼ hours. The journey from Port Elizabeth to Kimberley, 485 miles, takes 33½ hours. There is a lot of traffic between Port Elizabeth and East London. The distance is 301 miles and it takes 29 hours. I think I am warranted in saying that there has been and still is a neglect of the interests of the Midlands of the Cape, and I hope some of the Midland members who sit behind the hon. member will have something to say on this matter. Naturally, I am bringing up the things I have to complain of, but I would like just before closing to say that I am not at all unmindful of, and I appreciate, the enterprise the railway administration has been showing in various ways, particularly the development of its road motor services. One feels that it is a real live department, but I do wish they would not consider that Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban are “the” things upon which all their energy should be expended. State railways in other parts of the country should also have a fair share of the enterprise.

After the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) we, on this side of the House, have not much inclination to reply. It is the most moderate speech that I have ever yet heard from the Opposition, and it is not a criticism of the Minister of Finance, but merely a eulogy. We are thankful that there are people on that side of the House inspired by a feeling of fairness. The reason I rise is that I know it will not remain at that, it will not be long before a picture will be painted from that side on some subject or other, and therefore I shall say a few words on the Budget. In the first place two points were mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) in connection with dissatisfaction supposed to be prevailing. One is the unemployment of which he had read in the newspaper. Those representations of unemployment have only appeared occasionally in recent times, while they appeared daily under the last Government. As for dissatisfaction on the diggings it is not natural dissatisfaction, but S.A.P. incitement by people whom we may call would-be candidates at the next election. I want first of all to congratulate the Minister on his splendid Budget. It is certainly one of the best incidents for a long time for such a sound Budget to be presented. It is a fact that whatever happens to a Government, as long as the axle of the machine—the finances— is good, everything goes well, but when the axle is broken everything comes to grief. The Minister has done better than was ever expected. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) tried recently to persuade the public that the favourable financial position was due to the sound foundations laid by the previous Government, and to nothing else. He probably thought of the sound foundations of the Durban grain elevator, or of the flour transactions we all know about. Then the hon. member said that, notwithstanding the magnificent surpluses, none of our public debt was paid off. If he were to study the financial statements for the last three years he would see that £3,690,000 had been devoted to redeeming the debt, while the last Government in the last three years of its existence only paid in £236,000 into the sinking fund. Then there is another matter which the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) mentioned, that the surplus was due to the underestimating policy of the Minister of Finance. It is not due to that, but to the sound financial policy of the Minister, and to the good conditions prevailing in the country, notwithstanding the terrible drought which has afflicted the Union in recent years. Even that prosperity is due to the Minister’s policy. He has kept his finger on the button so far as expenditure is concerned. Hon. members opposite say that too much money is being spent; when the Minister opposes it, then they reproach him for being too parsimonious, and they ask why this or the other thing has not been done. But I agree with the Minister in economising and in watching the expenditure. I approve of his business policy, and as long as he continues this policy he will enjoy the confidence of the South African public. Another matter of great importance is the unreproductive debt. When we borrow money and thereafter borrow again to pay the debt and interest, it may lead to the greatest trouble. What did the Opposition do about the unreproductive debt? They let it mount up to £67,000,000 and this Government, I am glad to say, has now brought it down to £49,000,000. Give our Government another ten years, and they they will have washed out this £49,000,000 as well. Then recently we heard from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) how the recent industrial development was due to the sound industrial policy of the South African party. They never had an industrial policy. The development during their time was only due to the state of war, and the only thing they did was to encourage a little some industries such as the boot industry, but they had no protection policy as our Government has to-day. That is a proof that during the last year they were in office 83.83 new factories were established, while in 1927 no less than 719 factories were registered. If that is not a proof of the good industrial policy of this Government then I do not know what it is. Then we hear the hon. member for Standerton speaking about the unsatisfactory state the country is in. I think that he has been dreaming, and then told his dream to the public. There is no truth in it. If he were to look at the report of the Chamber of Mines he would find that they have had a good year, and that they say that although they have not got everything they are nevertheless satisfied. They thank the Government. Further we find in the report of the chambers of commerce that they have full confidence that the coming year will be a splendid one, notwithstanding the drought. Then there are the assurance companies, which continue to prosper as they never did before. Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) complained of the increase in the national debt. We must not forget that the country is developing more and more, and the expenditure is of course becoming larger in consequence. We must not forget also that we also have more revenue in consequence. The hon. member complains of the debt having risen by £3,896,000—that is 16 per cent.—during the period of office of the Government, but he forgets that in 1924-’25 the increase was only 2.08 per cent. and in their time it was respectively 12, 6, and 15 per cent., and thereafter even 16 and 17 per cent. I am glad to see from the Budget that we are paying more interest on loans within the country to-day. Formerly most of the interest went abroad. It was no less than 88 per cent. in 1912, but to-day only 61 per cent. is paid outside the country. It is a satisfactory state of affairs that the people is investing more money in its own State. Then there is another little matter which I hope the Minister will bear in mind in future. It is of great importance in my constituency. I refer to the bores. The Minister must provide more bores and the people who have dry boreholes must be assisted. Ground in the Free State is becoming unpayable for the man of means, and as I said before in this speech, there is just as good a future for stock farming in the north-west as in any other district. Then I am glad to see that the export of wine has increased. In comparison with the preceding year it has increased by 210,000,000 gallons. I also want to say a word of thanks for the further extension of the farm telephone lines by 3,200 miles. I notice a small loss has been suffered, something over £2,000, on road motor services, but this small loss is doubly compensated for by the larger traffic on the railways, and the greatest convenience to the backveld in being able to get to the stations more quickly and carting their products there. As for pensions the Pensions Committee will have to be a bit careful. I see from the Estimates that no less than £2,355,000 is spent on them, and then that does not include the old age pensions after the 1st January, 1929. Thus care must be taken that we do not go to excess in this respect. I shall be able to debate this further under the Vote, but I just want to ask the Government not to apply the regulations under the Precious Stones Act so as to conflict with the rights the diggers have had up to the present. The Act itself is a good one; no one can dispute it, but much depends on the administration of the regulations. If they are not enforced too strictly, then the diggers will find—notwithstanding all the agitators—that it is one of the best Acts ever passed here. In saying that, I also want to congratulate the Government because it has hitherto had the courage and daring to tackle legislation which the former Government never dared to do. The former Government always delayed. It always reminds me of schoolboys. When one sees his companions doing something, he says that he was just about to do it himself. That is precisely what has taken place. During all the fourteen years they wanted to do something, but they did nothing. Then I also want to ask the Government not to delay the establishment of agricultural schools—of which one was promised for my division—but to build them as quickly as possible, because the professional diggers do not want their children to become diggers as well. They feel that there is no future in it, and the parents cannot afford to educate their children beyond Standard 6, which is not even sufficient to allow them to become policemen. The people consequently feel the necessity for agricultural schools where the children can receive a training which will make them useful members of society.

I would crave the indulgence of hon. members not to deal with questions of high finance, but I desire to deal very shortly with the policy of the Government in reference to the technical colleges of this country. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) last night in a very interesting speech eulogized the Government for the manner in which they had helped the technical colleges of this country, and, although I have practically nothing to say with regard to the general policy of the Government in this connection, the mode of financing these colleges during the last two or three years has been such that the position of the colleges has become extremely serious, and it is on that account that I am venturing to bring the matter before the attention of this House. The Higher Education Act under which the colleges were taken over definitely by the Union Government has now been in existence for a period of about five years. Under the regulations published under that Act the Minister is authorized to contribute not more than 75 per cent. annually to the expenditure of the colleges. Under another regulation the mode of contribution is fixed. Under a regulation which was passed, as originally laid down in April, 1924, the payments towards the colleges were based on the following principle: on the fee income: £3 to £1 on the first £1,000, £2 to £1 on the following £13,000, and thereafter £1 to £1 on the balance of the revenue. On the other revenue £2 to £1 on the first £3,000, and thereafter £1 to £1. Finding that this method of remuneration was not sufficient, the Minister issued a further regulation that on the fee income it should be at the rate of £3 to £1 on the first £10,000, £2 to £1 on the following £5,000, and thereafter £1 to £1. This was a subsequent regulation issued, I think, in 1926, which was the result of the experience of the department as indicating that the first method was not sufficient. I would rather, in my observations, deal with the effect of these regulations and the various alterations which have taken place, as affecting the Durban technical college, with which I am more familar than the other colleges. In July, 1926, the Secretary for Education intimated to that college that on the basis of the percentage of payment I have just read, the college would be likely to receive, during that year, a sum of £28,675 as a contribution towards their expenditure. But in November of that year the department notified the college that the mode of remuneration would be altered—that the Minister, instead of making contributions to the funds of the college in that method, was going to adopt another method, which the regulations allowed him to do; instead of contributing on the pound for pound principle the Minister proposed to give us a grant of 10 per cent. on the income of the previous year. The effect of the alteration of the regulation was twofold; in the first place, as a result of the assurances given by the department that the income would be so much, the college made its arrangements for its expenditure for the coming year. I would like the Minister of Finance to give me his attention; I do not know whether the responsibility for these changes lies with the Minister of Finance or with the Minister of Education. When the notification came in November it came after eight months of the college year had elapsed, so it was impossible for the college to frame any scheme of retrenchment for that year. In any case, if this 10 per cent, basis were to be adopted, we were inevitably landed in a considerable deficit on the amount of our year's expenditure. Representations were made to the Minister, but notwithstanding all the representations that we could make the department remained obdurate, with the result that at the end of the last financial year the college was faced with a deficit of something like £6,000, which was made up in two ways: £3,000 representing the first payment on account of the building loan and interest we had to pay during the current year, and apart from that we were faced with a further deficit of £3,000.

A concession was made with regard to the way in which the deficit should be met.

When these representations were made to the Treasury and it realized the difficulties of the technical college, the department, I consider very generously, allowed us to consolidate that part of the deficit, £3,000 due for payment during the current year, and that £3,000 was added to our capital account and will have to be repaid in the same manner and the same period as the college loan of £50,000. The college was faced with the further difficulty of financing this other £3,000. We made a reduction in the permanent staff of five members—teachers—we made a reduction in the number of part-time lecturers; there was a reduction in the educational facilities offered by the college; we had to make an increase in the staff timetable, and other members of the staff had to work additional hours; we had to increase the size of the classes, and we increased the fees. If that had been allowed to go on and no further alterations in the method of our remuneration had been made in our current year, we would have levelled off our finances and come out level at the end of this current year. It would have taken us the whole of 1927 and this year, and by means of these retrenchments we would have come out level at the end of the current year. What happened this year? Without any notification whatever, in a year when the Minister is not apparently pressed for funds, the Minister of Education cuts down the 10 per cent. to 5 per cent.

It has been approved by Parliament—without any opposition.

Excuse me, the regulations applying to technical colleges have not been put before Parliament. I am surprised that the Minister should endeavour to saddle the responsibility on the members of this House, for they know nothing about it. Certainly, regulations were put on the Table with regard to the universities, but not as affecting the technical colleges. Not a member of the House is aware that the Minister has, by placing a regulation on the Table, reduced the grants made to technical colleges. By cutting down the grant to the Durban technical college by 5 per cent., we are again faced at the end of the year with a deficiency. Not only is this circumscribing the effectiveness of these technical colleges, but the effect on the staff of the Durban college has been most disastrous. I can speak with knowledge of the Durban technical college, for I have been connected with it for 20 years, and of its staff I will say that a more loyal, hard-working and self-sacrificing body of men I have never come in contact with. They have worked early and late to help the council to come out. Some of them have broken down; the registrar has been ordered away through a nervous breakdown; the principal is ill and many of the staff have been away on sick leave, the number of cases of sickness being out of all proportion to the ordinary rates of sickness. The work that these men do is most unselfish, not only working unlimited hours, but they are constantly being called upon by Government to furnish statistics which involve a considerable amount of additional labour. How are we to advance the affairs of the college? We cannot add anything more to the burdens of the staff, and the fees have been raised, a policy to which the college has always objected, as we have endeavoured to make the cost of technical education as low as possible. The Government may, if it chooses, grant 75 per cent. of our expenditure, but in no case has the whole amount been granted, the figures for the last five years, since the Government has had control, being: 1923, 70.23 per cent.; 1924, 67.17 per cent.; 1925, 62.32 per cent.; 1926, 68.79 per cent.; 1927, 66.2 per cent. On the other hand, the students’ fees have increased from 16.20 per cent. in 1923 to 26.82 per cent. in 1927. The difficulty we have to contend with has been accentuated by the Government’s policy. They have introduced the Apprenticeship Act, under which the number of students attending the college has been increased by something like 800, and we have to make provision for their teaching. Latterly the Government, in pursuance of its white labour policy, has sent a large number of men to Durban. Some of them are 40 years of age and are practically without any education at all. Some 200 or 300 of them have asked to be educated at the technical college and our doors are open to them. The great bulk of these men are Dutch and many of them work on the railways. Our students have been increased by 1,000 by the Government’s own policy, yet without any justification or reason, the Government constantly cuts down the grants and alters the methods of payment. I am naturally very loth to bring up a question of administration on the floor of the House, but this is a national question. The Government is preening itself on its technical education policy. We have often heard the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) congratulating the Minister on his policy, so far as it applies to technical education as opposed to university education. I think it is a big mistake to make these comparisons. It is possible to have co-ordination among all systems of education. In the Durban college we have three classes of education—the technical high school, which is financed entirely by the provincial council, the ordinary work of the college, and, in conjunction with the Natal University, we have university education in engineering, arts and commerce. Why are these grants constantly being cut down? The position at Durban is more serious that it is at the other colleges, because the Durban technical college was started 21 years ago, with the result that a great many of our teachers are on the maximum salary scale, but the other colleges, being newer, the staff expenditure is not so great proportionately as it is at Durban. The consequence is that it is impossible for us to retrench or to meet the deficiency. We have appealed to the Government and I come here to-day as the last resort. We have asked the Government to indicate in what way they consider our administration extravagant, for bursaries, scholarships and contributions from the general public towards the work which we all have at heart. The only recompense we get is this constant alteration and cutting down of our emoluments. It cannot be done on the score of poverty because the Minister is well in hand in regard to funds.

The principal criticism against the budget so far is that no attempt has been made to curtail expenditure, and here is one instance and it is criticized.

The Minister will have observed there is no absolute unanimity on the front bench with regard to the criticism of his policy and I am not any different from others. The matter for which I am pleading is such a trivial sum in comparison with general expenditure that that reply will not hold water. It is a difference to him of about £1,500 a year.

It does not only apply to that institution.

I do not suppose it makes the same difference to other institutions because their expense is not on the same basis as ours. They are young institutions. Most of our teachers have reached the maximum of their emoluments. Another aspect of this matter is the constant changing of the basis of grants and remuneration to these colleges which is very seriously handicapping the work which they have to do. We do not know from year to year what our method of remuneration is going to be, nor what the amount is going to be, consequently we cannot develop. There is an institution which has been formed from all the technical colleges in South Africa, the Association of Technical Colleges, which has discussed this constant change and the cutting-down, and the resolutions which they have passed and which I believe have gone forward to the Minister’s office strongly urge that the Minister should place the basis of remuneration at 75 per cent. of the annual expenditure of these colleges. It has never reached that amount. That would be a much better and safer method of remuneration and it would give the colleges some idea to what extent they could expand, what new men they could take on, what new classes they could start and generally in what way they could develop as they all wish to develop. I have nothing but praise for the general conduct of the department towards the system of technical education. In the days when Mr. Coleman was the director in that department the assistance he granted the college in every possible way helped the council to do their work effectively. But I cannot understand how it is that the Minister for Education, or if he is not responsible, my hon. friend opposite, keeps constantly changing the method of remuneration, and why he has cut down that remuneration to-day to 5 per cent. I am not appealing on my own behalf. I know the Government’s policy is to educate the young men of this country. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) in his place at last. I wondered that last evening when he made that extraordinarily laudatory speech in regard to the actions of the Government concerning technical education, why he did not feel it his duty to call the attention of the public to this constantly lowering of the grants the Government make to technical colleges.

They are increasing the grants.

No, they are not. The hon. gentleman was in such a gracious mood, so anxious to praise the Government, the best of all possible Governments, that he left this fact out, but I can assure him, if he is not satisfied with what I tell him, that he can go to the principal of his own technical college and ask him if he is satisfied with the method of remuneration which the department has put up.

Would you like me to give you some figures? I think that, seeing that you have disputed my figures, you should allow me to quote them.

I know what my hon. friend is going to give me. He is going to say that the amount of the contributions is larger. That is so, because the number of students has increased, but the basis of remuneration has gone down.

Certainly, as the number has increased.

But it ought to go up. I want to say this in conclusion. I want to assure him that if there is anything in the conduct of the institution with which I am so closely associated, of which the department disapproves; if they can suggest in any way how we can economize I would be the first one to lake it up. We have the most loyal staff it is possible to have. We have made an appeal to these men to extend the hours of their tuition and they have responded loyally. I would appeal to the Minister, so far as the current year is concerned, to put joy into hearts of all the technical colleges in South Africa and at the conclusion of this debate to announce that he is prepared to grant to the Department of Education at least 10 per cent. for the current year. So far as the Durban college is concerned there is nothing which occurs to me that we can do to put this matter right. We still have to make up something like £1,500 on the current year. By reducing it by another 5 per cent. you will again have us in hot water to the extent of something like £3,000. If the Minister could see his way as he generously did last year, to come to our assistance, so far as the consolidating of the £3,000 is concerned we would be very grateful. We are anxious to help the Government in any policy they may wish to adopt, but I can assure the Minister it is becoming a very great strain to us indeed to take in these 200 or 300 poor men, working on the railways at the miserable wage which the Government gives them. These men have nothing in common with Durban except that they are sent there to be educated. We have not closed our doors to those men.

It would have been monstrous if you had done so.

It is equally monstrous on the part of the Government not to help us.

I suppose the Government has done nothing.

Not a thing so far as paying for the education of those men is concerned. You cherish your apprenticeship scheme. You send us 800 new students as a consequence of that scheme and then you will not help to pay for their education. I want to say this in fairness to the Minister of Labour. He has been consistently trying to help us. He has realized that our difficulty is very largely owing to these two facts that I have mentioned, and he has brought every possible pressure to bear on his fellow Ministers to get us this additional grant. The one who is to blame, rightly or wrongly, is my hon. friend opposite.

I am responsible for everything.

I venture to think that the Minister has not had the facts put before him as they should have been. There is a feeling in Durban—and I want to be careful what I say—that we are suffering now by reason of an incident that took place last year.

No, no.

I should be very slow to believe it, but we cannot find any reason for it. We cannot find why we are cut down. I am not pleading for myself. I am pleading for a considerable number of men and women who are working under the most difficult circumstances, who are giving of their best, and, if the Government is obdurate, if the Government will still not let us have this additional remuneration, there is only one of two things that we can do, we have either to pile this werk on to these people again, or we must cut down our establishments as we did last year. We sent away five principal teachers; we cut down a considerable number of part time classes; we extended the hours of the employees; we have increased the number of the classes, and we have increased the fees of the students. That is a policy which everybody is averse to.

What are you doing with all the money?

We have to render accounts. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are not setting up cold storages, nor giving any jobs to pals. Every penny of the money which we have is being expended in the payment of the salaries of the teachers and of the staff generally.

This Government has given you more than your Government did.

They may be giving us more in amount, but they are not giving us as much pro rata as the previous Government did. The basis of remuneration is not so great. I was going to say that I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). I can, as a matter of fact, but still it is strange to me that an hon. gentleman sitting on the Labour benches knowing, or he should know, that it is wrong to increase the rate of the students’ fees—does he advocate that? Does he advocate that we should go on increasing the rate of the students’ fees, or does he advocate that we should go on increasing the hours of the employees? We have gone dangerously far in that direction, and I do make an appeal to the Government through the Minister out of this gigantic surplus which he has at his disposal to go, at any rate, to the 10 per cent., which is not a very extravagant remuneration, and then, after that, see whether the suggestion of the combined technical colleges is not the best, that he should place the remuneration of these colleges on the basis of 75 per cent. of their expenditure annually, because every penny of our expenditure is subject to the permission and consent of the Department of Education. We do not spend our money just as we should choose. In making this proposal I know it will not lead to extravagance, but it will enable these councils to know that if their work is capable of development on sound lines, as far as 75 per cent. of the expenditure is concerned, they may look to the Government for help for that amount. We can make our appeal, of course, to the public in other directions. I am very sorry to detain this House so long on this matter, but it is a subject which is of great national importance. The technical college at Durban is not a Durban institution. It has students from all over South Africa. It is the parent of the college which the hon. member for Liesbeek is so proud of in Cape Town. The principal of that college left us to come here to develop this great college which now exists in Cape Town. I am not pleading merely for Durban. The remarks of the hon. gentleman last night were not justified. It is not Durban that is pleading. It is the Natal technical college to which so many students come from the Free State, the Transvaal, Cape Town, and all over South Africa. They are all welcomed, no matter what their position in life may be, or from whence they come, but we do ask the Government to make it possible for us to carry on this work.

If the Minister of Finance still entertains any doubts about the reception of his budget and that of the Railways and Harbours, then it has certainly been removed by the enthusiasm of the Opposition and the empty benches opposite.

What about your side?

We are supporters of the Government, but we expect criticism from the Opposition. I want to confine myself to railways. In dealing with such a great undertaking, the greatest State undertaking in South Africa, which embraces so many interests of the State and the whole of the public, we must ask certain questions about the working of the industry, and the internal conditions, as also about the economic results of the undertaking, more particularly in acclaiming its object, the development of our undeveloped fatherland. £150,000,000 has been invested in the undertaking, and it is to be expected that we should express a judgment which is void of any definite colour and partnership. In judging, we should like to consider the highest interest of the undertaking. We are not only concerned with the large capital which has been invested, but also with its investment so as best to serve the public. I think the first question is not so much what percentage of profit has been obtained, but whether the requirements of the people have been met, namely a substantial contribution to the development of our undeveloped country. In the first place I want to confine myself to the complaints which in my opinion are unfair, and give one the impression of ulterior motives. [No quorum.] Notwithstanding the slight attention which is given to this amount, I think that we are still called upon to express an opinion on the greatest of State undertakings in our country, and the fair observations which have been made with regard to the undertaking, which give the idea that certain aspects of the budget may be regarded as responsibility on the part of the administration for certain occurrences which are taking place to-day. I am particularly thinking of the statement of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) which created the impression that economy, or reduction of the amount to be voted for maintenance of the permanent way—a reduction of £137,000—just justifies the statement that the State makes itself responsible for the accidents which have taken place. The inference to be drawn from the hon. member’s words is that it is on account of the administration’s spending too little money on the maintenance of the permanent way that so many accidents take place. I think it is no more than right that the House should give its serious attention to the charge, and I am glad that the acting Minister apparently gave his attention to the matter during the speech of the hon. member. No more serious complaint is in my opinion possible than that the safety of the travelling public is threatened through economy. The travelling public is increasing by millions from year to year, from about 80,000,000 in 1926-’27 to 84½ millions for the last financial year. We have a responsibility towards an important State undertaking, and must examine such allegations. To our astonishment and shame public use has been made of the regrettable accidents at Salt River and Fish Hoek. In the first place I wish to express my astonishment that one of the organizing secretaries of the Opposition spoke in this connection at the recent bye-election of the inefficient railway management. A less worthy statement could hardly be made by a responsible person, and that is not the attitude of a responsible organizing secretary like that only, but also of other responsible or irresponsible persons of the Opposition press, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) cannot be excluded. Our first care should be the safety of the public. To test what the position actually is I have taken the trouble of going into the figures for a number of years. I quote them neither to approve, nor to justify accidents. This House, and the Minister of Railways on behalf of the House, have repeatedly expressed their sincere sympathy in the accidents that have taken place. I therefore look for no excuse or approval of what has taken place. I am only looking at the figures of accidents in past years. In 1919-’20, 34 passengers were killed, and 74 injured; in 1920-’21, 29 killed, 101 injured; in 1921-’22, 18 killed and 44 injured; in 1922-’23, 11 killed, 27 injured; in 1923-’24, 20 killed, 75 injured, and in 1926-’27, 17 killed and 106 injured. If such inferences are drawn we may make a comparison with reference to the figures for other years. I have also gone into the percentage of accidents per million travellers. For the years mentioned they were respectively .1, .45, .293, .179, and .33 for 1923-’24. With reference to 1926-’27, one person was killed under the present management for every 4,000,711, and one injured for every 756,000 people. The most unfavourable year in which the big accidents took place under the present Government does not compare unfavourably with the years under the former Government. The general manager, in his report for the year 1926-’27, on pages 28 and 29, complains about unfair criticism. He says that he has no objection to fair criticism, but that he protests against the capital which is being made out of accidents and occurrences of minor importance, of which usually no notice is taken. He says that too much is made of such occurrences by the press for publicity purposes, and that in the case of accidents much importance for publicity purposes is attached to loose statements which are made by irresponsible persons, who throw the blame on the staff, though after enquiry it appears that the charges are without foundation. Last year in this connection an indirect attack was made on the civilized labour policy of the Government, but this year the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) has changed his position, and attributes the cause of the accidents to the state of the permanent way. I want again to refer hon. members to the statement of the former general manager of railways in which he says that more money is spent on safety measures in South Africa than in most other countries. As for the attack on civilized labour, I refer hon. members to the report in which he says that the need for efficient staff is fully appreciated, and that nobody is appointed without the necessary experience, and passing the necessary examinations. This statement is a complete answer to that attack by the Opposition on the civilized labour policy, and the maintenance of the permanent way, but let us see on what ground the attack of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is based. The amount made available on the estimates for the permanent way is £3,101,000, and the year before it was £3,238,000. Therefore, it is £137,000 less this year on an amount of £3,000,000. In view of that, everybody must see that he was looking for something, and that he has completely imagined the affair. The rest of his speech I will not deal with, I am glad that he is responsible and not I for his statement. But in as much as the hon. member is so keen on quoting figures and extracts, I want to refer him to the statement in the Auditor-General’s report for 1922. [Quotation read.] As for myself, it has several times been brought to my notice by well-informed people that on a certain section of the line, namely, between Wellington and De Dooms, too much work is being done in strengthening and renewing the road, and it is just there that in the past year no less than three accidents have taken place. I think that the oldest portion of the permanent way there is at most five years old. What I want to suggest is whether the enquiry into the building and the construction of the material is adequate, whether possibly the cause of accidents is not to be looked for there. I do not wish to make any attack on the staff, but we want to say here that we expect every railway servant to do his work carefully, and to look after the safety of the travelling public. It would also only be an extraordinary person who did not properly fulfil his responsibility in this respect. I want to make another comparison, namely, with reference to the compensation which has been paid for railway accidents. In 1922-’23 it was .22 of the total revenue; in 1923-’24, .15; in 1924-’25, .17; in 1925-’26, .17; and in the unfortunate year 1926-’27, when the big accident took place, .53. I want to say a few words now with reference to the road motor services about which so much has already been said. I do not think that we generally sufficiently appreciate the development which has taken place. The mileage covered by the services was only 1,550 miles on the 31st March, 1926, in 1927 it was 4,282 miles, and in 1928, 7,053 miles, which is in itself more than half of the railway mileage we have to-day. In 1927 there were only 19 motors with restricted capacity, but now we already have 241 motors with a capacity nearly twice or three times as much. During the year ending 31st March, 1926, we carried 297,000 passengers, in the year ending 31st March, 1927. 494,000, and in the calendar year 1927 it was already 877,000 persons. That shows the development, and the goods traffic has also increased enormously. In this connection I want especially to point to the carriage of perishable goods, and I especially mention cream. It is carried cheaper and better to-day to the consumer than ever before In the first year of the road motor services, 1925-’26, 95 000 gallons were carried, in the year after, 197,000 gallons, and during last year, 993,000 gallons. I hope my hon. friends in that connection are not so much concerned about the transport drivers. They can carry wheat and other produce, but certainly not cream. We see how the road motor services throughout the Union contribute to its development. Then much has been said about economy, about the increase in the expenditure. It is interesting to examine the conclusion to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), who has no confidence, has come. We all want further economy, that is we should like to see the capital invested in the railways showing a profit in the interests of the public. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) talked very generally about economy, without indicating where it was necessary. I just want to mention a few possible alterations. From the Auditor-General’s report we see that a special amount for special cost of living in Durban is paid, namely, £18,400, to salaried officials, and about £34,500 to other officials. The special allowance is not paid to civilized labourers, but to the salaried officials. My question, however, is why the Government pay £53,000 a year specially to Durban. Durban is a harbour, without transport tariffs, therefore the capital of a province where foodstuffs are produced, and it is a manufacturing town. We can come to no other conclusion, but that the cost of living is artificially raised, and I think the Railway Administration should institute an enquiry. Kimberley, which surely ought to be considered for especial allowance in view of its situation, has the lowest cost of living in the Union. Why? The answer to that gives the reason why the cost of living is so high in Durban. Then there is the dry dock in Table Bay, the expenses of which amounted last year to £19,000. The interest was £8,600 and the earnings were only £6,700. Not even the interest on the capital was covered. The expenditure on the tidal dock in Durban was £88,700 last year, and the interest on the capital £64,000 and the running costs £23,700, while the revenue was only £14,000. Then there are the urban railway lines which exist for the convenience of the town population, but which do not pay, like the Sea Point line, and the line at Pretoria. In conclusion, I want to refer to the large number of free passes. In mentioning the matter it is not because I realize that I shall never myself have a free pass, and, therefore, grudge it to other people, but a large number of passes, life passes, are granted to people who are no longer in the public service. They are practically pensions to the persons, who can use them as they wish. If pensions are to be given to all the ex-Ministers let a proposal to that effect be brought before the House. We can then deal with it. We have no less than 57 free life passes at present, and what the value of them is to the State I cannot say. The free passes issued are to a great extent for officials in the public service, and if such a concession must be granted to those officers it ought to come out of the consolidated revenue fund, and not out of railways. If grants are made to public servants they ought to come out of the Treasury. Why should the railways be saddled with the expense? This also prevents a reduction in rates and extension of privileges to railway officials. Last year attention was drawn to irregularities in connection with free passes. We have to do with a deficit, and my grievance is that in such a case the Railway Administration is saddled with grants and privileges given to public servants not in the Railway Department.

Then we shall also have to tax the railways.

We ought to be fair towards the railways in regard to grants to public servants, etc. I want to make another remark with reference to the railways capital. It is no new thought, and I will not take any credit for it. Millions and millions are invested from year to year in the railways, so that the amount at present is £148,657,531. That is a considerable amount. Fortunately a large part of it does not bear interest to-day, that is the capital invested in the railways was obtained from revenue, but the interest-bearing capital amounts to £126,000,401. If we want to go into the increasing burden placed on the State undertaking then we must inquire into the increase of the interest which has to be paid. I do not wish to bore the House with the figures for every year, but will just take groups of five years. In 1911 the amount of interest was £2,427,000, in 1916 it was just over £3,000,000, in 1921 it was £3,864,000, and in 1926, £4,758,000, in 1927, £4,770,000, and in the present budget the Minister expects the interest to run into £5,500,000. When we notice the big increase then we must really ask ourselves if other steps ought not to be taken. We must also bear in mind that the rate of interest has increased. When the capital and interest increase the question arises what can be done to protect the capital invested to make it retain its value. £250,000 is contributed annually to the renewal fund, and a further amount of £1,500,000. We also pay at present £250,000 for redemption of the interest-bearing capital. However favourable all this is, we must not forget that this Government has only taken the duty upon itself to do it, but it is not compelled to do so by law. The amounts which are contributed are in the first two cases intended to keep up the value of the invested capital, to maintain the assets in good order. Even if a railway line is in good order that does not say much for the actual value. The Sea Point line is in excellent condition, but its value to the State has so depreciated that it makes a loss of almost £50,000 a year. We must therefore look at the value of the assets from a different attitude. I have tried to find out what system is followed in other countries, and I find the same difficulty applies in England. So it appears from quotations from English railway books. The principle of valuing the value of an asset according to its condition was possibly sound in the past, in connection with railways, but that is not so to-day. I have also tried to obtain information about America, but unfortunately I could only get a few general judgments. We are living in a period of revolutionary development, and we must make different provision from what has already been done. The State is now experiencing the competition of motor services. From year to year the State had to reduce the rates; notwithstanding the increase in the number of passengers the revenue has not increased. Accidentally the revenue from other sources increased, but the main sources of revenue have not risen owing to the competition. The competition is killing, and the assets are losing their old value to the State. One of two things must be done, protect the assets against competition, or allow the capital to be partially written down so that we may be satisfied with a smaller turnover. I suggest that this point should be carefully considered, whether the capital invested in assets should not be reduced. The amount of £250,000 per annum is not adequate, and it is not even an amount laid down by law. We know that if certain amounts had not been spent by the Minister, amounts which he was not obliged to spend, he would have had a surplus. The Minister’s shortage is a nominal one, not an actual deficit. If he had not put aside the amount for the redemption of interest-bearing capital and made certain other payments he would have had a surplus of £250,000. The Minister has however done his duty to the railways, and to the capital invested in them. He shows the public its duty towards the railways and we are thankful to him for it. There are still a few points which I have in mind but I will abandon them. I just want to express my thanks that the railway administration has not allowed itself to be frightened by the agitation to buy its railway material in one market only, but that it has gone on the sound principle which was instituted by the previous Government of buying the proper article in the best market. I see from the Railway Bulletin that in one case 30 per cent. was saved. I am glad that this policy is being followed, in spite of what has been said in and out of the House. I thank the House for the long time I have been allowed to speak although personally I cannot be thankful for the attention I have received.

I am sure that the House is very much indebted to the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) for his minute examination of railway finance and railway policy, and that the countryside will be very much gratified when they read the report of his speech. Personally, I do not want to attempt to follow him into such high finance, and, first of all, would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his Budget, and apart from the fact that he has fallen on prosperous times, I think the country will agree that he has administered the finances in a very sound manner, in spite of his notorious under-estimates. Personally, I would like to see a bigger effort made to reduce the cost of living. There is no doubt that the cost of living is far too high, and before we can get any real prosperity and advancement in South Africa, we must reduce that cost. At the present time, it is not felt so much in the towns, where wages are fairly high, but in the rural areas there are many people who are living in a most precarious condition and unable to afford the ordinary necessities of life. Whilst I agree that industries must be helped and encouraged in every way, we must not go protection mad and make the consumers’ part of the financial burden out of all proportion to their incomes. It would almost seem that for the present we are not taking the countryside into consideration when we consider our industrial policy and this, to my mind, accounts for the deplorable steady drift from the countryside to the towns which will have a very serious effect on the future of South Africa. I wish to refer to a speech made on the Budget last evening, and I am sorry the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) is not here, although I warned him I had some nice things to say about him, because I want to congratulate him on his speech, and although many of his facts and figures and deductions are entirely wrong, the tone of his speech was excellent and made us realize that responsibilities had tamed his ways from those of a roaring lion to those of a cooing dove. I must compliment him also on being man enough to deny that slander, so often repeated from these benches, in regard to the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he was Minister of Railways. The statement that is so often made is that when he was Minister he deliberately dismissed Europeans from the railway service to make room for natives. The hon. member for Vrededorp proved by his statistics that that was not true and I admire him for the stand he has made. I want to also congratulate the hon. member on the suggestions he has put forward for the consideration of the Government. After all, it is a very easy matter to criticise, but to put something constructive forward is quite a different matter, and I am sure the hon. member must have devoted a good deal of deep study and hard thinking to the views he has advanced. I do not intend to say anything about the policy he has laid down as that which should be followed by the Chamber of Mines in regard to mining in South Africa—it was very effectively dealt with by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—nor do I wish to criticise the irrigation proposals he has put forward. There are many keen irrigationists who will deal very effectively with those proposals, but I would like to say a word about his proposal to eliminate discontent in the railway service. I was glad the hon. member supported the view that I advanced a few weeks ago that there was a good deal of discontent in the clerical division of the railways, and I must say his remedy is a bold one—in fact a brain wave of a statement—complete satisfaction without a single penny additional expenditure. I would like to examine this proposal, but I want first to quote the “Cape Times” of this morning. The report says—

When that scheme has been carried through, I can see every clerk in the new grade arriving at the office ten minutes before time, dusting his desk and putting his papers in order, so that he can start work on the stroke of time. I can imagine the clerk’s good wife telling the story to her neighbour next day: “My dear, such a wonderful thing has happened! The Railway Department, acting on the advice of that splendid man, the hon. member for Vrededorp, who is chairman of the Select Committee on Railways, has promoted my husband, and he is now in grade 2A. True, it does not mean more salary, and we shall not be able to buy Mary the dress she wants nor the boots that Tommy needs so badly nor the pram for baby, but look at the honour !” I can also imagine the action of the general secretary of the Salstaff Association issuing instructions to every branch secretary to hold extraordinary general meetings to publicly thank the hon. member for his splendid services. I now wish to say a few serious words about our railways, and I must emphasise the regret which has been expressed at the absence of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. No doubt he has good and sufficient reasons for his departure to Portugal, but I think the action of any head of a huge department like our railways and harbours in leaving the country immediately after making his budget proposals cannot be too strongly condemned; to my mind it is showing very scant courtesy to Parliament and to the country, and is certainly not carrying out his avowed policy of “South Africa first.” I believe the hon. Minister must have been compelled by circumstances over which he has no control, to undertake this trip, but at the same time his absence at this juncture is making a farce of Parliament and cannot be justified except in extraordinary conditions and circumstances. With regard to the harbours, it is very pleasing to know that it is expected, after taking into account working expenses, interest and depreciation, that the harbours of the Union will show a profit of £229,757. I was very pleased this afternoon when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) mentioned certain interesting figures, and I want to emphasize them. I want to give the figures in detail of the four principal harbours, and it will be seen that Table Bay will give us a revenue of £366,140, the working expenditure and interest is £263,808, leaving a profit, without taking into account depreciation, of £103,332. The figures for Port Natal are, respectively: Revenue £656,200, expenses £525,498, profit £130,702; Buffalo harbour, £173,400 revenue, expenses £162,266, profit £11,134 (which, unfortunately, will not be enough profit to pay for depreciation); Algoa Bay, £311,300 revenue, £146,992 expenses, £164,380 profit. It will thus be seen that Algoa Bay in 1928-’29 will be the premier revenue-producing port in the Union. I want my Cape Town and Natal friends to back me up in this. Cape Town and East London combined will not give as much as algoa Bay. Port Natal and East London combined will not give as much as Algoa Bay. Port Natal, Cape Town and East London combined will produce only £80,000 more than the port of Algoa Bay. These figures, I am sure, must have been unknown to the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he gave such scant consideration to the deputation from the Midlands, when they recently interviewed him with regard to harbour improvements at Algoa Bay. There is no doubt that Port Elizabeth will become not only one of our biggest industrial centres, but also one of our biggest fruit export ports, and its claim for modern harbour improvements cannot be any longer ignored by this or any other Government. Another matter the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has brought up, and in which I heartily support him, is the question of regrading Bellvue bank, which is little more than a bottle neck. When the present general manager was divisional superintendent at Port Elizabeth, he was a consistent advocate of having this bank removed, and I hope, now that he is in the seat of the mighty, he will have this done. I wish to say a few words with regard to the motor lorry competition, and I want to warn the acting Minister that his colleague is entirely wrong when he says that motor lorries will take only high-rated traffic. In many parts they are taking any traffic, and are successfully competing with the railways; there is only one way in which the railways can beat the motor lorries, and that is by speeding up, working efficiently and delivering their goods promptly. I will read a quotation from the “Eastern Province Herald” of March the 14th—

There you have a reason for the competition. If the railways had carried on their business as they ought to have done, we would not have that competition. In fairness to the department, I will give the Administration’s reply, which is—

That is a complete answer, and will no doubt soon eliminate the motor lorry, but it is a great pity that business methods were not introduced before, and not after, the competition. I must say that the system manager of Port Elizabeth is doing his utmost to meet this competition, and as far as goods are concerned, the users of the railway have little to complain of. This happy state of affairs has been brought about by competition, but I want the Acting Minister to warn his department that prevention is better than cure, and that they must improve their service everywhere, whether there is competition or not. I would like to show how business is sometimes conducted on the railways, and I will give a concrete case. Some years ago a very fine system of the collection and delivery or passengers’ luggage was instituted here at Cape Town; whilst on the train, passengers were asked if they had any luggage for delivery. Everybody felt that it was a boon and a blessing, but on the last four occasions I have visited Cape Town not a single word has been said by any official in regard to the collection of luggage, although I believe the system is still in force. I see that the Railway Department recently announced, with a flourish of trumpets, that it is going to introduce the same system at Durban, but if it is not carried on better than it is in Cape Town, it will not be a boon to railway passengers. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at the department in regard to dirty coaches, and there is no doubt that a radical change is urgently needed. These are not isolated cases, and it is no use attempting to blame individuals, as the Minister of Railways wished us to do. Until the present system is altered, there can be no improvement. There was a letter in the “Cape Times” of this morning on this subject, in which the writer said that “on certain branch lines it was dangerous to wear decent clothes because of the grime and dirt, while the lavatories were waterless and filthy.” Coaches are sent to the workshops for repair, and they are turned out beautifully finished, and thoroughly clean, but nothing is done to them until they go back to the workshops for further repairs, unless they are wanted for American tourists. Recently some new coaches were wanted for these visitors. The coaches had been thoroughly burnished and polished on three occasions, but a special officer was sent to see them cleansed yet again, whereupon the man in charge said, “If you want them scrubbed again you can do it yourself.” Strangers can get the very best accommodation on the railways, but South Africans have to put up with third-rate treatment.

That is South Africa first.

Arrangements should be made for cleaning and disinfecting the coaches, especially the partitions and under the seats. Lately I travelled in a saloon which was in a disgraceful condition. Half the time no water was available, and half the lavatories were out of order. Many of the doors and windows were out of adjustment, and, although attention had been drawn to some of these defects at the depot, the coach was put into traffic. No individual is to blame, for at holiday time the department is notoriously short of rolling stock.

Why?

Because the Minister will not give our workshops orders for new coaches. The result is that coaches must be used whether they are up to standard or not. Some of our rolling stock is in a deplorable condition. A lot of it is out of date, and recently on a suburban line I travelled in a coach which had not been re-trimmed for over thirty years. The latest issue of the “Railways and Harbours Magazine” contains a photograph of a coach which has been in service on the midland division since 1891, and is still running between Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth. I suggest to the acting Minister that an enlarged view of the coach should be placed in the Railway Board’s offices with the inscription: “Built by the Metropolitan Wagon & Coachbuilding Co., Birmingham, England. This is an example of the value of buying British.”

Why not use it as a Minister’s coach?

The way we cater for the non-European passenger is a disgrace, and the sooner we realize that he pays the same fare and is entitled to the same treatment as a European passenger, the better. Many thousands of pounds are wasted annually owing to the way in which our rolling stock is handled, and I hope the new management will see that at big centres accommodation is provided to enable passenger vehicles to be thoroughly washed and cleaned, and to prevent them being exposed to all weathers when not in use. There is no doubt the time has arrived when we should standardize all our types of rolling stock. In the past we have had innumerable types and styles. This is a great mistake. Formerly, upholstery was as plain as possible, but recently buttoned seats have been introduced, which means more work, more material and more receptacles for dirt and dust. If standardization were carried out, it would mean economy in every way, as well as expediting repairs and facilitating the maintenance of the coaching stock. The Minister of Railways is very fond of quoting Henry Ford, and I would remind him that Ford’s prosperity is due to standardization. I would also draw his attention to Mr. Ford’s opinion of British engines. He travelled a long distance on a British engine which had been sent to give a demonstration in the United States, and at the conclusion of the trip he said to the driver: “This is as nearly perfect as it can be. We have nothing to touch it in America.” I should like to say a few words about our workshops and the policy of the Government in regard to this branch of the service, but, unfortunately, there is no information before the House. To my mind it is absolutely essential that at this juncture we should be in possession of all the facts and figures as to the future policy of the railways. The only statement we have had is the statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure in a most condensed and abbreviated form, from which it is impossible to form any idea of the future development of the workshops. Later we will be given a brown book which will give us some of the particulars we need, but I maintain that this information should be at the disposal of the members at present to enable us to do justice to the policy of the Government. In the past railway financial matters have not been subject to that strict parliamentary control which is so desirable, and I am sure my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, will agree with me. It surprises me, as a newcomer to Parliament, that steps have not been taken to alter this long ago. It is apparent that certain branches of the railway service are getting top heavy, and when we see that in spite of the increased charges the catering department shows a deficit, we must realize that the workers in that department are carrying too many drones to make it pay. I understand there are about 40 dining cars in use, and I see from the estimates that provision is being made for ten dining car inspectors at an annual cost of over £4,000. I also see that supervision generally in that department amounts to over £55,000 per annum, which is more than one third of the total working costs of the department. There is no doubt that the catering wants re-organizing in every way. Some of the crockery used is a disgrace and a positive danger to health. I have seen cups which were perfect germ carriers deliberately smashed in the tea room of this House by certain members. My friend says “shame.” I only wish he had had to drink out of the cup, and perhaps he would have done likewise. Those in charge of cars and refreshment rooms make valiant attempts to keep a high standard, but they seem to be handicapped by a system over which they have no control, and I think some profit-sharing or bonus scheme would work wonders in the direction of bigger profits in the catering department. The stores department is another branch which needs attention, and the placing of this important part of the railways under the assistant general manager at Johannesburg is, I think, a step in the right direction, and will bring about much needed reforms. We have railway storekeepers in charge of large depots carrying enormous stocks, men who are thoroughly competent in every way, but whose services have not been fully realized or utilized owing to the past system—and who have never received salaries which their responsibility and abilities justify. With regard to European labourers, I am glad the hon. the Minister has seen fit to increase the pay, and I certainly must congratulate the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) on the results of his special pleading. Threepence a day after three years’ service, with a further threepence a day after another year’s service! Truly a magnificent sum! I do hope those who get this magnificent rise will not spend it in riotous living. But, after all, they have something to look forward to in this budget—20 per cent. reduction in income tax and their wives will be able to buy cheaper silk stockings, not boots or clothes, because the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) says the poor man does not want cheap boots.

He wants work.

With reference to the mechanical department, I am pleased to see that provision is being made for 766 more artizans, apprentices and labourers, and it is evident that in spite of the Minister’s denial my contention of a few weeks ago that the mechanical workshops were understaffed, was correct. If justice is to be done to our ever-increasing repairs, and a serious attempt is to be made to build, most of our coaching stock in South Africa, a very much larger increase must be made. We must also remember that capital must be provided and spent. That has been the bugbear in the past—railway capital has been provided, but not spent. Capital for extension and alteration of our workshops, installation of modern machinery and improved methods of handling must be introduced before we can expect to be able to deal expeditiously and economically with the work now forthcoming and which will increase year by year.

It is always interesting to hear what the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) has to say about railway matters, but it is very clear that his present criticism does not particularly concern the present Minister of Railways or the Government, because it is criticism which he could also make on the railway management by his own party, that is with one or two exceptions perhaps, but most of the objections apply just as well to the previous Government. I agree with many of the things he said, but I think every one listening to this debate on the budget, both in regard to the finances as well as the railways, will have to see that there is very little life in the debate, and that the Opposition, whose duty it is to guard against wrong administration or policy, have very little to say, and take so little interest that at one time this afternoon only one member of the Opposition was present, and that was the hon. member for Uitenhage, who was waiting to make his speech. When the Opposition discuss the mistakes they are very vague in all they say. One wonders why they talk.

To the gallery.

Yes, it always looks like it. Take, for instance, the hon. member for Uitenhage. He commenced with the protection policy, and said that this Government was protection mad, but he did not give a single proof to support his statement. What use is it for the Opposition to say: “We are also in favour of protection, but you are protection mad,” and to give no proof at all? The first two speeches made this afternoon I did not expect in a budget debate. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) only talked about Durban. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) pleaded for Algoa Bay, and the hon. member for Uitenhage also for Algoa Bay. I do not blame them for looking after the interests of their districts, but I say it is a very clear proof of their poor criticism. When we discuss the Government’s policy they bring up questions of purely local interest. As for the criticism of the budget they are quite bankrupt this year. Before I go further I want to deal with a few points mentioned by the hon. member for Uitenhage. He spoke, e.g., about the dissatisfaction of the railway staff. Can he tell me a time when there was no dissatisfaction? Was there never dissatisfaction during the administration of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), or his predecessor, Mr. Burton? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will not say there is greater dissatisfaction to-day than during the time he was Minister of Railways. I will not deny that there is a little dissatisfaction, but to say that dissatisfaction only exists under the present Government is quite unfair. The hon. member spoke about the bad state of the rolling stock, and I agree with him, but he will admit that the rolling stock has not been neglected only during recent years. It is a generally known fact that under the administration of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) it was much neglected. While agreeing that it ought to be repaired, the hon. member cannot now come and say that we are the cause of the neglect. He has spoken here of raising the salaries of the white railwaymen. We all admit that they get a very small wage, and also that the increases are insignificant, but these people are persons who have long wandered about unemployed, and the great thing is that at least they have work, and they are very grateful for it. There are many others who would like to work even if the work and the pay are not ideal. It is a great relief to these people. I think it is especially important for the young people. I feel sorry for the older men who work there and have few prospects, but even if they get a small wage they are still thankful for having work. But I think this work is of importance to our young people. They get a chance of advancement, as has occurred in recent years, when 60 per cent. of the white labourers were promoted. This does not only give a chance to our young fellows of getting on, but the lads learn to work with their own hands. They include boys who have matriculated, and possibly they have first felt hurt at having to do that kind of work, but it is very good for them, and when once they have done it for a few years and occupied higher positions, then they will know what that work means. It is no disgrace to them to do it. Boys are working there now in the lowest jobs on the railways, who have come from well-to-do families who possibly formerly thought that they could not do that rough work. There were certain classes of our people who thought themselves too good for that work, but it is a good thing that they had to it, because it will make all the better citizens of them. It is said that when a gang of 20 white men is collected to do the work they work well, only no coloured labourers must be put amongst them. They will do their work well, but put a native amongst them and everyone of them says: “Let the native do the work.” I learn that it is the policy of the Administration that where white men are working only white men shall be allowed, and to keep natives and coloured persons separate, and I think that is a policy which we must support, because we all want to prevent the white people continuing to look down on manual labour as kaffir’s work. It is rooted into our life to give a native that work to do. I hope this policy will drive that idea out of the heads of the young people. I now want to say a few things about the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). In the first place, I want to point out his vague criticism. He said that there were faults in the control of the railways. It is very easy to say there are faults. I am sure the Railway Administration will be only too pleased to be informed where the faults are. The Administration will welcome any hint, but when it is said that there are faults, and no instances are given, then it is of no use, and it only vilifies our railways. We regret, therefore, that when there is criticism not a single concrete instance is mentioned. Personally, I must say that where I have sometimes criticised our railways, I am always pleased to hear fair criticism from the opposite side when there is something wrong, but we shall get no further with vague charges. Let me for a moment speak about the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) in connection with the general finances, before I go further into railway matters. He expressed an opinion with regard to unemployment which surprised me. He said that when his party was in office the unemployed never applied in vain to the Government. I do not know if he remembers how demonstrations took place outside the House, or whether he remembers how the unemployed fastened themselves by chains in the gallery to draw attention to their desperate condition, and how the House adjourned for 20 minutes to get a tradesman to remove the chains. There is always unemployment, and I do not say that this Government has completely solved the question, but to say that the unemployed never applied in vain to the previous Government is ridiculous, and I think the hon. member knows much better. Then he made an attack on the bad estimates of the Minister of Finance. It is said that the Minister of Finance made a very poor estimate. They will also say that the Minister estimated badly if he underestimated. The Minister is not superhuman to estimate exactly what will be spent during the year, but as already said by another member, the Opposition last year when the Minister introduced his estimate, said that the Minister was too optimistic, and now that he has a surplus they say he estimated badly. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also said a few things which were pleasant to us here. He congratulated the Minister on the surplus and the way he was dealing with it. A year ago the cry opposite was: Why does the Minister not use the balance for reducing taxation? The Minister then said that he wanted to pay off part of our debt. Now he says that he wants to pay off a part of our debt and is going to reduce taxation. But they are again dissatisfied. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said, outside the House, that the reduction of taxation was rather a cause for weeping than for rejoicing, because the money ought to have been used for paying off debts. The Minister has already done both, paid off debts and reduced taxation with the surplus, and I think hon. members opposite will always be dissatisfied. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also said we were going a little too fast with our grain elevators and electrification. That also is a thing which he should lay to the charge of the former, and not the present, Government, who did not introduce them. I agree with him that that electrification was premature and unnecessary for the moment, but it is a little late to-day to come and criticise. It is all only a proof how meagre the criticism of the Opposition is. I am sorry the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) said here that the Public Accounts Committee was fast coming under party political influence. I should like to remind him of what happened years ago under the former Government. On the proposal of the committee a commission was to be appointed to enquire into the general financial position. The Public Accounts Committee felt very strongly, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) himself thought that no member of Parliament ought to be a member of that commission. During the recess Mr. Burton did not deem it right to appoint members of the public and he then asked members of Parliament. The members of the Opposition abided by the arrangement and refused to become members of the commission, but what did the other side do? For party reasons they accepted office on the commission and, therefore, did not abide by the arrangement. I do not say that it is not right for members of select committees to drag party politics into the committees, but if hon. members opposite commence throwing stones then we shall also do so from here. I can assure hon. members that this side is not trying to drag in any party politics. Sometimes it cannot be helped, because there are cases where we take up a certain attitude on the committee because we belong to a party, and we vote according to its principles. It is very weak to state on that account that we are introducing party politics into the committee. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) made a very cheap criticism. He said that it is a shame the Minister of Railways is not here. I will only say that I feel sorry that that expression was used. He says that that is not the way to introduce into practice “South Africa first.” I think we all know why the Minister has left. In the opinion of the Government he was the best suited to the mission. He is not going to watch the interests of Portugal or any other country, but those of South Africa. Now I want to mention a few points of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbur) in connection with the railways. The first was the Electricity Commission. He said that the Auditor-General ought to control the books and financial statements of the Electricity Commission. Well, we always felt that the Electricity Commission stood outside Government institutions. I fear that if the Auditor-General also supervised the Electricity Commission we should be getting something like socialism. Superficially viewed we might say that there was something good in it, but I want to quote in this connection a question which Dr. van der Byl, the chairman of the commission, said about it. [Quotation read.] He therefore said that he did not agree that the books of the iron industries should be examined by the Auditor-General, because possibly information might be made public with reference to the business which ought not to be made public, and For the same reason he was very much opposed to the books of the Electricity Commission being examined by the Auditor-General and his report on them being published.

At the adjournment I was quoting what Dr. van der Merwe said in connection with the proposal to have the books of the Electricity Commission audited by the Auditor-General. We know that the previous Government considered the question, but did not give effect to it at the time. I now come to another point, namely, civilized labour on the railways. We often hear here, again to-day from the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) that we libel the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in saying that he discharged Europeans and appointed natives in their place. Perhaps the position is not exactly that he dismissed a white man and put a native in his place, but I want to point out that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) commenced his retrenchment policy at once and discharged a large number of white men. The object was economy. When the railways later on again saw better days, and when new employees were required, he did not appoint white men, but natives. And natives were appointed in the places of white labourers who died or left the service. It amounts eventually to the same thing. Let me give a few figures. In 1922 there were 38,409 Europeans in the railway service, and in 1924, 39,892. Non-Europeans in 1922 amounted to 37,731, and in 1924, 47,725. While in two years 1,400 Europeans were employed, the non-Europeans were increased by 10,000. Are we then not able to say that his policy had the effect of putting natives into the places of the Europeans? The protests from the other side amount to nothing.

Are you including the coloured persons with the natives?

Yes. We who live in the interior know very well how large the percentage of natives was. Then the statistics of the branch lines were referred to. In this respect the old proverb also applies: “Much ado about nothing.” The hon. members want to make out that those statistics are something remarkable without which the railway could not be carried on. The data are to be obtained in the office of the Administration, and if at any moment the management wants to know the result of one or other of the branch lines they can be easily turned up. According to the figures of the highest railway official and the general manager of railways, it costs £12,000 annually to co-ordinate and arrange the figures. We are saving that expense. Hon. members opposite doubted whether it cost so much, but they did not say why they doubted it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) also spoke about road motor services, and argued that no service should be instituted unless this House approved of it, as in the case of a railway. I fear that if that is passed the extension of the services will be much handicapped and will be practically impossible. It is difficult as it is to-day. I just happened to receive a letter to-day from the railway management in connection with certain road motor services which were to have been instituted in the Free State. It was decided in the case of a large creamery that one of the road motor services would carry the cream to the creamery. Without that business it could not be established. Owing to lack of lorries the service could not be instituted immediately. When subsequently it was possible to do so, the creamery was no longer prepared to abide by the agreement, because they had in the meantime made their own arrangements. If we have to submit such services to the approval of Parliament, and in many cases often have to wait a year, the establishment of the services is made practically impossible. The Railway Department often has to act immediately to get the business. I just want to suggest something else, namely, that the Government should advertise the services better among the farmers. When a service is established between two places let them send printed books or pamphlets to all the farms in the neighbourhood, setting out when the. ’bus passes, and what the rates are for the various articles. It is a new thing in our country and a little advertising will do much good. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) complained about the terrible state of the railway finances. He again failed to give facts. He did not prove, and did not try to prove his statement. Anyone reading the speech in the papers may however possibly be inclined to believe it. Why do hon. members not produce facts. I want to ask them to prove it. In what respects are the railway finances in a bad state? Has our debt risen so high, or have we had large deficits? The small deficits of recent years were covered from funds which this Minister provided out of surpluses. Or has money been wasted as in the case of the Durban grain elevator, or the electrification? Hon. members opposite did not give one instance of the wasting of money. If the previous Government did not waste that money, the Minister would have had no deficit to-day. The Minister has put the railway finances, which he took over in a deplorable state, on a sound basis. It is sometimes the renewal fund or the betterment funds which the hon. member objects to? Those funds are not in a bad state, therefore he cannot mean that. Has the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), or any other member tried to support their statement by the report of the Auditor-General. We all know how closely the Auditor-General watches everything, and there are even members among us who think he goes too far with his criticism. Where is there a case of his saying that the financial policy is wrong? There is not a single point which confirms the statement of the deplorable state of the finances. It is all imaginary. I regret the remark of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), who possibly hopes to be Minister of Railways some day, when he accuses the Minister, without mentioning facts. It is not right towards the country and the Administration, and I think it is very unfair. He further says that the Minister is withholding important information from the public. He only mentioned the information about branch lines. I do not want to go into that, but I just want to point out to the hon. member that if he wants to know how much was lost on his beloved Sea Point line then he can at any time find it out. I want first of all to congratulate the Railway Administration on the new system of management. Those who take an interest in this Administration have long felt that the existing system of general manager and assistant general manager did not work as well as it should. It is late in coming, but the country welcomes the introduction of the system because it will be much more effective, and give the officials much more opportunity of giving their best services and getting matters under their personal attention. I am, however, particularly pleased at the new tendency in the Railway Department of putting more confidence in the men educated in our own country. I think that in the hands of Mr. More, as general manager, and Mr. Watermeyer, as head of the engineering department, the Department is safe. We have had bitter experience in the past in not following the advice of our people, but it is gratifying to see that an improvement is being made in this direction. The highest officers in the service assure us that we can rely on our own South African engineers. Now I want to touch on a point which was also proclaimed by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) in the words: “Buy British goods.” Every time that orders for the railways are placed outside Great Britain, attacks on the Government are made, and hon. members opposite are continually carping on it. First they say that the railways must be run on business principles. Is it good business to buy railway material in Great Britain just because it is Great Britain, and to pay 30 per cent. more than in other countries? They themselves did not like doing so. I want to quote to them: “Practice what you preach.” It has already been mentioned here how even the Town Council of Durban has placed orders in Germany, and even the City of London ordered material in Germany because it thought that at that time they could get it more cheaply there. On a former occasion I quoted Sir Ernest Harvey, Governor of the Bank of England, who said that the orders of South Africa and other dominions in Germany would cause the English manufacturers to put their house in order. If that happens, and we can buy reasonably in Great Britain, we shall certainly do so, but it is not business to pay 30 per cent. more on an article owing to sentiment. I recently quoted what Mr. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, said. I could not then give the full figures, but I now have them at my disposal. He said in connection with the whole position that the great problem of England could be stated in three words: “Men, money and markets.” Mr. Bruce thought that for England almost the whole problem was markets. He pointed out how in the world trade Great Britain had not got the share it ought to have. From the figures he quoted hon. members will see that the English manufacturers have not got their house in order, and they are losing a large part of the trade. Just take the increase of the export of manufactured goods from the various countries from 1923 to 1925. 1923 is taken as the year when the worst results of the war commenced to disappear a little, and a time of slight prosperity began to dawn. In 1923 to 1925 the exports of Germany increased by 20 per cent., Holland by 24 per cent., Belgium by 30 per cent., France 22 per cent., the United States 60 per cent., and Czecho slovakia by 71 per cent., while those of Great Britain only increased by 6.3 per cent. Now take the trade inside the British Empire. For purposes of comparison we shall take America. I want to make a comparison between the trade of America with the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, and the trade of Great Britain with such dominions. In 1913 the exports from America to the dominions were £112,000,000, and in 1925 £233,000,000, in 1913 the exports from Great Britain to the dominions was £209,000,000 and in 1925 £310,000,000. In the twelve years the exports of America to the dominions increased by 108 per cent., and those of Great Britain by 48 per cent. America, to mention only one country, progressed much faster than Great Britain with its own dominions. Why? I shall quote a few figures which possibly give the reason. The exports from the four dominions and India to Great Britain show interesting figures. Take South Africa. In 1913 the exports to Great Britain were £58,000,000 and in 1925 they were £43,000,000, a drop therefore. The exports from South Africa to other countries in 1913 were £3,000,000 and in 1925 £15,000,000. South Africa is not the only country that is disloyal. The exports from, Canada to Great Britain were £44,000,000 in 1913, and £102,000,000 in 1925, to other countries they were £39,000,000 in 1913, and £144,000,000 in 1925. I then take the total figures of the exports from the four dominions and India. In 1913 they were £195,000,000 to Great Britain and in 1925, £318,000,000, but to-other countries they were £174,000,000 in 1913, and £426,000,000 in 1925. The increase in percentage in the exports from the dominions to Great Britain was 62 per cent. for the period while to other countries it increased by 145 per cent. All the other dominions show these unfavourable results regarding Great Britain. Why? If the prices in Great Britain are such that it can compete with other countries it will regain the trade. Nobody here is opposed to trade with Great Britain, but we cannot pay more merely of sentiment. Mr. Bruce instances the case of motors. He says that the English factories do not make motors that are suitable for Australia. They do not want that kind, and prefer to buy American motors. Hon. members opposite, therefore, who shout the loudest themselves give preference to American motors because it is better business. If the English factories can sell them cheaper, and if they can deliver cheaper railway material they will get the trade. As long as England does not attain to the standard of America there is not the slightest hope of her regaining the trade with the dominions. The figures of Mr. Bruce were not quoted to vilify England, but, on the contrary, to awaken the English manufacturers. He points out that their goods are not so suitable; the fuss from the opposite side therefore means nothing. Just one point in conclusion, namely, the increase of expenditure of which we hear so much in and out of the House. The Minister of Finance himself approves of the doctrine of not increasing the expenditure abnormally, but who is responsible for the increase? No, ourselves, we as members and the public generally. Everyone speaks of reduction, but the very first member to speak about it will go the next day to one of the Ministers for something or other, for a new railway, or a road motor service, or new telephone line, or buildings, or more police. This all means increase in expenditure. The electors urge them on the member who does not dare to resist. The only way to rectify matters is to educate the people to understand that all these extensions mean increase in expenditure. When the Minister refuses they are angry, and when he grants the request they immediately after go and complain about the increase in expenditure. We must look for the fault in ourselves, and explain the position to the electors. I congratulate the Minister on the budget, notwithstanding all the noise in a section of the press. I am sorry I cannot congratulate the Opposition on their criticism. Tile public, however, undoubtedly greatly appreciates the budget, and realizes that the finances are in good hands.

I think the hon. the Minister can congratulate himself on having become a first-class parliamentary prestidigitator. I do not think I have ever come across anyone who has a greater capacity for getting a number of white rabbits out of an apparently empty hat than he has. He would like us to believe that he suddenly found himself in possession of a surplus of something like 1¾ million sterling without taking it out of anyone’s pockets. One could almost imagine that he was wandering round his office on one occasion and suddenly discovering an item of 1¾ millions and he said: “Hello, this is very good and very useful. I think I will keep this for the 1st of April, and I will tell these fellows all about it.” Now a surplus of 1¾ millions can only be obtained by one of three processes—(1) rigid economy; (2) under-estimating—and we know that the Minister has always under-estimated his revenue. Whether deliberate or accidental is not for me to say.

It is good government.

If it is good government deliberately to under-estimate your expenditure—

It is not deliberate.

Well, we will take it as being accidental if the hon. member wants it that way. If it is good government to find yourself by accident in possession of 1¾ millions of money that you never dreamt you would be in possession of, that is evidence of incompetence. The hon. member who believes that this is good government can have it which way he likes. There is, however, another way by which this 1¾ million can have been collected and that is by over taxation. I will first take the process of economy. We all know there is not a member on the Pact benches who, for one moment, would accuse the Pact Government of being an economical Government. They are a spending Government and pride themselves on their spending. It is true they got into office by telling the public that the South African party were an extravagant lot of spendthrifts and had to be got rid of in order that these economists could take their places and save the country, but no sooner did they control the purse-strings of the country, than they began spending with a lavish hand. It is well for the country to know this and understand that they have increased the annual expenditure of this country in four years by no less than £4,000,000 per annum. This £4,000,000, the result of lavish expenditure, is a complete answer to any suggestion that this 1¾ million surplus has been brought about by economy. Now we come to the second method, that of under estimating. Partly, no doubt, this 1¾ millions is due to under estimation, and I am inclined to think that to a certain extent that under estimation, in view of the Minister’s record, has been more or less deliberate. But really where this 1¾ million has come from is over taxation of this country and out of the pockets of the people of Great Britain, because they have contributed a very large proportion of this 1¾ millions. That is where the money has come from, and the Minister admits he has been over taxing the people of this country, because he says: “Now I find myself in possession of this money, I am going to remit taxation.” The Minister would never for one moment dare to remit taxation or release the taxpayer from any contribution towards the exchequer if he did not know it was a safe thing to do. If it is a safe thing to do, then inference is that he has been over-taxing, and now a general election is coming on, he says: “Let us give them back a little of their own.” I think a very large number of people will be grateful to have that 20 per cent. rebate which he is going to give them, but, after all, it is only their own money they are getting back. I have had to complain very bitterly many times of the Government’s policy apropos trade with Great Britain. I think their policy of doing all they possibly can to break down the trade which is going on between this country and Great Britain is a disastrous one. To quarrel with the best customers we have in the world, people who are taking 50 per cent. of our raw materials, and to buy our goods from those who are making little or no purchases from us, is a stupid policy. I brush the sentimental question aside entirely, and say on the ground of self-interest it is a stupid policy. Here we are spending money to try and develop trade with foreign countries who buy nothing from us and who, if they make any use of us at all, are dumping their surpluses in this country. For what purpose are we doing this? Because we hope sooner or later to persuade these people to take something from us which to-day they are not wanting. What has been the result of this deliberate policy of the Government? They have reduced the import trade from Great Britain in their time by no less than 8 per cent. They have increased the import trade from foreign countries by no less than 25 per cent., and that has been very largely brought about by Government purchases in other countries, and almost entirely brought about by the expenditure of money in foreign countries which has been raised under preferential conditions in the British market. I say again it is a supremely stupid thing to do. I cannot see what advantage we are going to get from it. On the other hand, it is really, notwithstanding the eloquence that has fallen from the hon. member opposite, in his last speech, an ungracious and ungrateful policy for us to adopt. Take the figures which the Minister gave to me on Tuesday, which he read in this House and which have been reproduced, I believe, in the press of this country. Here he told us in the simplest language that Great Britain that stupid country which does not understand how to manage its own affairs, according to my young friend opposite, has presented the Union of South Africa free, gratis and for nothing no less than £85,000 worth of shipping, no less than £500,000 worth of railway material, no less than £1,000,000 worth of war department lands, no less than £994,743 worth of buildings, no less than £106,449 in lighting and water services, no less than £1,128,000 in departmental and other stores, which we have used for the development very largely of our defence force, and which has saved us a large amount of money, and also no less than £750,000 worth of aeroplanes.

Obsolete !

It is enough to make one burst into tears to hear an ungrateful remark like that. Just imagine that spirit when I am reading out here the gifts which have been given unconditionally—

£5,000,000 worth.

It amounts to over £5,000,000. The hon. member opposite may sneer, but his sneers do him no credit. The total comes to £5,314,192, a present to you for nothing, unconditional and to do what you like with. What do you do? You turn round on these people and say: “Let us destroy now their trade.” That is not a policy which is going to bring you credit, it is not a policy which is going to bring you success. In the meantime, instead of allowing this trade to follow its natural course, and dealing with those customers who wish to deal with us, we are spending all this money trying to build up a fictitious trade in other countries. We all know what a very interesting report we received from the trade commissioner on the Continent of Europe. Ever since the humorous writers seem to have lost their gift, whenever I am in want of a little amusement I pick up a South African trade commissioner’s report, and I find it full of intense humour. I do not think anything could have been more humorous than the one that was written by Mr. Charles Pienaar, late of Milan. But, if anybody wants to read something which is really pathetic, they should read the report of the trade commissioner in America, Mr. Eric Louw. What does he tell us? He tells us that he is doing his best to build up a South African trade in America with but very indifferent success. He is trying, he says, to persuade the Americans to take something from us, and he thinks that crayfish would be an excellent thing to sell in America. He thinks the thing out carefully for himself, and says that the Americans get no cocktails now, it is a dry country, and we produce an excellent crayfish in South Africa, and why should we not teach the Americans to take a tin of crayfish before dinner, as a cocktail, in stead of the ordinary one. So he writes to the Government and says: “.For goodness sake, send me some crayfish.” The Government goes round, I do not know in whose department it comes, out anyhow there must be some department responsible for the purchasing of crayfish. This department sends out and buys three tins of crayfish—no less—and sends these across to America. Now this is where the pathetic side and the tragedy comes in. When these three tins arrive in America two of them are so charged with carbonic acid gas that they are in a dangerous condition. They are dangerous to life and limb. They may have exploded at any moment. The trade commissioner explains this in his report. So he turns these two tins over to the inspector of explosives or the inspector of nuisances—I do not know which— and he is left with one tin only, which did not show any sign of being in a dangerous condition, and he is now travelling over America to try and persuade the Americans to adopt crayfish as a cocktail with this one tin. The trouble he finds himself up against is this—that he is afraid to open this tin of crayfish because it is the only tin he has got, and, not only that, but he does not know what condition it is in inside. In his report he explains that it is a most difficult thing to try and persuade the Americans to purchase crayfish merely on the label. That is the sort of thing that is going on, and we are spending thousands per annum to do it. That brings me naturally to the question of developing our trade with the countries that are really asking for it. We should deal and develop our trade with those countries who are anxious to trade with us. Moreover, it is more important than anything that, instead of forcing cocktail crayfish on to people who do not want it, we should send our goods which we are producing in surpluses to those countries that have a shortage. In England they are requiring beef and mutton. We have every summer a tremendous surplus of grass-fed beef and mutton which goes to waste every winter, and it is required in England as a necessity. England imports annually no less than £32,000,000 worth of beef. Of that amount, the Minister of Agriculture will be interested to hear, no less than £3,000 worth comes from South Africa. England imports no less than £90,000,000 worth of mutton, which South Africa is also capable of supplying to a certain extent, but it does not sell sixpenny worth. She imports in the way of poultry £1,000,000 worth per annum, of which we supply £4,000 worth. Poultry is one of the encouraging features of these figures. Now these are figures taken from the Imperial Economic Commission report, which commission was specially constituted to devise some scheme by which the requirements of England could be supplied by other dominions. We can undoubtedly supply a large proportion of these requirements.

Are you coming now to the Watkins Pitchford process?

My hon. friend opposite has mentioned Col. Watkins Pitchford, and I will deal with that at once. Here is the case of a scientific man who has been dealing with research work for the greater part of his life. His hits upon a process of meat conservation, and the experiments were entirely successful. I am not prepared to say how long the meat was kept, but I do know it was an exhaustive experiment and thoroughly successful. I believe the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) knows a good deal about it.

Hear, hear.

Having perfected this system, he first of all, being a South African, and one who had spent the greater part of his life in the country, said: “I will offer it to the South African Government first.” He did offer it, and the Government kept dilly dallying for months and months until at last his patience was exhausted, and then they finally decided they were prepared to consider the matter provided he would hand over the process in detail to their officers, who were his juniors by many years, and that if they reported favourably upon it then the Government would consider whether they would go further into the matter. That was not fair. All the Minister should have done was to have said: “I will lay down conditions as to a test, but you must prove that the process is as you say it is, and then I will go into the question of considering whether the Government can adopt it in the interests of the country.” But no such opportunity was given. The result is South Africa has lost one of the finest opportunities she is ever likely to have of getting into the English market with meat which is not chilled or frozen, but can be sold as fresh meat under this new process.

What became of the patent?

It has gone out of the country. It is not a fair thing to a man who has spent a lifetime in research work, and has arrived at a successful discovery, to demand before you will consider it that he shall hand over his secret to you for test purposes.

Do you know it was successful?

I understand it was thoroughly successful. I understand there is no question whatever about that, but whether it was or was not successful it was up to the Minister, if this man is a man of repute whose Work and position and status are such as to entitle him to consideration, to have given him a fair chance. The Minister should pay particular attention to this. When you have scientists doing research work on their own, or professional men, whether medical men or veterinary officers, or what not, and these men are successful in their work, you should not attempt to extract from them the details of their success in order to take possession of it for the Government without reasonable compensation. We have had illustrations of this in connection with the Onderstepoort laboratories. It is difficult to say what this costs the country. The figures are wrapped up and mixed up with other items, but I should imagine it is costing something from £50,000 to £100,000 a year. Now I am going to give this institution all the credit they are entitled to, but I am going to show them how they can get a good deal more credit if they will only adopt a different line of action. These men outside the service who are doing good work should have recognition of their work. Don’t try and rob them of their discoveries simply because they do not happen to be servants of the Government. I am a sheep farmer, and last year I lost 40 per cent. of my sheep in one flock through blue tongue. Onderstepoort have supplied a remedy at a price which is practically negligible. Anyone can afford to use it, and had I used it I would have reduced my losses to 1 per cent. Then there is a preventive inoculation against horse sickness in mules, which is successful as regards mules, but the losses of horses are still very heavy. I have no doubt it will be brought to a successful issue, but at present it is not a success with horses. As regards gall sickness and red water inoculation, that is not really successful. This gall sickness innoculation is a very doubtful matter. In a large number of cases you get no reaction at all, and in other cases you get reaction, but when the animal is removed to a different district and is under different conditions, it may die and frequently does. But people are asking for this inoculation, and the Government is supplying it, but they can give no guarantee with it. In time, no doubt, they will produce a vaccine which will be successful, but they can not claim it as successful today. Now we have a veterinary surgeon of very high standing who has produced a 95 per cent. cure for gall sickness. I have been importing animals from England for nearly 40 years, and until this discovery came along I expected to lose half my animals within a few years of their arrival, but to-day I have not the slightest doubt that with this treatment the animal is as safe as in a stable in the old country. This treatment has spread to Zulu-land, Basutoland, Rhodesia and the Congo. The principal veterinary surgeon of Basutoland, whom the Minister employs as one of the principal examiners uses it. It is used by every leading farmer, and everyone whose animals are troubled with gall sickness and does not use Harber’s is a fool—there is no other word for it. The Government cannot find out what is in it—it has proved itself to be impossible to analyse. It is an anti-toxin; it does not induce the disease like the Government vaccine, but cures it. The Government have under their regulations a rule that no one may manufacture and sell any toxin or any form of vaccine used for disease without disclosing its contents, and that is perfectly right—the public must be protected against people who would rush in and kill our cattle wholesale, or infect them with some terrible disease—but an anti-toxin cannot do this and there is no rule within the regulations of the Minister by which it can be demanded from the discoverer that he must give a description and details of the contents in respect of an anti-toxin. As the Government were pursuing this unfortunate person and threatening him with all sorts of penalties unless he disclosed it, I put this question to the Minister on 29th March, 1927—

To this the Minister of Agriculture replied as follows—

Well, they are pursuing this man. There are now fewer than 400 to 500 farmers to-day, including the largest cattle breeders, using this with success, and yet the Minister says there is no proof, that is, in other words, for the Minister to say that the leading farmers are idiots and they are using a thing which is useless and is of no effect. Now let us take the correspondence which passed between the Minister’s department and Mr. Harber. He made this discovery prior to 1925—I think it was in 1917—and he had been experimenting for years in his own time as a Government officer. Having thoroughly satisfied himself that he had discovered something which was effective, he resigned his post after 17 or 18 years’ service and abandoned his right to a pension, so as to sell this one thing; so thoroughly satisfied was he with this experiment that he risked his whole future and career. It has been discovered that 90 per cent. of our cattle have actually got gall sickness and red water germs at birth; the other 10 per cent. are so liable to the disease that if they get infected they invariably die, having no natural immunity. Having made this discovery, and our friends at Onderstepoort having failed to find out what it was, the department wrote as follows—

The letter pointed out that the sale for the purpose of Act 21 of 1907 of any stock remedy which has not been previously registered is a contravention of the regulations. This pursuit of Harber began in June, 1926, and has been going on for two years. Harber replied that vaccine and sera only were included in the regulations and that anti-toxin, not intended for internal use, were not meant to be included. To this letter he received no reply, for when the Agricultural Department is in a hole they do not answer your letters. To a subsequent communication, however, the department replied that according to the nature of the claims made for Harber's article it would be necessary to register it and to enable that to be done, it would be necessary to furnish the department with a statement of its composition or evidence of its efficacy. But the inventor was not such a fool as to supply the department with the composition, as that would have been the last shilling he would have received for it, but he did furnish the department with 70 or 80 testimonials out of many hundreds received from the best known cattle breeders throughout South Africa. But that did not satisfy the Agricultural Department—they didn’t really want proof of efficacy, they wanted the prescription—for, in a further letter from the department, it was stated that the composition would appear to be a form of vaccine or toxin. It is neither, but in spite of that these clever young men think that if they can bring it under that heading they can claim to know its contents, and that is all they are really after. Harber went to great trouble to explain that it was neither a vaccine nor a toxin and he claimed the right to have his remedy registered, but they still refused to register it. I then arrived on the scene on March 29th, 1927, when I put a question to the Minister in this House on the subject. After my question we advanced a stage further, and I now have to refer to what I think is one of the most disgraceful documents I have ever seen from a Government office. The letter is dated June 26th, 1927, and it informs Harber that the preparation has been subjected to chemical examination and to actual trial in cases of specific gall sickness, and that the veterinary surgeon is satisfied that the claims made for it are exaggerated. These young men came to this conclusion on the strength of a bottle of the preparation they picked up somewhere, and pumped into an animal in a backyard.

You are an expert on this, of course.

Yes. I am an expert at my own business, and I have used it continuously. The Minister knows nothing about it, and I am trying to instruct him. Take one case only of our own. I had a bull down on the ground with gall sickness for a fortnight—will the Minister just kindly listen—and the animal was unable to rise. This bull was treated with this Harber cure and nothing else; in order that there should be no doubt whatever that it was suffering from anything but gall sickness, I took a blood slide myself.

I don’t think you will succeed in teaching the Minister manners.

The Minister and I have known each other for years, and we are rather old friends.

There is such a thing as courtesy.

I say that in order there should be no doubt as to correct diagnosis, I sent the slide to one of the Minister’s officers, and the report came back that the bull was suffering from gall sickness in a bad form. To-day that animal is still alive and well.

Surely cattle can get gall sickness and get well again without having any injections? What an expert !

If that is all the Minister has intelligently to say, then it is a sad thing that he should be occupying a ministerial post at all. Now, in a subsequent letter, they charge this man, Mr. Harber, with putting on the market a thing which is a fraud. They say so in the plainest possible language. I do not know whether the Minister is proud of this correspondence. They deliberately charged this man with selling to farmers in their ignorance a cure for a disease which they say is no cure, but they say if you will tell us what its contents are we will let you go on selling it for a time. These are the words—

Is the Minister proud of that document? I say it is the most disgraceful document I have ever come across. If the Minister has any answer to that let us have it, but above all let us treat people fairly. Let us at least be honest. The Minister knows perfectly well, and every veterinary officer knows perfectly well, that it is a cure. I will read some of your own officers’ experience with this very stuff. Here is an interview, published in a newspaper, with Mr. Robertson, who was the head stockman at Cedara—

That is the opinion and experience of their stockman in charge at Cedara, but since this correspondence has started, Cedara has been prohibited from using it. They are not allowed to mention it. The consequence is if they want to save an animal they would have to purchase it surreptitiously. This is not the only case in which we have had this extraordinary policy adopted. The Minister will remember perfectly well the process known as the McGarvie-Smith anthrax vaccine. McGarvie-Smith has the misfortune to be an Australian, but he produced a toxin which is used practically throughout the world. Notwithstanding that we have this certain process for stamping out anthrax, we set to work with our young fellows at Onderstepoort to find out what is in this, and try to produce it ourselves. We slaughter by experiment any number of animals and cost this country thousands of pounds. Eventually we found out what was in it, and now they are making it, and have put an embargo on the McGarvie-Smith vaccine, which is not allowed to come into this country any more. That is how we are wasting time and wasting public money. The Minister must bring this sort of thing to an end. When we have scientists in other parts of the world who have provided us with cures at a reasonable cost, let us waste no time trying to find out what is in them, but let us get on with those diseases for which we are still looking for a cure. Let us find a cure for east coast fever, three days’ sickness, and for the numerous diseases of which we still know nothing. Let us use the good things we have wherever they come from, Australia or Timbuctoo, or America, but do let us drop this professional jealousy, this setting of one professional man against another, or trying to get the better of a man who probably just for the moment is doing a little better than we are. I am not speaking in the interests of an individual, but in the interests of the people of this country, and of the stock of this country.

The hon. member who has just sat down has almost given another turn to the debate. Anyone who has listened impartially to it up to the present will agree that little criticism has been made of the financial policy of the Government. What struck me were the despairing cries of the Opposition punctuated by tears of jealousy because they cannot find anything wrong in the Minister’s position. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) again regretted the unnecessary enmity which we cherish against England in the matter of trade. In the first place I just want to ask that hon. member in what respect he can prove that this Government has taken up such an attitude. The fact that certain contracts have not gone to England is not a proof. The hon. member, who comes from Natal, must tell me why Durban has entered into a contract in Germany, and why even England has placed orders there. It is not enmity of this side, or of the present Government. Our orders in Germany are the inevitable result of economic law. The fact is that because England received so much from Germany and other countries by way of reparation money prices have so risen that England to-day cannot compete with Germany. That is a purely economic result. Now the hon. member weeps over the things that England has presented to us. He mentions gifts by England to us up to £5,000,000 in value, and asks what England has got for them. My hon. friend apparently forgets that the presents were given unconditionally. He wants to make out that they were given on the condition of our trading with England, and that we were to buy all our goods in England. I want to ask him whether England has got nothing in return. Did we not convey the English troops over our railways, did we not help to fight the war, and did we not in consequence saddle the country with a dead liability of £30,000,000? We have paid six, seven or eight times for the £5,000,000. We are prepared to do trade if it is possible in a profitable way, but I want, e.g., to mention the statement of the hon. member for Weenen that England spends £32,000,000 annually on meat, but only £3,000 on buying it in South Africa. There are regular services between England and South Africa. Why does not England buy more of our meat? Why does Italy buy even more than England? It is not our fault, but simply the result of the principle that England buys in the cheapest market. We do not blame her, but then she must not blame us when we do the same thing. Then the hon. member sheds further tears about surpluses of this Government and accuses it of extravagance. He says that the surpluses arise owing to the country being taxed too heavily. The fact is that the last Government, which he supported not only imposed heavier taxation than this one —because since that time taxes have been abolished—but nevertheless always had deficits. Which is better for a country, to have a deficit or a surplus every year? It is true that our Minister is always a little pessimistic at the beginning of the year, and optimistic at the end, but the former Government was always optimistic at the beginning and pessimistic at the end, when they showed a deficit. Which are better, surpluses or deficits, we can safely leave to the decision of the taxpayers. They are very responsive when it concerns matters that affect them. Last year, and also this, we were warned that it was dangerous to have surpluses, that it was a dangerous principle because it might bring us into difficulties later. One hon. member, I think, even said that he would shortly have to clean the Augean stable in consequence of the surpluses. Last year there was a surplus, and it was devoted to paying off debts. Now hon. members opposite come and say that it is a bad thing, and that in this respect we introduced a new principle in 1926, namely, that the Government is not obliged to use surpluses for debt redemption, and that we must revert to the old principle. Now it is a peculiar fact that this Government, during the first two years of office, acted according to the old principle. The surpluses were paid in to the capital account, and in 1926 the new principle was introduced and the first year when it was possible to follow it, namely, 1926-1927, we find that the old principle was still followed and that not only the fixed sum of £650,000 was used for redemption of debt but a considerably larger amount. Thus during the last four years the Government has done precisely what was required by the old system. And when the budget debate was on last year we were criticized that that action by the Government was wrong, that it was a good thing to repay debt, but that the right thing to do would have been reduction of taxation. This year, however, the Government has turned over the page and has reduced taxation. It is therefore doing precisely what the Opposition advocated last year as the right thing to do, but now it is wrong. We have reduced taxation this year, and also used a considerable amount for debt redemption, while in addition a big social reform is being introduced, namely, old age pensions. It is now said that the reduction in taxation by advances is quite wrong, and that we must go back to the old principle, namely, to use the advances for debt redemption. What is the value of the criticism then? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) made a long speech about the constitution of the amortization fund. It seems to me however that he has never calculated the actual value of the new system, what namely is the effect which the increase in the fund affects by interest on interest for a number of years. [No quorum.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout invited our attention to the Auditor-General’s report, at page 56, and he tried to argue that under the new system we were worse off than under the old. I should also like to refer to the same page, and to the same columns on the page where we find data for a period of fifteen years, nine of which were not surplus years. For eight years there were surpluses. We therefore see the point at once that possibly there was something in the argument as regards years when there was a surplus, but in the years where there was no surplus the position under the old system was much more favourable than under the new principle, because then in any case £650,000 would be paid off for reduction of debt. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is apparently only thinking of surplus years. It is true that under the old system he could compel the Minister of Finance to apply the surplus for debt redemption, but he could not compel him to have a surplus. What we must remember is whether the amortization fund has a right relation with regard to the total debt of the country, and if it is not going back in its relation to the total liability. In 1912 the total debt was £117,000,000 and the amortization fund was £5,500,000, or 5 per cent. of the total debt. In 1924 this was increased to 6.8 per cent. for the debt was £208,250,000 and the amortization fund £14,500,000, but in 1927 the proportion was still better, because the total debt was £231,500,000 and the amortization fund £18,650,000, or about 8.05 per cent., and in 1928 the public debt stands at about £238,000,000 and the amortization fund at £19,155,000, and the proportion is therefore about 8.1 per cent. There is, therefore, a continuous improvement in the position with regard to the relation of the amortization fund to the total public debt. I do not think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout need worry himself about the redemption of debt, because this year we see that the Minister has done another important thing and devoted a sum of £1,585,000 out of his surplus for redemption. The hon. member complained that under the new system the Minister has this surplus to play with and he himself suggested that the Minister did not quite properly use his right. What has the Minister done wrong? He has reduced taxation by £1,250,000, and put aside a further £500,000 for the amortization fund; in this way he has disposed of the whole of the £-1,750,000 surplus. How then has he played with the surplus? The argument is quite unsound. We heard sounder criticism from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Sir William Macintosh), who said that the policy of the country has always been to invest as much money as possible in reproductive works. The point of importance is not so much whether the public debt has increased as long as we invest the money in reproductive works. It can unhesitatingly be said that the increase of the national debt during the past year was made entirely in reproductive expenditure. Every penny of it is calculated to increase the revenue of the country. As long as that is so there is nothing to complain about. All we must bear in mind is how our dead liability is being increased or reduced. How large is the unreproductive, the dead liability? There is a noticeable improvement in the position. When we came into power in 1924 the dead liability was about £60,000,000 (29 pet cent. of the total national debt). To-day it is about £40,000,000 (or about 23 per cent. of the total national debt). We have therefore improved by 6 per cent. How did this take place? In the first place nearly £2,000,000 was paid off accumulated deficits. That was all dead liability. An amount of about £4,500,000 of the national debt was paid off out of surpluses. Furthermore payments were made from revenue into the loan account up to £5,000,000, which did not always go into that account. I refer to the proceeds of leases and bewaarplaats monies in gold and other mines. In 1923 these went to the ordinary revenue account to assist in covering daily expenditure. I think the actual amount was £4,843,000, and then during recent years considerable amounts have been paid from revenue into the loan account and during the last two years the definite amount of £650,000 was paid off. In this way the dead liability has been reduced from £60,000,000 to £49,000,000 which is due to the prosperity of the country and the wise policy of the Government. Now the question often arises whether the national debt is not too large. We now have a debt of £238,000,000 and it is pointed out that the white population only amounts to about two and three-quarter millions. I have already shown that the actual dead liability is only £49,000,000. To judge whether the national debt is too high we calculate the debt per head of population. There are however two elements which we must bear in mind. The first is the position with regard to the native population. Is it to be included? We have a native population of more than £5,000,000. Must it be included in considering the debt per head of population? If they are included the average debt is of course considerably lower. I maintain that the natives cannot altogether be included now, nor can they be entirely excluded. We find in all parts of the world a portion of the population which do not contribute much to the taxes. It may be true that in South Africa that section is greater than in other countries, but the fact remains that the natives contribute a fair amount to the finances of the country. I think that during last year the natives contributed £1,378,000 in taxes (hut and poll tax, as also revenue from passes, etc.). That is, of course, direct taxation, but there is other indirect taxation and advantages which we reap from the native as an economic factor in the labour world. On account of there being direct and indirect taxation we must of course consider the native population in fixing the relation of the national debt per head of the population. On the other hand a large section of the native population is nominally productive, and in calculating we must therefore include some of the natives in the population. If we do not include the native population the public debt is £136 12s. per head of population, and deducting the amortization fund it is about £120. If we include the native as a part of the population then we get a public debt of £32 per head, and without the amortization fund £29. It appears fair to me that all the natives should not be included but that about 40 or 50 per cent. should be deducted. Then we get a more correct figure which can be compared with other countries. If we deduct 50 per cent. from £136 we get a liability of 68.6 per head and a net liability of about £60. When we compare this with other countries we get an interesting position. The debt per head of the population in Canada is £62 15s., in Victoria £75 13s., New South Wales £100 10s., Tasmania £111 6s., Western Australia £174 3s., South Australia £132 7s., Commonwealth of Australia £164 13s., Queensland £109 8s., New Zealand £164 8s. In other words Canada is alone amongst all the parts of the British empire in having a lower debt per head of population than South Africa. That this is a fact, and that it is acknowledged by the outside world also appears from the fact that the loan of £5,000,000 which the Minister of Finance raised last year in London was fully subscribed in a few weeks. That is a proof that Europe does not consider our debt too high to be borne, and probably they also think that our investments are sound. There is another point which must be borne in mind, namely, that the railways are Government property. It is not in all countries that the capital expenditure of the railways is included as a part of the national debt. Great Britain has, of course, invested a much larger amount in railways, but it is all private capital. If we were to add it to the national debt of Great Britain we should find that that debt assumed quite a different form. Our debt is very small if we do not include it. If we were to sell the railways to a private concern we should probably get at least £150,000,000 for them. If we deduct that, the national debt will only be £68,000,000, and that is a very insignificant debt for the population of South Africa, especially in view of the country’s possibilities. Then we heard of cries of despair in connection with the increase in our expenditure. I will honestly admit that it is a fair criticism, and therefore it is necessary to enquire how far the criticism is justified. We find that during the financial year the expenditure, in comparison with the previous year, increased by £477,825, and we find from the Estimates for the next financial year the expected increase of the public debt will be £183,000. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite if they want to maintain that the extra expenditure ought not to have been incurred. The development of the country necessitates more capital being invested which means that more interest has to be paid, but also that the revenue is increasing. We can compare it with a business proposition. If a large business man in Cape Town decides to invest a few thousand pounds more in his business to increase the turnover he will get in more money, hut of course the interest-bearing capital will also increase. When the country prospers new capital expenditure will always be necessary for works to increase the turnover, but then we can also expect an increase in revenue. Then there is an increase of £36,000,000 under the Vote for Pensions. Pensions are still increasing continuously. I am not going to argue as to who passed the pension laws, but want to ask hon. members opposite whether they will say that we should decide not to grant any further pensions. I find that as a result of the world war there was an increase in 1926-’27 alone of £26,957, and of £500,000 for the public service. This year the increase is £36,000. Then there is an increase in the expenditure for Posts and Telegraphs of £81,000, and £22,000 is being provided for diamond cutting. All these amounts are calculated upon a larger turnover in the future, and will bring more revenue to the country. Is there anyone who will argue that we should stop developing telegraph lines and telephones? That is not expenditure, but investment, and wise investment. We are experiencing a period of prosperity. There is every sign that the country is prospering under this Government, and if the country goes ahead, then such expenditure is quite justifiable, because it means more revenue in future. The same arguments are also used in connection with the increase in our revenue. An earlier speaker said that more money was being taken but of the taxpayers’ pockets. That is partly true, but the question is what the actual effect is on the individual in comparison with his income. We find that during the last four or five years there has been a constant rise in the yield of income tax. In 1923-’24 the revenue from this source was £5,400,000, the next year £6,109,000, the next £6,424,000; on 1926-’27 it was £6,834,000. There is a continuous increase in the average amount of about £350,000 a year. This proves that the population of South Africa has had much larger incomes year by year, and could therefore pay, and had to pay more income tax. The tax has been reduced, but the revenue has increased. Another proof of prosperity is furnished by the customs dues. From 1924 to 1927 these increased annually by about £500,000 on the average. This proves that the population of the country can buy more. Does it prove that the tax has been increased? I maintain on the contrary that the population has paid it out of its prosperity. Take the customs duty on three articles of luxury, spirits, tobacco and motor requisites. In 1924 the customs duty on spirits was £722,000, in 1925, £751,000, and in 1926, £689,000. If the population can pay so much more from year to year for spirits, does it not prove that there is prosperity? But the case of motors and motor requisites is still more striking. In 1924 the customs duty on them was £598,000, in 1925, £759,000 and in 1926, £929,000. An increase in two years of about £500,000. There must have been greater prosperity, and as a result greater trade to make those figures possible. The Minister of Finance in the course of his speech said that the country’s trade had increased by £232,296, in spite of the customs duties, which were alleged to be too high. The fact is that the increase of taxation, of customs duties, only applies to articles which can be done without, which are not necessary, and does not affect the cost of living. If the population pays for these things it shows that there is prosperity. Then there is another small point I want to discuss. It is with reference to the public service. Things have happened in the House which I consider very regrettable. I refer to the questions put in connection with public servants. I am sorry that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is not here, because he likes putting such questions, questions which create the impression that the Government is doing an injustice to a certain section of the public servants. It is asked what a man’s qualifications are, what his previous billets were, etc. Why? Just because he happens to have a Dutch name. If he bore an English name they would not have put the questions. I say this is decidedly unfair. Why must the Dutch-speaking officials always feel unwelcome in the public service? Why should questions be asked such as: “Is this or the other official related to a certain Minister,” or “Was not a suspended sentence imposed on him ?” In that way the impression is always created in the House that the Government is injuring the English section of the public service. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) in October last asked a question in connection with this, and it is interesting to note the answer. He asked how many competent persons during the last three years had applied for admission to the public service, and how many of them were Afrikaans and how many English-speaking. The answer was 1,603 Afrikaans-speaking, and 1,909 English-speaking. The number of applications from English-speaking people was therefore larger. Only with regard to the “general” section was the number of Afrikaans-speaking applicants more, namely 11,685, as against 7,210 English-speaking. For that section no qualifications are necessary. Then it was further asked how many were appointed, and the answer was 915 Afrikaans-speaking people and 934 English-speaking. The English-speaking people again constituted the larger number, and then a further question was asked with regard to promotion, to which the reply was that 354 Afrikaans-speaking people were promoted, and 883 English-speaking, and in the general section respectively 275 and 334. Where is the injustice which was suggested? The matter is really much more serious for the Afrikaans-speaking people, because I also asked the Minister of the Interior a question in this connection, namely, how many officials drew more than £600 in salary on the 31st December, 1927, in the respective Departments of Finance, Posts and Telegraphs, and Public Works, and how many spoke Afrikaans or English. The reply was, in the Department of Finance, only Afrikaans-speaking, none; only English-speaking, 16; bilingual, 4 (of which one was Afrikaans-speaking). In the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, only Afrikaans-speaking, none; only English-speaking, 115; bilingual 21 (of whom only 5 are Afrikaans-speaking); Department of Public Works, only Afrikaans-speaking, none; only English-speaking, 37; bilingual, 2 (both English-speaking). If that is the position, then I ask whether the boot is not on the other foot. Is it not necessary then for that side of the House to complain of the injustice which is being done to the Afrikaans-speaking officials? With the best intentions in the world, the respective Ministers will not be able, in the earlier coming years to have Dutch-speaking men at the head of any department, because all the available persons for the higher grades are English-speaking. I do not want to find fault with the public service by these remarks but merely to controvert the attempts at throwing mud at the Government, as if the English-speaking people were being injured. On the contrary it is the Dutch-speaking people who have reason to complain. If they were to be treated on an equal footing by the Minister, persons from outside the service would have to be appointed to the higher posts, and it is of course always more desirable that persons in the service should be promoted to the higher appointments. I hope these partly covert attacks on the Government will cease. I regard it as unfair to this side of the House and a large section of the population to make such charges.

On the motion of Mr. J. P. Louw, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.