The Minister has presented us with an impressionist budget, every line of which reveals that the Government politically has just about run its allotted span and that before very long it will be faced with the uncomfortable doom of a general election. The Minister himself reminds me very much of a familiar figure of our youthful days, an American caravan traveller in heal-all remedies called Sequah, who, dressed as an Indian chief and driving in a gilded caravan, made abundant promises to cure all the painful and embarrassing diseases that flesh is heir to, and in particular claimed that he was an expert in the painless extraction of teeth, an operation which was performed under the friendly cover of overpowering music from his band wagon. The Minister, in his role of a financial Sequah, comes jingling on in his general election chariot, and though he claims the art of painless extraction of much money from the pockets of the taxpayer, chiefly by means of his patent customs tariff, it remains to be seen whether his victims will still be in the same appreciative mood when the music stops. The remarkable absence of Ministers from the budget debate, the most important parliamentary event of the year, and their abstention from any participation in the discussion must be numbered among the bad traditions which the Government has bequeathed to this House. We know, of course, that the state of domestic sedition in the Labour party takes up the whole time of the three Labour Ministers, but one would have imagined that one of the numerous team of Ministers might have thought fit to have taken an intelligent interest in the progress of this debate. It would almost appear from a newspaper cutting I propose to read that the bloodthirsty strife among Ministers is not confined to the Labour wing of the Cabinet. I bring this matter to the notice of the House as a possible explanation of the unaccountable absence of Ministers from their places. The “Rand Daily Mail” published the following report—

Were you in Pretoria at the time?

We fully realize that the classification of finger-prints and footprints must take up a considerable amount of time, but as the unlawful entry took place in December last, surely Ministers should now be able to resume their less exciting pursuits in this House. Or is it perhaps that Ministers are indifferent to the reception of the budget in this House because of their over-weening confidence in its rallying effect upon the people outside. There is no such enthusiasm for this budget anywhere. Even the Minister’s remissions of taxation are being taken as the shamefaced gesture of a self-convicted profiteer. Overcharging has taken place and, apprehensive of being caught red-handed, it is suggested the Government restores the customer’s proper change in the hope of retaining his custom. This policy of selective tax remission when a general election is visible to the naked eye is as ancient and as full of guile as the parable of the unjust steward—the only political parable revealed to us in the inspired writings. It needs little prompting of comparison to enable us to identify the role of the Government in that simple story of human frailty. We are familiar with that parable, how there was a certain rich man which had a steward, and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. “Wasted his goods!” How fully that simple indictment includes a multitude of sins. No need here to mention the Steel and Iron Bill and the whole unfruitful financial policy of the Pact. It goes without saying. We shall be intrigued, indeed, if we follow that story through, to find in it the Minister’s complete model for his budget. We have the same partial tax remission (the steward placated only two of the debtors) and the same indecent haste before the wrath to come. The Minister’s pay-you-back budget is a repetition of the budget of the unjust steward with this difference—the modern electors are not so easily taken in. In my remarks upon the budget I claim to speak for the struggling farmer and the salaried man of limited income, the man in the street with whom I am in close following and constant touch. The people for whom I speak are not high priests of finance, but are very vitally concerned with the development of South Africa, and whatever ministers to that end is all in the right direction, but there is a great deal in the Minister’s budget which is disquieting and depressing to those who realize that so little has been done during this Government’s term of office to put the agricultural industry on a broader basis of wealth production, or to take full advantage of our splendid position in relation to the marketing machinery and preferential treatment extended to our produce by Great Britain and her sister dominions. The Imperial Economic Committee, representing the Government of the United Kingdom and of the dominions (I emphasize that this committee represents our Government as well) was appointed on the 6th March, 1925, to consider the possibility of improving methods of preparing for market and marketing within the United Kingdom food products of overseas parts of the empire, with a view to increasing the consumption of such products in the United Kingdom in preference to those of any foreign countries, and the promotion of the interests both of consumers and producers. The committee has also been entrusted with the duty of deciding upon the useful directions in which the £1,000,000 per annum voted by the British Government may be spent in promoting the objects for which the committee has been appointed. That is the measure of the earnestness with which the British Government is pursuing its ideal of empire productions for the United Kingdom. A committee representative of the United Kingdom and all the dominions, equipped with capital of one million per annum for its work. Already valuable reports on the meat and fruit industries have been prepared, and from the yearly £1,000,000 appropriation annual grants are made for the following purposes: (1) Publicity and education, and for the promotion of empire buying—surely a very important feature of the marketing of our own products; (2) research, chiefly on a commercial scale, and (3) other schemes such as (a) the development of trade in empire tropical fruit, (b) the carriage of pedigree stock to overseas parts of the empire, and (c) any other schemes within the committee’s terms of reference. There is widespread recognition of the economic benefits to be derived from buying within the empire, and now that our constitutional position has been satisfactorily settled, surely we can all co-operate in a scheme which can be made to minister so greatly to the development of South Africa? It rests on the free will of the individual citizen, and there is nothing in it to destroy individual competition and enterprise. Its operation will tend to the improvement of the quality of our products and their successful introduction to the consumers of the United Kingdom. The mobilization of the consumer in favour of empire purchasing is one of the aims of the movement, and since the co-operative movement with Great Britain has so far organized responsible buying as to exclude sweated goods in that country, there is every hope that the will to buy empire goods can be made thoroughly effective. The first report of the committee recognises certain facts that are so important to us that I make no apology for quoting them—

Here, then, is a scheme instinct with purposes of good for South Africa. The development of our fruit industry to its fullest promise would be easy under such conditions, and the time is not far off when our citrus growers will require a steamship every 48 hours to carry away their crop during its season. The meat industry and the dairy industry, about which the Minister of Agriculture is naturally perturbed, are offered the means of salvation. Publicity, research, promotion of empire buying and the mobilization of the British consumer in our favour, all for the asking. But what has been the attitude of Ministers towards this magnificent dominion movement backed by unlimited capital? The Minister of Mines and Industries regards it with suspicion, and did not hesitate to convey that impression to the Associated Chambers of Commerce from the dominions when he met them in Cape Town. What is the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture, from whom we certainly have a right to expect the heartiest co-operation? Col. Watkins Pitchford had been inspired by the committee’s report to undertake research work with the object of discovering a process for the preservation of meat and the curing of bacon— to enable South African stock raisers to export under more favourable conditions to the United Kingdom than are possible to-day, and to compete with the pig products of Denmark and meat production of other foreign countries. I give full credit to the Board of Trade for their favourable attitude to Col. Watkins Pitchford’s process, but the Minister shewed no encouragement to his research, although some of the meat treated by his process and sent to London was reported on in glowing terms by a member of the Meat Council of Australia. If the Minister of Agriculture was unwilling to give encouragement himself to Col. Watkins Pitch-ford, why did he not bring his process to the notice of the Imperial Economic Committee with the object of giving him assistance from their research activities? This course was suggested to the Minister without result. I hope the Minister will realize that the present desperate state of the dairy industry brooks of no further delay in the adoption of the measures recommended by the Board of Trade and Industries. In an admirable report issued in August, 1927, the Board of Trade has shown very clearly what disabilities the dairy trade is labouring under) and has recommended the establishment of a dairy produce board on the lines of those in Australia and New Zealand for the promotion of the general welfare of the industry, and the imposition of a levy to provide the wherewithal for the work of the Board. These proposals were endorsed by a dairy conference at Pretoria, and are receiving support from those chiefly interested in the industry. The Minister should waste no time in translating these recommendations into practice, and so saving the industry from a very serious state of depression. In other dominions the dairy industry ranks amongst the most important of primary industries. In New Zealand it is the principal pillar of the country’s prosperity, supports a quarter of the population, and has an output worth £19,000,000 a year. In Australia the dairying industry comes second with an annual output of £20,000,000, while it employs 700,000 people. If the Minister of Finance were to employ a portion of his surplus in reorganizing the dairy industry on the lines indicated by the Board of Trade, he would provide an avenue of employment for South Africans for which they are much better suited than labouring on the railways. In the meantime the opportunities held out to us by, the Imperial Economic Committee are being extended in vain. Why are we denied our full share of co-operation in this splendid movement? Will the Minister tell us what the real attitude of the Government is towards the objects of the Imperial Economic Committee We have to judge by words of the Minister of Mines and Industries, and the actions of the Minister of Agriculture we must interpret the attitude of the Ministers towards this important committee as wholly antagonistic and unfavourable. Are we to maintain an attitude of neutrality towards the gigantic-campaign which this committee is organizing in Great Britain in favour of the purchase of empire food? What co-operative effort is being made by the Union Government to ensure the success of this campaign? We are entitled to object to the absence from the debate of the Minister of Railways. No department is so badly in need of the attention of its own Minister in this House as that of Railways and Harbours. The Minister absented himself from Parliament last year before the Estimates of this capital expenditure had been passed, and even now he does not attempt to meet criticism of his Budget. The attitude he has taken up in this House in regard to his visit to Germany has occasioned much unfavourable comment. In his absence I shall content myself with a brief reference to the matter. The Minister was asked a series of questions in regard to his visit to Germany. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) desired to have particulars as to the factories the Minister visited. It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Purchases on a very large scale had just been made in Germany, and the matter was the subject of public comment in every portion of the Union. What was the Minister’s reply? He took refuge in attempting to draw a veil of secrecy over his visit to Germany, saying that the visit was an entirely private one, and that he saw no necessity to furnish an account of his movements to the hon. member. What were the real facts? The Union trade commissioner in Europe, according to his own report, had, in response to instructions, made most elaborate arrangements for the Minister to visit factories in the countries he visited, and to study everything that might be of interest to him and the South African Railways, these countries including Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Belgium and France. The party was personally conducted by the trade commissioner or some representative of his, and everything was done to enable him to visit factories, railways, etc., and to meet the right people from whom the best information could be obtained. This must have cost public money. The Minister whilst on tour received and enjoyed every privilege attaching to his position; he travelled on a free pass on his railway journeys in Great Britain and on the Continent, but now, forsooth, he takes refuge in saying that this was a private visit. He was asked to explain what he knew with regard to a lecture delivered by a prominent German engineer who gloried in the fact that people of British descent are leaving South Africa, and that Government contracts are being showered on Germany. The Minister’s reply was that the visit was entirely a private one. The impression on the public mind is that it was as a result of the Minister's contact with this engineer that the lecturer spoke as he did, and we must give the natural inference to the Minister’s reply that these things must have taken place. In connection with the purchase of engines in Germany the Minister was asked how the engines of various types were working in this country. His answers throughout were curt, evasive and entirely unsatisfactory. His answers in regard to a more serious matter, the occurrence of accidents on the line, were equally unsatisfactory. It was elicited in the course of one of these questions that serious accidents to railwaymen had taken place and that unaccountable scalding had happened in one of these accidents where two men were scalded to within an inch of their lives. The facts were elicited that in the serious accidents that occurred at Shongweni and Schroeders—in one case a life was lost, and in the other case two men were scalded until they became unconscious. The Minister admitted that the engines concerned were of German manufacture. I asked him “Is it a fact that these two railway enginemen—I referred to those in the Shongweni tunnel—were severely scalded and rendered unconscious?” The Minister’s reply was, “If an accident takes place, whether with a British, German or American engine, men do sometimes get hurt.” Men do sometimes get hurt! That was the Minister’s reply, that was part of his curt and evasive attitude in regard to the questions put to him constitutionally and in accordance with the rights of members of this House. The Minister’s private visit to Europe was fol lowed by extensive purchases of engines and railway material from Germany. The margin of difference in price between British and German engines was roughly about 25 per cent. When my friend the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) enquired whether the Minister was aware that bounties equal to 25 per cent. were given to exporters of engines manufactured in Germany for export, the hon. the Minister said he knew of no such bounty. He could have informed himself had he taken the trouble to read the current literature on the subject or to make enquiries from the trade commissioner in Europe. When he was asked whether wages in Germany were only 60 per cent. of those in Great Britain a similar attitude was adopted of curtness and evasiveness. He knew nothing of these things. A further question was put to the Minister as to certain instructions he had issued to the High Commissioner. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) asked the Minister of Railways “whether he will lay on the Table copies of correspondence which has passed between him and the High Commissioner relative to his or the Government’s decision to purchase railway materials largely in Germany.” In the absence of the Minister of Railways the Minister of Finance replied “As no decision was taken either by the Government or by myself, to purchase railway materials largely in Germany, the hon. member’s question falls away.” Another evasion! On no single occasion has the Minister shown any disposition to afford us reasonable information which we desire, nor has he shown any willingness to be frank with us on matters we are entitled to know about. What could there be in this correspondence which the Minister was unwilling to reveal to this House? The question as previously worded had referred to confidential or secret correspondence which the Minister had exchanged with the High Commissioner on the subject, but the words “confidential or secret” were deleted, and the question in its present form was answered as I have said. The position is that the country at large is far from satisfied with the attitude of the Minister towards this question. The country wishes to know to what extent any sort of favour is being shown to Germany in connection with these purchases. There is a persistent rumour that special instructions were given by the Minister to the High Commissioner in regard to the shipment of material from Germany, and I wish the Minister before we go into committee of supply to make a frank and clear statement in regard to this matter. Is there any truth in the statement that the Minister of Railways and Harbours sent a communication to the High Commissioner in London stating that he should ship material from Germany in German steamers to this country?

If it was true, what would be wrong in that? I shall reply.

I am asking and I hope the Minister will show me the courtesy to reply. Is there any truth in the further statement that the Minister instructed the High Commissioner to keen every communication on this subject secret? I think we may fairly regard the Government’s customs tariff as being on its trial and we may now fairly assess what the tariff has done or is likely to do for us. Firstly, in the matter of the establishment of South African industries, a policy I am in favour of, the artificial wage regulation of the Minister of Labour, which he has so arbitrarily carried out, is interfering considerably with the success of the Government’s policy, and unless the Minister of Labour can be prevailed upon to hand over this work to safer hands, or to adopt a more reasonable attitude towards existing industries, then the progress of the Government’s industrial policy will be completely marred by the petty interference of the Department of Labour.

Cite something specific.

I will at the proper time. In the meantime, I think everybody can understand what I mean. The misguided actions of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works have also done incalculable harm to the stability of the native labour supply for the primary industries and these two gentlemen need to be put under some form of effective restraint by the Prime Minister, or else their term of office will be looked upon as memorable in the minds of South Africans as one of the worst calamities that ever befel this country. Secondly, when the Minister of Finance introduced his customs tariff, he gave us to understand, or at least so I understood him, that the abolition of the British preference and other provisions would entail an increase of £600,000 in customs duties, but the remissions that he made during that year would result in the matter being reduced to a net increase of only £400,000 in customs duties. The operation of the tariff may now be viewed in the light of the revenue it has produced since its introduction. In the last three years of the South African party regime, the customs revenue was round about five to six millions per annum on a volume of trade ranging from forty-nine to fifty-three millions. Under the existing tariff customs revenue has gone up from £7,300,000 to £8,976,000 on a volume of trade ranging from £58,000,000 to £67,000,000. The people whom I represent are not concerned to measure how-many pounds pressure per inch the Government’s taxation policy brings to bear upon them, but on the grand scale they do become alarmed that this Government’s increased customs tariff taxation has gone up from five millions to roughly nine million pounds, and the merchants’ accounts repeat the same story. This increase in customs revenue paid indirectly by the rich and the poor, constitutes a very serious item in the cost of living. The fact that the Minister proposes to reduce the duties on cot ton goods, hosiery, drapery and cutlery in itself proves that there has been over taxation, but the operation of the tariff itself has awakened people to the fact that we are called upon to pay too dearly to gratify the Government’s hostility to the idea of imperial preference.

Do you allege that the duties were lower under the previous Government in regard to these articles?

I am mentioning—

What is your point?

I am mentioning the total effect of the abolition of imperial preference. In view of the work of the last Imperial Conference, which took place after we had introduced our customs tariff, I should like to point out, the time has surely arrived to do more than render lip service to the great ideal accepted. Even on the sordid basis of our advantage, neutrality in regard to empire trade in peace time is as absolutely wrong as neutrality to our sister dominions would be in time of war. Thirdly, the object of the Minister’s tariff was to encourage our exports and our trade generally with foreign parts. When the Minister introduced his tariff, he projected the possibility of developing our trade in foreign parts on a basis of reciprocity—we should be very glad if it were done—and the Act indicated how trade agreements were to be entered into. We are surely now in a position to realize that the Minister’s anticipations have proved to be in disgusting discrepancy with the facts. Nothing shows this more clearly than the reports of our Trade Commissioners in the United States and on the continent of Europe. The ably written reports of Mr. Eric Louw, our Trade Commissioner in the United States, show how often a promising trade in South African products is completely shut out by an embargo or rendered impossible by the tariff wall. Mr. Louw says—

In the same report he continues—

This instance illustrates the world of difference that exists between foreign and empire trade facilities. The United States of America maintains a complete embargo against lucerne seed sent from South Africa. Mohair is admitted on a duty of 31 cents per lb., with the early possibility of an increase, while fluorspar from South Africa, at present admitted at 5½ dollars per ton from South Africa, is also menaced by a further increase. Mr. Louw’s more recent reports recorded his further efforts on behalf of South African trade. A promising trade in sausage skins had been developing, but in February last he reports that after 1st December, 1927, “sausage casings cannot be imported into the United States of America, unless accompanied by a health certificate from an official of the country of origin, equal in standing to the United States authorities.” This sounds almost as though some one equal in standing to President Coolidge, may have to be called in to certify to the good health of the sausage-skins. From sausage-skins his next report devotes the greater part of a page of printed matter to the possibilities of a market for love-birds. He reports that as a result of a request from South Africa for information, his inquiries reveal the fact that there is a market for love-birds, although it is difficult to ascertain the prices which importers are willing to pay for them. Prices appear to range from one to five dollars per pair, according to variety. He adds that the grey-headed lovebirds are native to South Africa. I only hope his conclusions are not based upon his observations upon members of Parliament here. In any case the United States tariff operates even against these. There is a duty of 20 per cent. on any of these love-birds worth more than five dollars. After raising our hopes about this trade, Mr. Louw tells us that love-birds indigenous to the Union cannot be exported, but if imported from outside they may be re-exported under a permit of the Minister of Agriculture. A cautious person can but come to the conclusion that some diplomatic channel, perhaps our recently constituted department of external affairs, will have to employed before our trade commissioner can add a single sausage-skin or a solitary love-bird to our trade with America. We have recently had our attention drawn to an outburst by the Minister of Labour on the subject of the desirability of employing European labour on the roads, and I believe the Minister railed against the provincial administrations for their unwillingness to hand over this side of their activities to his department. How does that contrast with his attitude towards the employment of men upon this kind of work when the South African party was in office? This was the speech he made as recently as June, 1923—

The wages these unfortunate people are receiving to-day are, virtually, the same as when he spoke. Mr. Boydell continued—

That was at 3s. 4d. a day. It is double that to-day.

Indeed no! The former Minister of Lands, who was in charge of that department, will enlighten the Minister on that point, if necessary. The very least paid on irrigation works and on the railways was 7s. 6d. a day. An engineer who was in charge of construction work upon which European labourers were employed, informed me they were able to earn much higher wages than that by piece work. It just shows you how the whirligig of time brings the Minister into the position in which we stood when he was criticizing us. The position of the unemployed to-day is as pitiable as it can be, and we have the Minister, instead of putting his shoulder to the wheel and producing a remedy which he pretended he had then, we have him railing against the provincial administrations and blaming them for what he himself is responsible for. We come to the question of the attitude of the Government towards borrowing. The Minister of Finance said there was no relation between borrowing and spending and that we borrowed in the cheapest market and also spent in the cheapest. A question was put to him as to whether the Trade Facilities Act of Great Britain did not contemplate that money borrowed under that Act should be spent in the purchase of machinery in Great Britain, and I am sorry to say the Minister himself did not reply to that question, which was addressed directly to him, but preferred to hand it to the Minister of Labour, who as usual gave a totally unsatisfactory reply. Among other points put in that question was the point as to whether the £70,000 borrowed in connection with the Doornkop Estates experiment was subject to the condition that every penny of that sum should be spent upon machinery manufactured in Great Britain. The reply of the Minister of Labour was that that was a matter resting between the Trade Facilities Board and the Doornkop Estates, Limited, well knowing that the agreement between those parties is the property of this House and is laid upon the Table of this House, and I just want to show that under that agreement there is a definite provision that all plant, machinery and materials (I am quoting from the agreement) required in connection with the sugar factory and paid for out of the proceeds of the loan, shall be wholly of English, Scottish or Welsh manufacture. Why all this anxiety to suppress the facts? Why cannot we be frank on this subject? Why cannot we realize our good fortune and realize that as members of the British community of nations we have privileges which we should appreciate and which we should act so as to deserve? Why not follow the example of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who, not very long ago, when about to establish railway workshops, decided that the tender for the supply of tools for those workshops, running into half-a-million of money, should be confined to the manufacturers of Great Britain? Surely the artificial margin which exists between German and British engines is not such as to make the German engine a really cheap article when we compare it with the engine of British manufacture. When the cutting of prices takes place, cheapness ceases to be a factor, and I think the railway technical officers have had occasion to realize that that is only too true. Instead of adopting this policy of borrowing in London and spending in the cheapest market for the sake of what is only apparent and not real cheapness, why don’t we realize that our destiny, our well-being, are bound up with our partners, and that we should behave as partners, and not as poor relations? I have faith in the Minister’s good sense. I feel certain, had he been Minister of Railways, we should not have had the buying policy which, unfortunately, this country has had to submit to. What has been the defence of the Minister of Railways and Harbours? The only one I heard him offer was that Durban went in for this German machinery. It is equivalent to a man being caught red-handed in arson who says his innocence is clear because his neighbour is guilty of rape! To my mind it is a humiliating feature of the public conduct of our business at the present time, and I hope the Minister will realize that a great deal of discontent has been caused not only amongst the general public, but amongst the railwaymen themselves, by the purchase of this material, which causes a great deal of dissatisfaction to those engaged in the work.

I think speeches such as that just made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in practice have exactly the opposite effect to what he intends. Let me tell the hon. member that this side of the House, just like the other, is ready to enter into excellent trade relations with England, but it is just speeches like the one he made which poison public opinion and re-arouse the friction which formerly existed, and which every sensible person tries to avoid. If the hon. member therefore asks what the impression of his speech on the public is, I say it is that he had better remain quiet rather than again incite the various sections of the people against each other, and that like a sensible man he should try to encourage what is necessary for better trade relations. Now the hon. member for Illovo says that nothing has been done for better trade relations with England, that nothing has been attained by the Government. In this connection I want to quote certain facts, especially in connection with remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), and another statement by the hon. members for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in connection with the policy followed by this Government regarding the export of oranges and deciduous fruit in the appointment of a Fruit Export Control Board and other assistance which the Government has given in connection with the export of oranges and deciduous fruit. There are certain facts which entirely contradict the statement of the hon. member for Newlands that the board of control docs no good work. Two and a half million boxes of deciduous fruits have been exported up to the present, although the season is not quite ended yet, and we may take it that the total will be 2¾ million boxes. That is about 28,000 tons of deciduous fruits, while the previous year we only exported 23,000 tons. Five hundred thousand boxes of oranges were exported in 1924, as against 850,000 this season; in other words, oranges have nearly doubled their exports since 1924, and with regard to deciduous fruits the export is three times as much as in 1924. Is that not evidence that the Government, by means of the Fruit Export Control Board, has been doing good work in exporting fruit to Europe, and especially to England? As for the statements of the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and Newlands, I want to point out that the latter said last year that this control board would never succeed, and could never succeed. He said that we might tear up that Act, because it would all be no good. His words were that the position (after the Act was in operation a year) was just the same as was anticipated twelve months before, that they asked the Minister to repeal the Act, and to leave the work to business men, that the board could not be a success. That is what the hon. member for Newlands said last year, and what is the position to-day? The export has doubled; I have a report here of what is thought in England about that control board. The report is dated 23rd ultimo, and it deals with the arrival of fruit, and says that the demand is regular, and that it was possibly due to the condition the fruit arrived in, and that the merchants praised the shipping of the fruit. All consignments arrived well, and found a good sale. The report was drafted during a month when thousands and thousands of boxes of our fruit arrived. Is anything more needed to justify the existence of the control board, and the good work they have done? It is astonishing that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) should, in his last Budget speech, make an attack on the control board. He said it was not necessary for the control board to continue its existence now that under the shipping contract we have the certainty that there will be suitable cold storage accommodation available. The hon. member for Newlands wanted to abolish the control board, because there was no hope of its ever doing good work, and on the other hand the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) wants to abolish that board because they have done good work and put everything in order. Those two views are far enough apart for the Atlantic Ocean to lie between them, and for a junker aeroplane with Koehl and Fitzmaurice to be required to get over it. They are members who tried to defeat the Act when it was before the House. This season not a single ton of freight has been paid for nothing; within four or five days after arrival, the fruit is in the ship’s hold. The criticism of the hon. members opposite is just about as useless as that of the hon. member for Illovo a moment ago. As I am talking on railways (because it falls under railways), I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). He spoke about poor people working on the railways, and he said, that is if my notes are right, that we must not appoint Europeans because they cost too much.

No.

“We should not have thrown them upon the railways, because they are too expensive.”

What I said was that we should not have utilized the railways to employ men simply on the ground that they were out of work, and not that they were wanted.

I am very sorry that I misunderstood the hon. member, and I am glad he has cleared the matter up. I know his intentions are good. My opinion is that, if we give work to the poor people, there is, at any rate, provisionally a better chance for them on the railways. The first reason is that they have a chance of working themselves up. There are people who have already risen. The second reason is that our industries are not yet sufficiently developed, and that the people are, in any case, kept employed and learning to work regularly. Therefore, I differ from the view of the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and for Yeoville. What hurt me was the remark of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) who apparently grudges the sixpence increase which the Minister wants to give these people after three years. The hon. member says that we have proposed the increase for political reasons. We can see at once that that statement is also intended to arouse suspicion against this Government. The conditions of the increase expressly say that the increase will start after the railway worker has been employed for three years. We know that this Government actually commenced the system, and there are few of them that have been in the service three years. It is, therefore, another loose accusation by the hon. member. While I am speaking about railways, I want to say something about what the hon. member for Illovo said this afternoon about the Minister of Railways, and I want to express my indignation at the statement about the Minister’s visit to Europe. Instead of the hon. member expressing appreciation of the visit of the Minister, and the member of the Railway Board, who went to study the conditions in other countries at their own expense in order to give the railways the benefit thereof, he again raises suspicions of which I most strongly disapprove. I could refer the hon. member to what previous Ministers have done when they travelled, and were paid for by the Imperial Government, while they, nevertheless, demanded 3 guineas a day from the Government of this country. Is it a sensible member who speaks like that, who, instead of trying to improve the relations, tries to poison the minds of the people? The visit of the Minister and Mr. Wilcocks can surely do nothing but good to the country. The lion, member says that as the result of the visit to Germany big contracts were placed in Germany. The “effect of such allegations will be exactly the opposite of what the hon. member wishes. The people who regard both sides of the case reasonably cannot but say that such allegations will again arouse old feelings. I want to tell the hon. member that, in spite of the suspicion uttered, there was, just recently, postponed part of a tender for big locomotives—I think it was for 39— for no other object than that of giving the English manufacturers a further chance of tendering. One commences asking oneself, after the speech of the hon. member, whether, in doing so, we did not go too far. Sound relations between England and ourselves can only exist on a reasonable business basis, which alone can bring about good relations in other matters. I want to express my disappointment at a part of the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville, where he again came to the same charges as last year, namely, that the Government was not doing enough to give the poor people a chance of advancement. Last year, when the hon. member made the same attack, I replied to him with the figures, and I want briefly to sum up what the Government has done. Our Government, up to last year, had already put 18,000 people back on to the land, and, as a contra proposition, I want to mention that there were 11,000 on relief works when this Government came into office. We reduced that figure to 4,000 within a year. In ten years, from 1911 to 1921, 70,000 people left the countryside for the towns. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville has returned to the matter, and it makes it necessary to show by a few figures the continuous extension, even since last year, of the help given by this Government to poor people. The Labour Department has under its supervision in all 902 men with their dependents, a population in all of 4,563, and has put them to work on farms; they are already small farmers, or are going to be farmers once more. The Department of Lands, according to official returns, assisted, in the year ending 1st April, 1927 (unfortunately the figures for last year are not yet available), 579 people under Section 111, and 497 as general settlers, of whom 99 must be deducted who only underwent a change of name. Under other regulations, 93 people were assisted, a total of 1,169 people, who have again been put on the land, and who have necessitated an expenditure of £1,066,000 for only one year. According to information, the number of tenant farmers this year has again been reduced by 50, and the Karos settlement will be tackled this year by which quite a number of additional people will get back to farms. The hon. member for Yeoville was, therefore, not quite right, and his information was clearly defective. Then I come to what the hon. members for Yeoville and Cape Town (Central) said about provincial councils. It is to a certain extent topical because a draft ordinance is before the Provincial Council of the Transvaal which will give the power to those boards to impose a tax. I protest against the alteration, because it has often been rightly said that there are too many bodies that tax, and by this ordinance additional taxing machines would be established. I differ entirely from the view of the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and Yeoville, but must admit that they are quite consistent. In the beginning of 1917 they made a report in favour of the abolition of provincial councils. I must admit that it contains many good points and wise suggestions, but the report is impossible because there are now four provincial councils, while it would practically establish 20 (although with less rights), which would be called district boards. The great point is that those district boards would have to have the same powers as, according to the proposal before the Transvaal Provincial Council, will be given to the road boards. I hope the ordinance will never be passed. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was chairman of the commission which made the report, and the hon. member for Yeoville a prominent member of it, and they wanted to obtain the money from a land tax. We can never adopt that principle in the Transvaal, because it is most unfair. If the money for the making of roads must come from a land tax, then it means that the farmers are actually exploited for the sake of the natives in the first place, because they actually use the roads more than the Europeans, especially in some districts of the Transvaal, and of the urban residents in the second place. It can be said that the urban residents ought to find their own money, but what about the gold and diamond mines? Are they only there for the towns, or is it a fact that, when legislation is passed, it proceeds on the basis that the wealth in the first place belongs to the State. I have only said this because I protest against the draft ordinance before the Transvaal Provincial Council, which is intended to give the road board power to levy a tax. It is unfair from beginning to end. In conclusion, just a question to the Minister in connection with a point on which I feel very strongly, namely, industrial banks. I remember how the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) a few years ago introduced a motion, and I remember I seconded it, which contained a request that industrial banks should be established. I have not heard anything about the matter since then, and I think the time is particularly suitable now to go into that matter again. Fortunately, there exists now a good credit system for our farmers. There is the Land Bank, and two years ago we passed a law which resulted in the establishment of credit associations in many parts of the country, and they appeared to be a veritable blessing. The credit system for the farmers is, therefore, in order, and the merchants have their commercial banks, but for industries there is no bank to-day, and the consequences are very injurious. What is the position? The ordinary banks obtain their capital in Europe, and it cannot be expected that European institutions will make capital available for industries here which are going to injure European industries. I think that it is a very strong reason for emphasizing the desirability of industrial banks. I have cases which are very striking. I have, e.g., the report here of the well-known Johannesburg expert, Dr. E. Neufeldt, who has just visited Europe and Germany, and who enquired into all kinds of matters, such as, e.g., the use of the euphorbia trees. We have millions and millions of them, and all kinds of products can be made from them, such as linoleum, roof covering, even artificial silk for silk stockings, etc., but there is no industrial bank that can provide the necessary capital, and the matter must, therefore, wait until they are established in the future. Dr. Neufeldt also reports on the winning of petrol from coal. He went to it in Germany and reports that, according to the so-called Fischer methods, petrol can be made out of coal at 4d. a gallon. I should much like to know whether steps are being taken to investigate that method, and to have it applied here. Possibly patterns have been obtained, and I should like to know whether the Government is taking steps to secure the patterns for this country, in view of the tremendous supply of coal in South Africa. I have no further criticism to offer. I just want to quote from a letter I have received from one of the fathers of our country, who takes a great interest in the proceedings of this Parliament, and has followed with interest the statements of the Minister of Finance. I quote it in order to show my hon. friends opposite how they ought to feel. I am quoting here what their followers feel. The old gentleman writes: “Bravo, our Havenga with his surplus. The Saps, say he is a witch doctor, they are absolutely knocked out.” I think that my hon. friends will have much difficulty in getting out of their heads the confusion of their followers, because the facts are there, that we have a big surplus, and a magnificent policy with regard to finances, and other things. Ultimately, members of the South African party are also finding it out, and they have no criticism on this budget. Their “Harmens-drops” manner of conducting this debate fully shows it.

This is the fifth day of this budget debate, and the remarkable feature about it is that during the greater course of the debate there has not been a single Minister of the Crown present, except the Minister of Finance. I have sat through it for four days now, and frequently there has been only one member of the opposite side listening to the debate. For more than half the time there has not been a single Minister present other than the Minister of Finance. I have always been under the impression that the object of a budget debate is to enable both the Opposition and the members of the Government side to criticize the general policy of the Government, and more especially to criticize the action or inaction of the administration in detail. Not a single Minister of the Crown has participated in this debate. A strong attack was made on the Minister of Defence by two members on his own side, and no notice whatever has been taken of that. The tendency of all this, it seems to me, will be that members will not participate in this debate, as they feel that it is so much waste of time. I would remind members that, after all is said and done, the country is watching us, and if we show a lack of interest in its affairs, the country itself will condemn the system under which we are governed to-day. Therefore, I say that the action, or inaction of hon. members in not being present at these debates, cannot be too severely condemned. Representing, as I do, an area of the Eastern Province in which there are a large number of natives, I wish, in the first place, to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) the other day. The speech which he made was received on this side of the House with considerable pleasure, and I think most of us associate ourselves with the hope he expressed that the native policy which the Government is formulating will be dealt with fairly and equitably by both sides of the House, and that we shall have a solution to these troubles which will be acceptable to the natives. There is one matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the continual taunt thrown against many of us on this side of being the representatives of large numbers of natives. The member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) has frequently taunted us with having 15 members on this side who represent the natives, as if it is derogatory to represent that body, and as if we, who represent these natives, are something below the general average of members of this House. I say that speeches like that will cause considerable trouble in the future. The Act of Union has laid down that the natives have a right to be represented in this House, and I am proud to be a representative of these natives. The hon. member for Fordsburg represents a Johannesburg constituency, and I would remind him that in the Cape Province we have 100,000 natives who are working on the mines, and who are developing those mines. Surely it behoves him, and other members from Johannesburg and other mining areas, to recognize that, the native is a factor in this country that must be considered from a fair and just point of view, and that those of us who represent natives on this side should not be taunted with that fact, and be told whenever we put forward any measures in this House in which the native comes into the pictures, that we are out for the native vote. Two years ago, in this House, the Prime Minister, in an important speech, said he held that in the territories the native was to be developed industrially, and that, starting from his own national industries, he must be taught to develop and improve. When the Prime Minister himself takes up the attitude that the native must be developed in this country, how can hon. members on the opposite side taunt us because we claim certain rights and privileges for the natives? I specially wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that two years ago new native taxation was introduced. That taxation has been paid for two years, and, notwithstanding that the Prime Minister said that provision should be made for the development of these natives, nothing whatever has been done yet. When we look at these estimates that are placed before us we find that the Department of Agriculture has no money at all applied to the native, industrially or agriculturally. When we look at the estimates we find that actually the vote under Native Affairs is £6,000 less, although in the last two years the natives have paid considerably more taxation.

The estimates do not deal with the development fund.

Surely the Minister does not take up the attitude that the native development fund is the only fund that should be utilized for the development of the native. According to figures given by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), the natives are paying £440,000 in taxation arising from the duty on cotton blankets.

What is spent on them?

I would like to find out. I think £230,000 is paid for the education of the native. I would also point out there is the further sum of £900,000 paid by them in direct taxation.

The native does not come off badly.

I also want to put this before the House. We hear a great deal about the boot industry. Figures were given by my hon. friend that the cost of producing a pair of boots was approximately 9s. To-day your native is a great contributor to the wealth arising from that, by reason of his consumption of these articles. I believe that if the Minister will enquire into this question, he will find that a great deal more boots are being manufactured in South Africa to-day for your native than for your European. Your native does not only wear cotton blankets; he wears everything that we wear. He also eats everything that we eat, in a very large number of cases. I am not complaining about that. It is perfectly right that the native should take his fair share of taxation, but when we realize that we give him nothing in return that is where I take exception. If the Department of Agriculture devoted some of this taxation—

He gets the benefit of any research work done by the Department of Agriculture into cattle diseases.

I want something more tangible than research work. Something should he done for the native, and nothing has been done for him whatsoever. Look at the old age pensions. I am not one to say that old age pensions should be established for natives, but I do say some provision should be made for natives. I want to ask the Minister, who is a Free Stater, this question. I heard a Free Stater in this House saying he had a native family which had served in his family for four generations. What is the difference between that native in the Free State who cannot acquire land and who has lived there for four generations, and the coloured man down here who has also worked four generations for a wine farmer? There is no difference whatever, and I cannot see why your coloured man in the Western Province should get an old age pension, while your native in the Free State or elsewhere, who has worked under the same conditions, should be barred.

Do you know that ground is so expensive for natives in the Free State that they cannot buy it, although they have the right?

I say they have not the same facilities as natives have in the locations.

Do you know they have facilities and cannot buy the ground?

I have understood there is only one location in the Free State in which they can acquire ground. These natives to-day are paying in direct taxation from the cotton blanket tax £500,000. I say without any hesitation that I would not like to see the old age pension extended generally to natives. It would probably mean higher taxation for them It would undermine their social customs and everything else, but I do say that in order to show the native that this House is not legislating differently as between the native and the coloured man, a portion of the sum to be de voted to old age pensions should be ear marked specifically for the natives themselves and the Minister should say that the administration of that amount is to be left to the Native Affairs Department. Then the native cannot say, “The Government is looking after the white man and the coloured man, but doing nothing for us.” In all the reductions of taxation, I defy the Minister to point to a single item in which the natives are benefiting. With one exception. He says he has reduced the taxation on an article called a kadunga. Until two years ago, I had never heard what kadunga was, although I have lived amongst natives all my life. I then found that it is thin light sheet which is worn, not by the natives of this province or Natal, but to certain extent by natives of Basutoland, and largely, I believe, by the Portuguese natives in the East. The Minister, I suppose with the object of trying to show he had taken the taxation of natives into consideration, took off £8,000 on kadnngas. I say to the Minister, that is not right. If he wished to benefit the natives he should have reduced the taxation on cotton blankets. I took the opportunity the year before last of visiting the cotton blanket factory at Paarl. We were told that in three months the girls employed had almost doubled their efficiency, and it was expected that in a year’s time these girls would be equal in production and efficiency to those working in Belgium and England. If this industry is improving in efficiency, why maintain this tremendous tax? It is not right. I tell the Minister that this is the one complaint on which the natives seem to have absolutely united themselves. The native in the Eastern Province is starving. In one location in the King Williamstown district, they lost 8,868 head of cattle, 25,000 sheep, and 15,000 goats. That applies to the whole of the Ciskei. These natives are not in a position to pay this higher taxation. If the Minister is going to maintain this high protection on the one article that the red native uses, it is unfair and is calculated to create that sense of injustice in the mind of the native that we should avoid. For whose benefit is this tax imposed? For the benefit of 200 girls who are working in one or two factories here. The native is not allowed to participate in that work. If we are going to build up our industries along these lines, it will be most unfortunate for the white man in this country. It is not right, it is not fair, and it is not just. If the natives could take part in these industries, if they were encouraged to come into the industrial field, there might be something in it, but as long as we are going to tax these articles that the native uses alone practically, we are going to have complaints of this nature. I do ask the Minister to seriously consider reducing that tax on cotton blankets. Let the native realize if we have a surplus, and an overflowing treasury, he is entitled to benefit as much as anyone else. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), in making an appeal the other day to increase the production of gold, said, “Take away those Europeans who are working underground, and put the natives there.” It did not matter if the native contracted miner’s phthisis and so forth—we must protect the white man. If it is possible to run these mines without only 2,000 Europeans underground, then the natives who are already there are surely competent to do more skilled work. If hon. members are going to turn round and say, “Let the natives go underground and let them die,” that is going to create an unfortunate position in this country. There is one matter in regard to which I wish to appeal specially to the Prime Minister. I am aware there is a good deal of discontent and unsettlement amongst the natives to-day. Three years ago when the Prime Minister visited the Transkei it happened that the chief native commissioner at King Williamstown was absent. I believe he had been appointed as a commissioner to enquire into certain matters connected with the coloured people in Namaqualand, and was engaged on that duty. Recently in “The Friend” was published a suggestion that natives should be removed from areas in the Union and sent across to South-West Africa. I will quote an extract—

I take it up on the first occasion I possibly can. I wish to tell the Prime Minister that these suggestions, if you can call them that, unsettle the natives of the Eastern Province. Natives have asked me if it is true that they were to be sent away to Namaqualand. It is unfortunate for the whole country, at this particular stage, when these negotiations have taken place, that these unfortunate rumours should be spread about. A number of people are about creating an unfortunate spirit, and this is helping them. If there is no truth in these statements, I hope the Prime Minister will contradict them absolutely; the sooner this is done the better for the country. I am not going to discuss the budget at length; I think it has been discussed from A to, Z. There are a number of points which I might have made, but I again appeal to the Minister of Finance when dealing with old age pensions to earmark a portion for the relief of the natives.

There are two matters on which the Opposition in the House, and also outside tried to make political propaganda. Firstly, the poor white question, and secondly the alluvial diamond diggings. On the poor white question it is stated that the leaders on this side of the House promised at the last election to solve the question, and that nothing has now been done, that the question is just as serious to-day as it was in 1924. The question is what is the idea as to how it is to be solved. It is certain that a solution must be found, and that our leaders referred to the poor white question at the last election is also quite natural, because, according to statistics, there were 10.50 per cent. of our white population unemployed in 1924, therefore poor whites. That is the return of the South African party authorities, a figure of 10.5. Everywhere in the world it is considered that four per cent. unemployed in the population is a normal figure. In 1924 the figure, according to the Government returns as has been said, was 10.5 per cent. If our leaders promised that they would look into that matter, then it is only natural, because it is a serious matter, and no statesman can lightly pass it by if ten per cent. of the population are poor whites. It is a serious matter for the people. Now the question is, how is the matter to be solved? There is a great difference of opinion between the last and the present Governments as to what the actual solution should be. The view of the old Government was to send the people to relief works where they were looked after temporarily. In 1924 there were 9,971 people on relief works. The policy then was: put the people on relief works and give them temporary employment. There was a different policy, viz., to put the people on settlements, by giving them land, but the ground was given without a proper lead, without helping them to get on their feet properly. Another way was the tenant farmer system, by which some families were placed with farmers. I say it is the most pernicious work that could be done. If we were to take the money which has been spent for the support of nearly 10,000 people on relief works, settlements and tenant farming which amounts to thousands of pounds, and we used all that money to provide for the people permanently it would be well employed. We have in South Africa a disease, and the disease is poor whites, but owing to quack remedies it has become worse, with the result that in 1924 10.5 per cent of our population were poor whites. The policy of this Government is quite different. It makes no temporary provision, but gives the people something permanent. The Government removed the people from the relief works. It succeeded in doing that because to-day there are only 2,111 on the relief works. Where have the people gone? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that we take the people from the relief works, but send them to the diggings. That is nonsense. We took the people from relief works, but did not allow them to go to the diggings like the last Government, which sent people there to see if they could not make something. This happens especially at Bloemfontein. We do not send them to the diggings, but place them on the railways. The proof of that is that the number of railway workers has increased by 12,000 to 13,000. We put the people on settlements under the supervision of the Departments of Labour and Lands; some thousands have been placed in our factories. In that way we have considerably reduced the number of poor whites. The facts prove this, and facts are stubborn things. The figure for poor whites which was 10.5 in 1924, has been reduced to 6.30. These are facts, because they are supplied by the Department of Labour, which is occupied all the time with this work, and where all the people who want work go to get it. We, therefore, know what we are talking about, when we say that the percentage of unemployed has been brought down to 6.3.

What about the unemployed who walk the streets?

The hon. member must include them under the 6.3. What the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said this afternoon, was nonsense. He said the poor white question “is in a most pitiful condition,” although the number has been reduced in that way. It is just as great nonsense to say that we pay native wages to these people to-day. Of course the old Government paid the people 3s 6d. as a starting wage on the relief works, and they got more later on certain piecework at Hartebeestpoort, but hundreds had to be satisfied with 3s. 6d., and although the minimum wage to-day is 5s. 6d. the hon. member for Illovo comes and says that the Government pays a native wage to them. It is an entirely unsound method which the Opposition employs. Why are we so concerned about the matter? 6.3 of our population are unemployed poor whites. What is the position in other countries of the world? In England, which is so often quoted as an example, the number of unemployed is 9.1 of the population.

Where do you get the figures from?

I can show the hon. member the periodical in the reading room from which I took them.

It is universally admitted.

A fuss is being made because the figure is 6.30, and it is said that it is so terribly high, but let us just look at the figures of our sister dominions. In Ireland the figure is 11.6, in Canada 5.2, Australia 6.7, and Denmark, which we hear nothing about, the splendid little country, 30.5. In Hungary it is 8.6 per cent., and in little Holland (where so much work is done) the percentage is still 6.6, while in Sweden it is 12.5 per cent. Now it may be said that England was so hard hit by the world war, but take a country like Germany; there the percentage has been brought down to below normal, namely, to 3.1 per cent., and in America also it has already been got down to normal. In England it is still 9.1 per cent., and then we are told how terrible the position is here, where the percentage is only 6.3. We said that we should try to solve the poor white question, but not for a moment did we say that we could do it in a few years. If we were to act like the last Government and merely establish relief works for the purpose of giving people temporary work, we could easily solve the question, but it is quackery. Our industries are fast developing, and thousands have already found work in them. The Government will undertake irrigation works in the future to assist people with a bent for farming. The Government also has a scheme for developing a big manufacturing-programme, and will establish an iron and steel industry which will result in many secondary industries being established. If already the Government Rave brought the percentage down from 10.5 to 6.3, then, upon the development of the full industrial programme, much more yet will be done, seeing that in five years we have done so much without the programme being quite started, and we may assume that the sympathetic public will give the Government a chance at the next election to carry out the industrial programme entirely, and the well-intentioned public will not allow itself to be misled by the propaganda of the other side. The public appreciates what the Government has already done to solve the poor white question, and will give it an opportunity to continue the work. I think there are many sensible people among the electors who want the Government to have a further chance of carrying out its policy. Another opportunity is the diamond diggings. Unfortunately for our friends opposite, the hostile feeling is decreasing considerably already. The diggers were very much incited, but the people begin more and more to appreciate that their dangerous friends are those who want to incite them against this Government. They are gradually understanding that the policy of the Government is to protect the diamond market. If that market is not protected, diamonds will of course be produced as in the past, and the new finds in Namaqualand will also be developed. The market will drop tremendously, and the whole diggings will end in nothing. The State cannot permit that, because about 80 per cent. of the diamonds come from South Africa. Our people are gradually understanding this, and they see from the statement recently published in the papers by the Minister, that the Government has succeeded in controlling the diamond market, and there is no longer any fear of its actually collapsing. As the Minister notified, he is, with a view to that, going to throw open more ground, and, at the end of June, he will also consider whether farms can be thrown open for prospecting. The people are gradually seeing that on the one hand the Government is controlling the diamonds, and on the other wants to protect the diggers, and they see that it is keeping its word. At the next election hon. members opposite will find that the diamond diggers will be the greatest supporters of the Nationalist party.

Another promise.

No promise, but a prophecy. The hon. member, as an elder, will know what a prophecy is. Our people on the diggings now understand the attitude of the Government, and see that it is their best friend, both in the interests of the industry and in their interests. I just wanted to give the information about percentages of unemployment in other countries because I take particular interest in the question in our own country, and because I feel a great injustice is being done to us by members such as the hon. member for Yeoville, who can in other respects be regarded as an honest politician, but who also lends himself to saying that we do not fulfil our promises. There is an Afrikaans proverb—

The old poor white question, born during the second war of independence, and made worse by quackery, arrived at a gallop, and it takes time to solve it completely. I hope this Government will get the time; I do not doubt that the public will give it another life at the next election.

I propose to make a few remarks this afternoon on defence matters, and if I had to choose a title I would not select the words “our defence force problem,’’ but I would call it our “defence problem,” for if we are to take the statement of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) at its face value, it would appear that we have no defence force, and why speak of the non-existent? He said that we have something masquerading as a defence force, but which is untrained, unarmed, unequipped and unprepared. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Lt.-Col. Terreblanche) does not go quite so far, but even he devotes a large portion of his remarks to explaining his belief that South Africa is lagging behind other nations. Not for the first time I would like to draw attention to one aspect of our defence problem. I refer to the remarks in the report of the Department of Defence as to the unfitness of our young men to take their places in the ranks of our defence force. On page 10, for instance, in the report of the Adjutant-General, we find that during the year under review, 2,380 young men applied for enlistment in the permanent force. It must be presumed that all these young men considered themselves physically and otherwise qualified to take up the profession of an ordinary soldier, but we find that only 400 were considered fit to go before the medical officers. In other words, the recruiting sergeant or other official who inspected them was able to discern at sight that they had no chance of reaching the physical standard required.

That is not quite correct.

I do not want to overstate the facts. They are bad enough as they are. It is not the case that all those who were rejected by the recruiting sergeant were obviously physically unfit, but no doubt some were rejected for other reasons, and in some cases they did not come again.

That is the case with a very considerable number.

It is unfortunate that we have not these exact figures. I can only deal with the figures before me in the official report, and the last thing in the world I want to do is to draw an exaggerated figure. All those rejected were not rejected for physical reasons. We can imagine, in a great number of cases, the recruiting sergeant or other official looked these men up and down and remarked “You are too young,” or “You are too old,” too slight, or too narrow chested, or, in other words, there is no good in wasting time and money of the State in sending men before a medical officer for examination. It means that whatever the reasons, only one in six of those who applied to join the permanent force were eventually sent up for medical examination. Let us find out what happened to them then. If we look on page 23 of the report we will see what happened to the 400 who were, at all events, physically qualified to the layman’s eye to join the permanent force. Of those no less than 136 were rejected. That is to say, 34 per cent. of the whole, so that the whole number accepted was 264, which is only 11 per cent. of the total that originally applied to join our permanent force. That shows that whatever the exact figures are, and the medical reasons, the physical condition of a large proportion of our population is nothing like what it should be. We are aware that a very strict physical examination is absolutely necessary, and one hopes it will not be relaxed. Still, the percentage of rejections was very high, and I think we should take notice of it. The same kind of thing happened in regard to the air services. Very considerable inducements were offered, particularly to civil servants, in order that they might transfer for a certain period—three years, I believe—to the air force. The application for service numbered 251, but only 73 individuals appeared on inspection and enquiry to possess the necessary qualifications, and of these eight were rejected previous to medical examination, and of 42 individuals who officially were interviewed by the selection committee, 13 were found medically unfit. Sixteen were rejected by the board, leaving a total number of 13 out of the original number of 251 that were considered in all respects qualified for the air services. That speaks a lot for the enterprise of our young men that they should come forward in such large numbers to join this service, but it is very regrettable that out of 251 only 13 were found qualified to take up these positions, or about one in 20. Of course, there were other reasons again than medical ones for the rejection of such a large number of men, but it is obvious that the physical condition of a considerable lumber of our population leaves a great deal to be desired. Let us turn now to the citizen force. The military examination of the young men who annually become liable for military service again gives most disappointing results. I am quoting from the official report, very carefully worded, where it says on page 25—

That 23.76 is in addition to a further small percentage of 2.58 that were found temporarily unfit, and for the present, at all events, could not be enrolled in our forces. It is remarkable that of the young men offering in Cape Town, the young men called up for their training, no less than 46.77 per cent. were found unfit. Cape Town, the Mother City, I am sorry to say, in this has the worst record of all.

Are they all white?

Yes, all white; the young men called up for service in the defence force are all Europeans. One would think that in a country like this, with so many advantages, we ought to be breeding people almost of super-physique. I have, through the courtesy of the Secretary for Public Health, his annual report, and apparently the medical authorities of this country are satisfied to say that “it has not been shown that in this respect the Union compares unfavourably with other countries, or that the frequency of defects is excessive.” But surely we have the right to expect something better than this very qualified and negative report. We have the advantages of climate and open air, comparatively cheap food, and liberal opportunities for the enjoyment of sport, and we have a right to expect that we should be much better as regards the physique of our people than the inhabitants of more crowded countries. Of course, this is not the fault of the defence force authorities. I do not for a moment wish to lay this to their blame, but as this is the one department of the Government that calls pointed attention to this matter, I hope that the Department of Public Health will take it up and that, as a result, we shall be able to see better results, if not immediately, but some time in the future.

There is a certain selection which takes place, naturally, but I do not think it should go forward that that is necessarily an average sample of young men. I would point out that of those who are of the registered age only those are examined who have volunteered for military service, and that is only a certain proportion of those who are required.

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I fail to see that this mends matters. If the rejections are of those who volunteer for service—

And those who are examined.

I think it makes the matter much worse. I am grateful to the Minister for giving this information, and I would only suggest that explanations of this sort should be inserted in the departmental report. He will understand that an individual like myself can only deal with the figures put before me, and, naturally any explanation, particularly if it proved to be of a favourable nature, would be more than welcomed. We have a defence problem in this country, and I have always been taught that the first solution of a problem is a clear statement of it. The Minister will remember that this is not the first time I urged that we should have some-statement—I do not say that it should be more than a general statement, or be entirely comprehensive—of what our defence force is for, and what it is expected to do. There is an old proverb that a man who does not know whither he is bound will travel a very long way and perhaps ineffectively, and we are rather doing that, I think, with our defence force. I do not want to be misunderstood for a moment. I am not here to indulge in destructive criticism. I am rather trying to help the department along, and, above all, I wish now, as I have done formerly, to express the highest appreciation which I think the people of this country ought to feel towards those officers, non commissioned officers and men who have so whole-heartedly devoted their time to the military training. It is because I appreciate their efforts so much that I do want to make suggestions that would encourage them more in future and show them that the country is not ungrateful for all they have done. We must try and define what we are aiming at in our defence force, and it seems to me that we might sum it up as being to enable the people of this country to have an honourable, prosperous and secure existence. Those are general terms, but it is just as well that we should be able to state our objective, at least generally. My definition would proceed, “And that we shall have no interference in our progress towards civilization and world status.” The world status which we have attained to a satisfactory extent is a thing which is to be desired and which we are bound to seek and maintain when we have got it. If this statement is not complete—and I do not pretend that it is—it may be claimed that, at all events, it puts the main objects of our defence problem before us. If I may allude to the special tangible possessions which we have to defend, because we may assume that the desire for freedom and liberty is common to all nations, I might say that we have an area including South-West Africa, of 783,731 square miles. Now, from its nature, that is a very tempting territory to those nations who find that the land in which they live is too strait for them. They are people who have no means within their own boundaries of disposing of their surplus population. We have in this territory the largest coal area in the world, and coal means power. We have the largest and richest gold mines, producing half the world’s output. We have 80 per cent. of the diamonds of the world, and in addition we have unexploited supplies of platinum, tin, copper and zinc, and most important of all, immense deposits of iron ore in close proximity to coal and fluxes. These are very tempting assets for a country to possess. I am not laying stress on our magnificent climate and our agricultural and pastoral possibilities which are also very tempting and will sooner or later perhaps attract the longing and anxious eyes of those countries which are over-populated. When we remember—and here is our danger—that South Africa has a white population of at most, 1¾ millions, or 3.2 to the square mile, with between five and six millions non-European, or 11.4 to the square mile, and when you compare that with Japan, for instance, which has a population of 77 millions crowded together at the rate of 370 to the square mile, and that in a country that is so poor and lacks so many of the things we have, that only one acre in six can be cultivated, we see how tempting this country might be. There are other reasons other than purely economic ones or immediate economic considerations which will attract the eyes of the world to South Africa. It has been recognised for centuries that the Cape is the key to the world; at all events ever since transportation by sea began. The great Bacon is credited with saying that he who holds the Cape commands the seas. It would follow that those who would command the seas must first seize on and hold the Cape. That leads us to the obvious reflection that we are unable to defend ourselves by our own unaided efforts. We have no sea power of our own. We have the Protea and two mine-sweepers, not to be despised, a good beginning attracting a lot of patriotic young men to undergo the necessary training, and I cannot imagine any greater gift to the Royal navy in time of war than 600 or 700 of our young men trained on local boats and ready to take their places in His Majesty’s ships of the Royal navy. We cannot blink the fact that at the moment we have no sea power and if we are to maintain our safety and independence, it can only be by the closest co-operation with Great Britain and with the protection of the British navy. That, I think, needs no argument. The British empire—it cannot be stated too often—comprises one-fourth of the world’s surface and controls one-fourth of the world’s population, and is, in itself, the biggest factor for peace the world has ever known. The British empire, Great Britain at the heart of it, is absolutely dependent for three-fifths of its daily food on sea-borne products. If we visualize the British empire as a living organism with Great Britain as the heart and the dominions as the limbs, it may follow that a blow at the heart may paralyze or even kill the whole organism, while the severing of an artery will also cause the death of the whole system. The lines of commerce are the arteries of the empire, and here we are with two thirds of our shore lapped by the Indian Ocean. I might say in passing, and it is worth nothing, that in the whole of the Indian Ocean there is not a single port but one that is not owned or controlled by the British empire. That single exception is the port of Lorenco Marques. So important is the Cape that in time of war with the Suez and Panama canals denied to the commerce of belligerents, it is known that British ships would pass the Cape at the rate of one per every half hour. It is of the utmost importance, not only to ourselves, but to the whole empire, and therefore again to ourselves, that we should maintain that connection. The Indian Ocean is a great triangle. It has three points, South Africa, India and Australia. The safety of that triangle depends on the three corners remaining intact. If one of those breaks away or is captured, or is unequal to its obligations, then the whole of the commerce in the Indian Ocean is exposed to great danger and the safety of the empire itself may be menaced. It will be clearly seen from that what a great amount of empire trade passes through the Cape. Our only security for many years to come will rest essentially in the British navy. I do not want to go into the unflattering figures that represent our meagre contribution to that protection. I hope we shall do better in the future. How can any sane man, with world conditions as they exist at present, talk of neutrality? It is absurd.

The arch neutral. I believe, was one Pontius Pilate. He was a man who shirked his duties and evaded responsibility; he washed his hands of it. He was a neutral at the time of the greatest historical event in history. What was his fate? Legend has it that in due course he was recalled to Rome and committed suicide. They say his body was buried in deep water near Mount Pilatus, and that every Good Friday it troubles the waters, rises to the surface and he is seen washing his hands once more of his responsibility. The moral is obvious. We cannot wash our hands of responsibility. If we do, we also commit national suicide. However, I hope all this talk is a thing of the past. I have shown that there are possible overwhelming reasons why we should make every effort to maintain our freedom here, and have an adequate defence force, because navies, the British navy, cannot keep the sea for ever. It is absolutely necessary that they should come into port at short intervals for rest, comfort and refitment, and it is essential, therefore, that the British navy should at this base of the huge triangle I have mentioned, find all that is necessary for it to maintain its efficiency. The fact that we are at peace is surely a strong argument that now is the time to take stock of the situation. If we study war and look at this fact, it will be apparent after a little reflection, that in one corner of the world, if I may call it a corner, from Bombay to Japan, live more than one-half of the world’s inhabitants, and it is within a fortnight’s steaming of us. It is impossible for these people with their increase, to go on living in their own country. The overspill of peoples and races follows natural lines—and that is the least line of resistance. One line of least resistance would be South Africa, and it would be difficult in the human as in the natural world to prevent this overspill reaching and settling into a place where it finds least resistance. We have trouble enough already with the eastern races, which are so totally different from us in outlook, psychology and so on. Some day we may have to take measures to resist their forcible incursion. The transport of troops on a large scale has become a simple matter; during the last war one million troops were transported from the Antipodes to Europe quite safely and without any loss of life. That was possible only because Great Britain held command of the sea, and in order that we should do our part to enable her to continue to hold that command we should do our duty as part of the empire, not only to maintain our ports and docks in a prepared state, but have an adequate force to prevent those conveniences and necessities for the navy from being raided by an enemy force. As the world is at present, we ought to have a very highly efficient permanent force, at all events as a nucleus. Any hostilities may take a sudden form. We know it is impossible for any large number of troops to be suddenly transported over a large radius so long as Great Britain holds command of the sea, but we know it is quite possible for one or two vessels to evade the attention of the navy, and in the Indian Ocean we have the evidence of the damage the Emden has done. It may be possible for South Africa to be visited by a raiding force which may do damage, not only to us, hut to the navy and shipping at the ports. This tends to simplify our defence problem, because if we know in what particular form the danger may threaten us, we are in a better position to prepare for it. We are a young country, and one of our weakest points is we have not the man power necessary to develop our resources to the fullest extent, nor to enable us to put a considerable defence force in the field. We cannot afford to draw from the industrial ranks these young men who are engaged extensively in production and in making their own way in life and who are preparing to take their full share as citizens, as husbands and fathers of families. The most we can do is to maintain a highly efficient nucleus. But behind them we should have the mass of the population in such a state of training that within a reasonable time they could take their place in the ranks. I think the Minister of Defence will admit that what is being taught to our defence force now has little or no relevance to the conditions of actual war, or the conditions of the next war, of war in the future. Traditions die hard. They are taught steadiness and discipline and so on, but we could get that by less expensive means, and we should have the training necessary for war as the greatest military thinkers visualize it to take place in the future. A raid is most likely to take the form of one or more aircraft carriers visiting our shores carrying a considerable number of aeroplanes. It is calculated that things have advanced so now that a strong air raid could drop more bombs in a day than were dropped in London during the three years intervening between the first and the last Germany raid.

They are most vulnerable vessels; they would not cruise about by themselves.

The Minister, as an old soldier, knows that you make a raid like firing a shell—it is off and does not come back. It might be possible that an escorted raid of that sort would take place on a considerable scale, and our attackers might try to destroy important junctions—industrial centres, the seat of government, or even the legislative capital. It is a fact that there is no important town in South Africa which cannot now be reached by an air raider from the sea, carrying explosives, gas bombs and other means of destruction, and they have the power to get back, if they are so lucky, to their base—the ships. There is no portion of our country which cannot now be reached by aircraft. This brings us to the remedy. It is recognized that one of the most effective means of meeting air raids is by the use of aircraft. Here again we are a singularly fortunate people. Our country has been described by all the great airmen as ideal for aerial transit; in fact, the best in the world. Better still, we know that in South Africa we have an air personnel unsurpassed in the world, and when the time comes, if we give them sufficient opportunity, they will emulate the great feats of their predecessors. With the danger, therefore, we have the remedy fairly close to our hands. But the aerial will not he the only form of raid. It would be supplemented by a force moving very rapidly in mechanized vehicles, and it would, perhaps, complete the work of destruction initiated by the raiding airmen. Again we are blessed. I read a few days ago the opinion of one of our greatest military authorities, who said that South Africa had a surface which was the best-suited in the world for cross-country work. I am sure the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were greatly impressed by what they saw two years ago at Aldershot in the shape of mechanized mimic warfare, and the economy that could be gained by it instead of depending on muscle moved units. That brings us to a very sad fact, the passing of the horse in warfare. Horse cavalry first came into existence in August 8th, 378 A.D., when a Roman emperor had to meet an attack by the Goths. The Roman legions, although they had behind them centuries of training, discipline and tradition, went down when they were confronted by this new element in warfare. From that day onwards the horse in the form of cavalry held a commanding position in all wars, and they were the decisive arm of nearly a thousand years. Their career came to an end with the invention of the long-range bullet. In the Great War in hardly a single instance could cavalry be employed on the western front. A revolutionary change took place on August 8th, 1918, when cavalry were re-born in the form of armoured tanks. The charges of these tanks were as effective as ever the charges of cavalry had previously been. That is what we must look to in South Africa. The disappearance of the horse will be viewed with sadness by most of us, if for no other reason than that South Africa has the finest record of the mobility of mounted troops. The greatest master of mobility was the late Gen. de Wet, who, however, found his Waterloo in the motor. He would never have been captured by ordinary means. We have to take stock of altered conditions, and must pay more attention to the means of increasing the speed of our fighting men to 20 to 25 miles an hour rather than depend on the humble foot-slogger with his three miles an hour. The strength of forces in the future will not be counted by rifles, but by automatic machine guns each of which ordinarily require 13 men to move, serve and protect it. Nowadays the same potentialities of destruction can occupy an armoured car with a crew of two, or at most three, men, and they are able to move at seven or eight times the speed and ten times the distance of the 13 men on foot. Mobility is one of the most important factors in warfare, and it was one of Napoleon’s maxims that the strength of an army consisted in the mass multiplied by the velocity. If you have an army with extreme mobility you have an enormous advantage over a slow moving army. The Andrews expedition through western Mongolia journeyed 10,000 miles in ordinary cars over country that had no roads, and at the end they sold the cars for more than what they paid for them in America. This shows that vast numbers of men and supplies can be moved over countries which have not good roads. We must not rely too long on the horse. The average rate of a mounted force under normal circumstances is 20 miles a day, and then there is all the trouble of providing fodder and grooming. The same destructive force may be moved 200 miles in the same time. Let us get back to the ground floor of our defences. The present strength of forces undergoing training in the Union is 152,701—a very fine figure. In addition we have 45,537 cadets. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) is reported as having said that these large numbers do not constitute a force, but an absolute farce. I have no doubt they were considered words, and if anything like that is approximately the truth, it is a very disappointing result for a very-large expenditure. He is also reported as saying that to lead men so trained into battle is nothing less than national suicide, and these sentiments, I hear, were applauded on both sides of the House. If there is any truth in this, and I am afraid the most ardent supporter of the defence force will admit there is some truth in it, it points to the necessity of a radical change in our methods. We must harden our hearts to the fact that the slow-moving infantryman is prehistoric. We must take advantage of the natural resources that we have —a country ideally suited to motor transport, and with a very large number of motor-car owners. I would suggest that a list should be kept in the Defence Department of owners of motor-cars who are willing in time of mobilization to put their vehicles and drivers at the service of the department. It is only carrying out what has always been done in other countries with horses. I come back to my familiar appeal, the building up of our defence force on our cadet system. Surely that has many advantages that are more apparent now than ever. We see, too, that the defence force is not as popular as it might be. I do not think the Minister can deny that. We hear of a considerable number of prosecutions, but I do not pay too much attention to that. Yet, I think any one in close touch with our young men will admit that they do not come forward with any great willingness. They do not want their progress with their studies and trades disturbed to any great extent, but I think also we are dealing with a very intelligent class of man, and I think that they also feel that they are not being taught anything particularly useful for war, with the single exception, perhaps, of the disciplinary side of it. I think most of them are reading young men. They have heard from their fathers and brothers who took part in the great war; they, perhaps, have visualized what is likely to happen in the next war, and I think those are factors which tend to make the defence force period of training somewhat unpopular. By the cadet system we are giving young men a reasonable and thorough elementary training, implanting in their minds at their most susceptible age those ideas of discipline and loyalty and of working for the team, for their uniform and for their country, and so on, that is more painfully learned later on. You have then a lot of young men coming along with ideas of discipline, with intelligence developed, and knowing that whatever changes there may be in the military art they will be capable of adapting themselves to it. I think if you laid that foundation and teach these matters of military essentials as you teach the three “r’s,” theoretically, success will follow. Again, too, I do not know if this has engaged the Minister’s attention, but I would suggest every university having an officers’ training corps, where young men, particularly those with an aptitude for it, should pursue their studies a little further than is possible in the ordinary service in the defence force in to the military art, and thus bring about a reliable reserve of officers. I think it was Ludendorff who said that while you can make a good soldier in six months, it takes six years to make a reasonably good officer, and I do not think he is far from the truth. I do not think it would be a serious interruption of their studies to have an officers’ training corps, and I think the information they would gain would be good in many ways, not only to themselves. We know that men follow leadership best in those whom they think are capable of commanding, and if men have confidence in their officers and know they have devoted some time to the study of the military art, they will follow them more cheerfully, and I think this will tend towards greater efficiency and discipline. Now I have dealt almost exclusively with aggression from the outside. What about internal trouble? The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar), if I understand him aright, visualized that some day or other we might have some form of invasion or pressure from the north where a great number of black people are being trained to the use of arms. That is no doubt not unreasonable. I do not want to dispute it, but that will not happen nowadays, and I want to deal with the present. It can only happen if a great European power were at war with Great Britain, and it would take some time to develop, and we should have some notice of it. But we always have the possibility of internal trouble on a small or large scale. No one wants to spend nearly £900,000 a year in dealing with possible trouble of that sort, and I am sure the Minister would not imagine that the greater bulk of this training or expenditure would be devoted to that form. I wonder if any of our hon. members have read of the method employed by the American police in Chicago. They find a few bombs full of tear gas delivered from an armed vehicle that is impervious to brick-bats, assegais, knobkerries, and even bullets, is wonderfully effective in quietening down a crowd or riotous assembly of people who wish to disturb the peace. I am speaking frankly of native trouble, and one of the best effects of this tear-gas is that it is not fatal. Something of that sort might be done rather than take more expensive measures in providing a large mobile force to deal with riots of that sort. As we were talking of the natives, one part of our defence force problem is to remember that the native will not always be in his present stage. We always hear that the native is a child and must be treated as a child, and be brought on gradually. The very fact that you visualize the native as a child at present means that you must visualize him as a grown man later on. Our aim, as a defence problem, should be this—to make our natives good South Africans so that they should look to the Union of South Africa for everything. The Union should be their father and their mother, so that their thoughts will not stray to the north to people perhaps of their own race and kidney, but they should find their salvation and safety in South Africa. Make them good South Africans apart from the colour of their skin, and bring them along in the way that I suggest. Do not give them any thoughts or memories of cruelty or oppression or injustice that will be with them when they have taken on a greater stature than they have now, a greater mental stature, and in that way I think we would simplify our defence problem. Another way to simplify it is to realize that our country is terribly undermanned. In the present stage of active movement in the world the cradle is no longer sufficient. We must also use the steamship to fill up this country gradually, safely, systematically and soundly, or we shall find ourselves in an even more dangerous position as time goes on. I do not wish for a moment to say hard things about the defence force or about those who have given devoted service to it, but I do suggest that the time has come when we should take a re-stock of the situation, when we should settle down as a united people to work unitedly for the safety of our great heritage, and I think if South Africans are imbued with that spirit we shall, before long, be able to deal more effectively than at present with our defence problem.

With the exception of a few speeches, the Budget debate has been fairly subdued. The most moderate that I have yet listened to, but the attacks on the surplus were most remarkable. We cannot blame hon. members opposite for being disappointed at the good condition of the country, because it knocks the ground from under their feet. It also shows that they are not exactly so much concerned about the welfare of the country, as about a few votes. But the secret of the success lies in the Government’s consisting of statesmen. When they are convinced of something being for the benefit of the country, they do not draw back, but tackle the matter and carry it out. That is the great contrast between the former S.A.P. Government, which, with the exception of a few possibly, consisted of opportunists, who for the sake of native votes permitted Clements Kadalie to come into the country, well knowing—I accept this from sensible people—what damage it would do, not only to the Union, but to the whole of South Africa. The Opposition now says that the large surplus was obtained by overtaxing the country. But who taxed too heavily? Not this Government, but the last. This Government, during the four years it has been in office, has reduced taxes—including the reduction in railway rates—by about £3,000,000. This speaks volumes for the Government which found the country in such a parlous condition when it came into office. But the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) pleaded in this House for the extension of the franchise to native women, and the Opposition voted unanimously for it, with the exception of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius), who had the courage to walk across and vote with the Government against the hon. member for Standerton. His chief supporters in my constituency are so strongly opposed to the native franchise that they wish the Government simply to take away the existing native franchise here. Now, however, the leader of the S.A. party comes and wants to give it to native women.

The hon. member must not discuss what has been disposed of in a former debate.

The business community had lost confidence in the last Government, which had no fixed policy. They used to jump around like an ape in a burning pan. But as soon as this Government came into power, and showed that it had fixed principles, and a fixed policy, the industries, and the whole business world, regained its confidence, and the confidence continued, and this year the Minister of Finance again has a large surplus. It is remarkable that while the franchise debate was taking place here, the head office of the S.A.P. in the Transvaal was sending out petitions throughout the whole of the Transvaal against what they called the pernicious native Bills of the Prime Minister, and I am sorry to say that some weak-kneed Nationalists were also prepared to sign the petitions. Why they do not understand that almost nothing ever comes out of the head office of the S.A. party in the Transvaal in political matters, I cannot understand. Hansard indicates by the small number of crosses before the names of the hon. member for Standerton and other S.A.P. speakers how little they care about what is said here. They only care about their speeches in the country, which are not officially reported. What keeps the Opposition alive is the mighty S.A.P. press. When the hon. member for Standerton has made a very poor show here, and his feet have been completely knocked from under him, then the next day, or possibly the same day, we see in the mighty press large black headlines such as “Brilliant smashing speech by General Smuts.” If it were not for the mighty press, then the S.A.P. would disappear to such an extent that, in a comparatively short time, one would have to search and search to find a genuine Sap. I do not refer to spurious Saps. There are a certain number of old Unionists, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, who can see the fact just as little as a tortoise can write about the Bible. The Opposition is turning its hope to the next election. We hear that this Government’s times will soon be over, but the hon. members must anyhow have a very poor opinion of the sound commonsense of the electors of the country if they think that the electors will again put into power a Government which could not govern in the past, one just as fit to govern as a jackal is to look after sheep. The voters have more commonsense, and we are full of courage with regard to the next election. The sound commonsense of the electors will turn the scale. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), whom I always thought a sensible man, made an attack on the Minister of Railways, who is absent, and he said that the Minister had run away from his place here; but I want to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Railways has gone to Europe to do responsible work, such responsible work as will probably never be entrusted to the hon. mem her for Harbour. The Opposition complains about the increasing expenditure, but I should like to ask the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) whether, at the commencement of his career when a young man, his expenditure was just as much as now he has developed his business? Every sensible man knows that when a business extends the expenditure increases. The point is whether the income covers the expenditure, and, as long as that is the case, and a profit is still being made, we need not worry ourselves about the business of the country.

In proportion.

Yes, of course, so long as the expenditure is not excessive, and a profit is made, any business man will be satisfied. Now I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a motion by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to exempt farmers from income tax. I went through my constituency, and it is true that there is no unanimity about it amongst the farmers. We find farmers in favour of abolition, and others who are quite proud that they have incomes liable to the tax, but I can assure the Minister that all the farmers agree on one thing, namely, that the income tax should be so amended for farmers that their expenses in connection with the improvement of their farms, with the exception of dwelling houses, but including dams, encampments, barns, etc., may be deducted as expenses from the taxable amount. The improvements to the farm increase the production from which the State benefits just as much as the farmer himself. The farmers pay much indirect taxation which other people practically do not pay. Everything the farmer produces and sends to market is liable to indirect taxation in the form of costs of transport, marketing fees, etc. Everything the townsman buys from the farmer is subject to indirect taxation, therefore I think it is fair that the Minister should alter the tax. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) attacked the Minister of Agriculture because more produce was not exported. I should like to know whether it is the duty of the Minister, or of the Government, to look after that Is it not the duty of the people themselves to produce more for export? The Government will then help as much as possible to export. Now I just want to say to the Minister that if he thinks the Natal people will ever be satisfied, he is quite wrong. They are the most dissatisfied body of people you can find. They cannot be satisfied. They get about 100 per cent. more of the Union revenue than they are really entitled to proportionately, but they are still ungrateful. When we reach the Loan Estimates, I shall move to delete the £2,000,000 put down for the extension of the Durban harbour, and to use the money for Algoa Bay and East London. Let St. Lucia Bay be opened; it is about 100 miles nearer Johannesburg, and is the natural harbour of the Transvaal. Then we have heard a great deal about the wages of civilized labourers on the railways. I can assure the Minister that many people are thankful for the work they get there. As for me, the railway rates may be raised a little to pay the people 6d. or 1s. a day more. Let the Opposition go on shouting and making a noise if they wish, but it is the duty of the Government to see that the people get a living wage. It is difficult for them to live on 5s. a day. A poor man with a family cannot come out on that. If all the white men on the railway get 1s. a day more, it will not amount to more than 1s. a year for all the tax-payers. I do not think that any tax payer is so hard-hearted that he will not pay 1s. a year more to provide a living for the white railway workers. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) spoke about private railways, and the lower rates they charge. The hon. member has apparently forgotten that there is still a private line in the Union at Utrecht. The public and the farmers along that line are constantly urging the Government to take it over in view of the intolerable tariff. The hon. member will remember how the farmers along the Mossel Bay line complained that they could not transport their produce on account of the high rates, but now the State has taken over the line, the farmers are able to sell their produce because the rates are lower. Does the hon. member say that the Government should sell the State railways to private undertakings?

There is only one remark of the last speaker to which I desire to refer, namely, the “goedemoed” which is within the breasts of the Nationalists. I take it that he means that after the next general election they will come back so strong that they will be able to dispense with the Labour party. We have already seen signs of that desire, but the actual results are in the lap of the gods. Many speeches from the other side have nothing whatever to do with the Budget, but have been delivered in anticipation of the next general election. It is rumoured that we may have a general election this year, which I doubt very much. I want to deal firstly with Provincial Councils. On February 21st, 1928, col. 1234 of Hansard, I directed a question to the hon. the Minister of Justice asking, in view of the various statements which we have had recently made at Beaufort West and elsewhere, whether the Government would take into consideration the question of the substitution for provincial councils of something else. The Minister replied that that was not his department, whereupon I immediately set down the same question to the Minister of Interior and Education, to whom he referred me, and whom I asked whether, in view of the many representations made to the Government and the recent resolution at Beaufort West on February 14th, by the congress of chambers of commerce in favour of the abolition of the provincial councils, he will introduce legislation accordingly, and if not why not? To which he replied—

I wish, first of all, to take exception to the first answer I got. I do not know whether the Minister had seen it before he came into the House, but to say it was discourteous is to express my views very mildly. I take it that a question of that importance, and fine which has been touched upon by various hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), and also which has been dealt with very seriously at a recent congress of the chambers of commerce held in Johannesburg, is a matter that merits the serious consideration of the Government, and the least an hon. member is entitled to is courtesy from the Minister to whom the question was in the first instance directed. I do not blame the Minister, because I do not believe they read all the answers before they come into the House, but if they do not I would ask the hon. the Minister to direct some gentle remarks to the gentleman who prepared the first answer, and to say that members are entitled to more courtesy than I consider I had dealt out to me on that occasion. Furthermore, take the answer given by the Minister to whom I was directed. I say the Government is afraid of the subject. The answer was indefinite, and there was no opinion given on the subject. It simply said the Government’s programme was so full; there was no expression why the Government refuses to deal with the subject, and the excuse was a lame one. I would refer this House to a production of Sir Edgar Walton on the history of National Convention. The pity of it is that there is no index. I hope an index will be furnished, because it will be required more and more as time goes on. In that book, on page 208, it states, referring to provincial councils—

and on page 221—

With regard to the latter, I think we may take it as accepted that they are divided into political parties.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock, I was directing attention to the provincial councils as they exist today, and I said that I hoped that that valuable contribution to the literature of South Africa by Sir Edgar Walton, “The History of the National Convention,” would be indexed so that it could be made better use of by members of this House. The question of the provincial councils is engaging the attention of the public very much to-day. I quoted from that book showing what it was hoped would eventuate after Union and, in particular, that the provincial councils would not be run on party lines. The experience of all of us and the country generally, is that that wish has, unfortunately, not been fulfilled. On the contrary, the provincial councils, notably in the Transvaal and the Cape, are being run on party lines. A few days ago a Mr. F. C. de Wet, in the Provincial Council at Cape Town, was also dilating on this subject, and he was asked. “What do you suggest?” He said, “I suggest their abolition.” Whereupon the Nationalists with one voice acclaimed that sentence. Mr. C. I. Sibbett, also a member of the Cape Provincial Council, referred to the Public Bodies Audit Ordinance of 1927, and he pointed out that no fewer than 900 institutions fell under that ordinance. He also pointed out that the administrators, as they exist at present, are independent of anyone after they are once appointed. They are responsible to nobody, and they cannot be dismissed without a vote of this House. Take the provincial executive here, which is a South African party majority, but they are still overridden by the other two, plus the administrator. You have this anomaly that while you have a majority of one party, the minority rules it nevertheless.

You have the same anomaly in the Free State.

There it is infinitely worse. There is no opposition whatever.

What about the Senate?

The Senate, upon a dissolution of this House, can be dissolved by the Governor-General upon the advice of the Prime Minister. I want to ask the Government whether they are going to use the Labour party in their next Cabinet? The public were fooled in 1924. They were solemnly told the object of the Pact was really to oust the then South African party Government. They never told the public they were going to include a certain number of Labour members in the Cabinet. They took great care to conceal that fact. I think they put in a very fine man when they made an eleventh Cabinet Minister. There is no knowing—if they get into power again— which Heaven forfend—whether they will not enlarge the cabinet again. In March, 1923, I had the honour of presenting to this House a petition signed by 33,760 Transvaal inhabitants asking the then Government to introduce legislation abolishing provincial councils. They alleged that the continuance of provincial councils means the perpetuation of wastefulness and inefficiency, a menace to the interests of the commercial, agricultural and industrial community. They suggested that institutions on the lines of divisional councils should be set up, as in the Cape Province. Recently in Johannesburg there was a Chamber of Commerce conference, and I think the suggestion they made there was a very good one, that the Government might well adopt. They suggested that a commission should be established with an equal number of representatives from each of the provinces. I suggest that it is a very good idea, because they could then consider the Jagger Report of 1917 and other subsequent reports on this question. That commission would take into consideration what the position is to-day compared with 1909-'10, when the provincial councils were suggested by the convention. In the “Cape Times” of the 28th February last, there appeared a highly instructive contribution from a Mr. Peter Davidson, an ex-receiver of revenue, and now retired. I understand he was highly respected by everyone in the public service and that he is an upright gentleman whose opinions are worthy of consideration. He said, inter alia—

I do not for one moment suggest if the provincial councils were abolished that these men should be thrown on the streets. They should be absorbed and taken into the general service. And then we had a very illuminating and instructive speech recently delivered by the Administrator of the Transvaal, Mr. I. H. Hofmeyr, than whom, I suppose, there is no more competent man in South Africa. He occupies a very important position in the affairs of this country—that will be admitted on all sides— and his opinions are worth having. He says—

He refers to the constitution of the provincial councils being a matter of compromise, and he says—

Further on he says—

[Quotation read.] He refers to their inefficiency, wasteful expenditure and neglect of essential services, and says—

I think that fits in very well with the resolution of the Chambers of Commerce arrived at in Johannesburg. Some of us may have arrived at a hasty conclusion, but this responsible body which should be set up will tell us what is the right line to adopt. There is another anomaly in the Act of Union which, I think, should receive our attention. Some eight or ten years ago or more, I asked the South African party Government, and I asked the present Government, whether they are not going to introduce some legislation so that it should be possible for a member of this hon. House as is the case of a member of a provincial council to be a candidate for the Senate, in the case of a vacancy, without having to resign his seat first. If there is a vacancy in the Senate, we all know that a provincial councillor can be a candidate, without his having to resign his seat, and if and when he is elected to the Senate, he will then only cease to be a provincial councillor, and will be a senator, jumping right over the heads of those who have been sitting here for perhaps 18 years. I submit that is a matter which the Government should take into serious consideration. Unfortunately, that suggestion has fallen flat, but I think it is worthy of consideration. It might eb said you should not amend the Act of Union because it is a holy document, and it should be touched only with the greatest caution. But it has been amended in several respects already. I am sure the suggestions I have made are for the betterment, and in the interests of the country, and in general will be appreciated outside the House. I now want to touch on the question of Imperial preference. A question was put by me with regard to various things in that connection, and I have some of the figures given by the Minister of Finance. We, in South Africa, enjoy admission to Great Britain’s markets on preferential terms. If you take wines, according to the answer furnished to the House, on sparkling wine, there is an allowance in bulk of 6s. 3d. a gallon, and in bottles 7s. 3d., on heavy wines, bulk 4s., bottles 5s., and on light wines, bulk 1s. and bottle 2s. Surely, we must give something in return for that. And what do we give? I recently asked a question with regard to exports from this country to Great Britain, and was informed by the Minister that in 1924 we exported 111,000 gallons of wines; in 925, 55,000; in 1926. 100,000, and in 1927, no less than 283,000 gallons, all in round figures. That is an inducement to our wine farmers to go in for the best possible wines. Next year I heard from the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), who is an authority, that it will be 500,000 gallons. Potable drinks imported into this country from Great Britain, are as follows, in gallons: 1924, 304,000; 1925, 340,000, 1926, 329,000, and 1927, only 297,000. The customs duties realized, amounted to: 1924, £653,000; 1925, £673,000; 1926, £800,000; 1927, £549,000, chiefly on whisky. You will see that in 1926-’27 there was a falling off of roughly £250,000, which I attribute largely to our having raised the duty to no less than 45s. a gallon. If I am wrong, the Minister will kindly correct me. See the marked contrast, and how we treat Great Britain’s exports to our country, and how they, on the contrary, in spite of our treatment of them, do all they can to further the consumption of products from the British dominions and particularly from South Africa, Not content with that heavy duty, we have now a proposition before the House under which bars which sell only South African products will pay half the usual licence, which means a tremendous difference in the consumption of whisky. Subject to correction again, I say that as a large proportion of the three per cent. preference has been taken away, it penalizes the consumer as well, because he must have had some benefit from that rebate, and got the goods for less. The merchant does not only charge the consumer this extra three per cent., but has to charge his profit on that outlay. Therefore the consumer loses the advantage of that three per cent. preference. How would South Africa look if the British Government said they were going to revoke the preference which South Africa now enjoys? Those who are working in the best interests of South Africa would not like to see that. I ask the producers of the articles we export to Great Britain if they seriously desire to remain friendly with that country? Do other countries give us similar benefits? I have searched widely, but have not been able to find any concessions made in the shape of reduced import duties on our goods by any other country than Great Britain. Are we giving a quid pro quo? These heavy tariffs of ours which militate against Great Britain not only hurt us, but the British workman, who makes these things, and as a rule he is a poor man. We talk about the interests of the poor man; are we so selfish as to confine our sympathy to the South African poor man only, or are we prepared to consider our kith and kin overseas? How long is our shabby treatment of Great Britain to continue? It would be a sad day for South Africa if the tables were turned against us. I now propose to deal with the “Public Service Commission.” Under the Act of Union, official appointments recommended by the commission but not carried into effect by the Government, have to be reported to the House. Mr. Davidson says that too often when the commission’s recommendations have been overruled by the Government, nothing more has been heard of the matter.

I think Mr. Davidson was referring to the time before this Government took office.

That is not so. Mr. Davidson also said that “the work for which the Public Service Commission was created was not being carried out in terms of the Act of Union, and the Public Service Commission has lost the confidence of the civil servants.” Why? I have had occasion to speak very seriously about persons being imported from outside to the service, more especially recently, to fill appointments in the Service and thus spoil the chances of promotion of those who have been in the service for a considerable time, and who were entitled to consideration. On the 17th inst. the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was informed, in answer to a question, that since 1924 about 180 appointments of persons drawing salaries of £400 a year and upwards, had been made from outside the service, 125 having been made by the commission, and the remainder by the Government. If that is so, the Public Service Act should be altered, and with the few exceptions of judges and so on, all appointments should be made by the Public Service Commission and in every case in which an appointment was made from outside the service the matter should be fully reported to Parliament. According to Mr. Davidson and to others who have spoken to me confidentially, they are highly dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, and more particularly with what the Government has done. I do not know Mr. A. B. de Villiers, and I have nothing against him, but will anybody tell me that in the whole of the civil service no man was competent enough to be sent overseas? Take Mr. Louw, our trade commissioner in the United States. He is an excellent trained business man, but we seem to be spending a lot of money on his department and to be getting very little in return. It is fully said by the Government that the previous Cabinet did likewise, but that is no argument. When the present Government, walking in the footsteps of the late Government, does what is right, it is not ready to acknowledge the fact that it is following the good example of the preceding Government, but when the present Government does anything wrong it urges as an excuse that its predecessors did the same. The other night the hon. member for Fords-burg (Mr. J. F. S. Pretorius) made what everyone thought was an electioneering speech. It was quite out of place here and did not contain a word about the budget. He thought fit and some others on the Government’s side thought fit, to attack the previous Government on the question of finance. We had two very fine men looking after the finances of the country between 1921 and 1924. I refer to the right hon. Mr. Burton and my friend Mr. Jagger. I say those two men were great and courageous. They entered on a difficult office. The finances of the country were going down. But for them, very many more men would have been out of the service to-day than there are. They had a difficult situation to cope with and they grasped the nettle and were not afraid to do the right thing. They were rigid economists. They had to do two exceedingly unpleasant and unpopular things. They had to reduce expenditure. Why? Because there would not have been money to run the country with unless we had been taxed more than we have already been taxed. I contend they saved the situations of many who remained in the service. That, of course, helped largely to defeat the then Government. I daresay the civil servants were dissatisfied. Well, we will see what they are now. The Pact got the benefit by reason of the strict economy brought about by those two honourable gentlemen, and who, in my opinion, saved the country from ruin. The action of those two hon. gentlemen resulted thereafter, when the present Government came into power, in abounding surpluses, and for which the present Government need take no credit. What about the Graham report? That still lies in the pigeonhole, and the Government have not the courage to introduce it. They keep very quiet about it, too. Again, what did they do with those three and a half million pounds belonging to enemy subjects? What became of that? That enabled them to have these enormous balances in 1925, 1926 and 1927. We have not had a word during this debate said about that three and a half million. Now something is going to produce D.T.’s in this country. I am referring to the iron and steel legislation, and I use the letters D.T. in this sense—deficits and tears. That is what this Government’s action is going to do. The Government have given us the new railway station at Johannesburg, but what have they done for the immediate requirements of that city? We want badly a new post office. If a parcel arrives for anybody who has a post office box and he receives a ticket in his box saying that a parcel awaits delivery, he makes his way to the front of the post office and is told his parcel is not there, but at the branch office near the railway station. I had a little parcel small enough to be placed in my box, but I had to walk down to that office near the railway station some distance away to get it. Then we badly need a new magistrate’s court. The old building is out of date and practically useless. In 1904, the population of Johannesburg was nearly 159,000. The latest statistics show over 311,000. Since 1922 the population of Johannesburg has expended over £10,000,000 in new buildings. In 1904 there were 89 daily trains passing through the station in Johannesburg. Now.240 pass through there, exclusive of specials and engine movements. On some occasions we had as many as 60,000 passengers passing per day through the station. I think I may safely claim that the record of Johannesburg compared with any other part of South Africa is a good one; in fact, where would South Africa be if it were not for Johannesburg—the hub of South Africa, where more money is spent and earned than in any other part of South Africa? Now, I am not concerned with framing an indictment against the Government of their sins of omission and commission. There will be plenty of time for that, and the indictment will be a severe one. I wish now to touch upon a rather unpleasant incident, but I feel I cannot allow the case to go by without some comment. Only recently the Prime Minister celebrated his birthday, and it carne as the greatest possible pleasure to all of us to listen to the words which fell, on that occasion, from the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), and I do not think there is a single member, certainly on this side of the House, who did not endorse every word that fell from him. Likewise, it gave us pleasure to hear what the Prime Minister said on that occasion. He said that he and everybody in the House appreciated these good wishes as the clearest possible proof of the tremendous change that had come over the spirit of South Africa, when they had it in politics that they could fight one another and hit very hard without any bitterness and without any enmity. He added: “I do feel that this is the best proof we can possibly have of our becoming and being already one South African people.” I think when these words were heard by us we were delighted, and I felt full of hope, which was only to be destroyed that evening by a very unfortunate speech made by the Prime Minister at the reception given to him in the City Hall, when he accused, I suppose everybody sitting on this side of the House, as being “souless Afrikanders” and “jingo imperialists.”

Where did you read that?

I read it in papers in which I have the greatest confidence, and upon which I can place reliance. It immediately occurred to me that certain oft-quoted remarks from the Bible made by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Thomas Smartt) were most appropriate—

I thought for the moment the “sinner” (the Prime Minister), who sits opposite there had gone, had disappeared, and that we were now on the right path, only to have that view and wish disturbed that night by the unfortunate sayings of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister spoke in the afternoon he spoke on the spur of the moment, and, I think, from the bottom of his heart, but how soon was that destroyed by those unfortunate references in the speech that he made after he had had the afternoon and evening to think over what he was going to say. Which of these speeches are we to accept? They are inconsistent. It has been said that he never said this. Why has he not embraced the earliest opportunity of telling us, then, what he did say in the City Hall? I am sure everyone of us would be delighted if he said: “I did not say that, and I stick to what I said in the afternoon.” I would suggest that on the door of the Nationalist party, instead of saying: “Ye who enter here abandon all hope,” they should have the words: “Ye who enter here drop bickering, and let us work for the peace and prosperity and welfare of South Africa.” In conclusion, I want to draw the attention of the Minister, who is acting as Minister of Railways and Harbours, to an advertisement which recently appeared in a Johannesburg paper to the effect that the arrangement by which seats may be provisionally booked in advance is being discontinued. The practice hitherto at Johannesburg has been that anybody could go and book a seat provisionally, and that has been availed of very much by the poorer classes of people who cannot afford to pay the money down at the time. Now the new condition imposed is that you must have your ticket when you book. These poor people have, under the old practice, been able to book their seats provisionally some weeks in advance and make arrangements for accommodation at the resort to which they were going. They are, perhaps, not in a position to buy their ticket until within a few days of starting on their journey. This information has been given to me by Mr. A. A. Noble, a well-known gentleman of Johannesburg. This new arrangement will work very hard upon the people who are not in a position to take their train ticket out six or eight weeks before they propose to commence their journey. I will hand this letter over to the acting Minister of Railways and Harbours if he so desires, and will be glad if he will look into the matter.

I am not going to detain the House many minutes, nor have I risen to reply to the biting criticism of the hon. member opposite. The only reason why I have risen is that there have been three speeches, two on this side and one on the other, dealing with the department over which I preside, and I am sure hon. members might think it lacking in courtesy if, in the course of the reply from these benches, no reference is made to them. As my hon. friend will be replying to both his own budget and the railway budget, I am merely intervening to say a few words in regard to those criticisms. I very much welcome the criticism of hon. members on this side, and the hon. member opposite very much to the same effect, deploring that our defence effort is not greater than it is. That, I take it, to be the sum and substance of their criticism. I welcome it if only for this reason, that it shows that increasingly we are looking upon defence matters not as matters of party, but matters that we can criticize in a constructive sense in a question that is of common interest to all of us. I rise mainly to say that they will understand it will be far more convenient rather than dealing at any length with their remarks now to defer a more lengthy reply to them until the time when my estimates are before the committee. I think the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) objected to some remarks I made. There is such a thing as civilized law which restrains uncivilized nations. In times of stress the greatest power which commands the sea, and that is the British navy, is our greatest protection against the aggression of our shores. The maximum effort in a naval sense which this country can put forward commensurate with its resources, would not be sufficient to secure our shores against a landing by a third, fourth or fifth-rate power. So let us put it out of our heads that by our own efforts, we can secure ourselves against external aggression by sea Again, I would ask the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron)—and let me say I quite agree it is not a wholly imaginative picture he draws of the possibility which lies before us in the future— but we cannot possibly frame our defence arrangements and efforts on every possible danger of the future.

I spoke of raids.

The hon. member, I think, was imagining at least, I took him to be imagining, a really great world conflagration when it was thought possible that it might be a question of the eastern powers against the civilization of the west. I quite agree that in such a contingency this country would be a strategic position of the most vital importance, but we have to recognize the limitations placed upon us by the smallness of our-population and the comparative penurity of our resources. As a Defence Minister merely looking upon it from the point of view of defence, I would like to press the Minister of Finance very often for a very considerable amount more money to do things more in the way one would like from the point of view of defence purely, but as a constituent member of the Government responsible for the general policy, I cannot deny, and no member can deny, that the need of the country to-day in our present state of development is to spend our money on defence judiciously, and not to take a penny more from the money meant for development than is necessary for such measures of defence than ordinary prudence would dictate. I think we are getting more value for our money than we were a few years ago. We had a tremendous war effort which left things in a very confused condition and afterwards we had to reduce very much, but I think I am correct in saying that during the last three or four years we are getting, in many respects, more value for the money, and I hope that will continue. There are a number of detailed points I might ventilate. The hon. member spoke about the figures in the annual report of the Defence Department and of their reflection on the extraordinarily bad physical state of our young men. I will deal more fully with that on the estimates and I will only say here that it would be a great error to take those figures as indicative of the average of the general physical condition of the youth of this country. I will be best suiting the convenience of the House if I explain my reasons for rising as I have done, and hon. members will now feel it is not due to any discourtesy to them that more lengthy replies are not given, and I am sure that other members who want to address the House in the hour and fifty minutes left, will appreciate it if I give place to them.

I do not rise to reply to the Minister in view of the statement he has just made. We are all very anxious to discuss the defence position, which we did not enter into last year owing to the Minister’s absence. We thought it better to wait until the Minister was here. I have no doubt that this year there will be a discussion, and I hope the Minister, when his estimates comes on, will make use of the opportunity to take the House into his confidence and make as full a statement as possible on all of these various matters which have been raised in the House and outside the House. There is no doubt there is a considerable feeling of concern about the Defence Department, and that feeling would not be voiced in such strong terms as it has been voiced in this House by members who support the Minister if there were not a basis of fact in the charges made. But I am not going to pursue that matter to-night. I want to confine myself to the Budget. I hope the Minister will give us that opportunity of full discussion and the fullest information when his vote comes on. I am sorry I have had to be absent during most of this important and interesting debate. I made a public engagement to go up north at a time when the date of the Budget debate could not be foreseen, and that is the reason why I have been away all last week. I have, however, read as much of the discussion as I could in the press, and if to-night I do not break fresh ground, but to some extent repeat the arguments which have already been used, I hope hon. members will bear with me. The discussion I have found from reading very interesting. No doubt, there has been a good deal of electioneering, which I think not appropriate to the occasion, but there has been a good deal of general probing into the financial and general situation of this country which I consider very illuminating and important. The discussion has not proceeded on strict party lines. No attempt has been made to make party capital, but the effort by members of this side of the House has been to really probe into the situation and show what is wrong and what might be done to keep the financial administration of this country along safe and sound lines. Let me say this, the Minister of Finance has had bouquets thrown at him in connection with this Budget. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I am not at all impressed by his great surplus on this occasion, and by the other surpluses which he has produced during the last few years.

I look upon those surpluses not so much as an indication of the general state of affairs in this country, as an indication of wrong and incorrect budgeting by the Minister. It has been most unfortunate; this error has been responsible very largely for the way that the expenditure has been run up during the last four years. I know, and we all know, that it is most difficult to forecast events for the next twelve months, and for the wisest finance Minister it is difficult to say what is going to happen in the financial development of the country for the next twelve months; but the Minister holds the record, not so much for surpluses, as for wrong calculations, for four years now, and the result is, because he has always under-budgeted, he has shown a big surplus at the end, and his expenditure in consequence has kept pace with his surplus. If the Minister had budgeted correctly and told the House that there would he those surpluses in the next financial year, only one course would have been open to him, and that is to reduce taxation. He could not have helped himself, but because he did not estimate correctly and under-estimated the results of the revenue, he has had those surpluses which have been spectacular and impressed the country, but in essence they have done the financial administration of the country an injury. A very false impression has been created. For years there has been this additional proof or indication of “abounding financial prosperity”: the Minister has been, pressed, and it has been impossible to resist the pressure which comes from departments, from colleagues and the public. The result has been that in proportion to these surpluses there has been a rise in expenditure every year. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) the other night quoted some figures here to show that the taxable income has not increased in proportion. The amount the Government gets in the way of taxation does not represent at all the increase in the taxable income; on the contrary, there has been a fall, according to the figures my hon. friend quoted. I am afraid that from this incorrect estimating, this blundering, if I may call it so, the expenditure has been mounting up, until to-day it is a very substantial figure, In four I years time there has been a rise of £4,000,000; it was £24,000,000 when the Minister took office, and it is £28,000,000 now. In these four years there has been a steady rise year by year. That represents more or less the results of those surpluses. If the surpluses are added together, we shall get something like £4,000,000. I am afraid we have not reached the end of the chapter. We have this increase in expenditure of £4,000,000, and we must expect more to come. Later on in the session we will be faced with Supplementary Estimates; next year we will have Additional Estimates, and then in our estimates for the following, year there will be the usual increase again, and the Minister has told us we must look forward to an additional £800,000 for old age pensions. The result will be in the five years of this Government’s administration, if they outlast their time, the expenditure will have gone up to a figure not very much short of £6,000,000—and this is the very Government which came in on a policy of economy and retrenchment. There was no cry which appealed more strongly to the country four years ago than this cry of economy. We have had no economy; this promise of economy has gone the way of all the other promises, and instead of economy we shall have this enormous increase, not equalled by the abnormal increase we had during war time. We made a much more honest and genuine attempt at economy in our day. We at any rate during the last three years that we were up against it did economize to the extent of two million. The Minister, on this cry of economy, has done just the opposite, and will be responsible for sending up the expenditure of this country to a figure quite unheard of. It is largely due to the false glamour raised by his surpluses, and nothing has been more injurious and done the country more harm than these surpluses over which hon. members opposite have so rejoiced. If there had been a judicial exercise of the discretion vested in the Minister we would not have had those surpluses, and he would have foreseen them; taxation would have been reduced, and the position would have been much safer for the country. There is certain to be a setback in the affairs of the country—every country passes through these phases—and as to this running up of our expenditure to the utmost limits of our national revenue—what is going to happen if to-morrow there is a setback, as there is going to be? The day of reckoning is sure to come.

We will leave that to the S.A. party.

My hon. friend says he is going to leave that to the South African party. Many a word spoken in jest may contain some truth. I think whoever is in power and has to face the situation will not have to thank the Minister for his sanguine and extreme optimism in dealing with the Budget. If the Government had carried out the policy on which they came into power, and the promise which I am sure they did not make light-heartedly and which they meant, I am sure they had some expectation and some method of doing that; if they had carried out their promise we would not be in the ugly situation which we have to face to-day. The lion, member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) made some suggestion as to how the situation should be met in the future. It will require the very closest attention of the country to see

To prevent surpluses.

To prevent the recklessly spending up to the limits of our resources, in the time of our apparent prosperity, surpluses very largely created by wrong budgeting. The expedient which my hon. friend referred to has been tried in France, and might be tried here, or something else might be done, but I am sure that parties in this country will have to use their utmost resources to bring the financial administration back to normal, for it is impossible for it to continue.

Which are the normal conditions you refer to?

The conditions we have repeatedly had to face in this country.

Deficits?

The Prime Minister seems to calculate on the present state of affairs continuing indefinitely, but any wise man knows that if the Prime Minister feels that, he is living in a fool’s paradise. Not only this country, but every country, has its ups and downs, and as sure as we are sitting here to-night, the time must come when once more the revenues will contract and the inevitable contraction of our expenditure will then entail very serious hardship all round.

You speak about returning to normal conditions—which are they?

The normal is between the times of prosperity and depression.

When do we get them?

I do not know why the Prime Minister raises this point. My point is quite clear—that we cannot, as things go in this country and with our past history before us, we cannot count on a continuance of the present state of affairs. We would be fools if we thought there would be a continuance. Whatever opinion one might have on the general Budget, there is no doubt whatever, either in this House or the country, that the position of our railways is far more serious. We hear of no jubilation over surpluses here; the railway surpluses of four and five years ago have disappeared, and now we meet with deficits, and that in time of apparent prosperity, times which are above the normal. To me, the most serious fact of all is that, while we are faced with this situation, the Minister of Railways has left the country on public business. I think that that is really a most reprehensible and inexcusable state of affairs. The Minister of Railways was absent last year during a long time on what we have learned was a private visit on which he took with him the senior member of the Railway Board. His work was carried on by the Minister of Finance, who was overburdened with work, and in the end broke down. The result was that the railway administration, which is by far the heaviest administrative work in the Cabinet, had to be borne by a sick colleague, and in consequence there was a drifting and a loss of grip. No wonder that all is not well with the railways. Here we have a department whose revenue and expenditure are almost equal to that of the whole of the rest of the country. One Minister is responsible for that to Parliament. You would require almost a Cabinet to look after the railway administration, it is so large, and its operations are so important, yet this huge concern is now being run in the absence of the responsible Minister. This year, on the first opportunity after his perfunctory reading of his Budget speech, he leaves the Union to do other business for the country. I think it was an inexcusable arrangement which sent the railway Minister from this country. Surely there were other Ministers who could have gone. There was, for instance, the Minister of Mines, in whose department the work naturally falls, for this agreement with Portugal is largely concerned with labour for our mines. Why did not the Minister of Mines go? The agreement is also largely concerned with the commerce of this country, and the Minister of Mines is also Minister of Industries and Commerce, and it was in every way fit and proper that he should have gone. Besides, he likes these jaunts. He has been to India and to Canada, and I suppose his tactful methods would have contributed to a settlement, and I am sure a great sigh of relief would have gone up from the alluvial diamond diggings and from the Nationalist party if he had gone. But he does not go on this important occasion when his services are badly wanted in Lisbon, but his colleague, whose services are more badly wanted here, is sent on this expedition. If the Minister of Mines could not have gone, there was the Minister of Defence; he takes a great interest in the question of Mozambique labour. Why did he not go? He has not much to do. The Minister of Defence has the lightest job, I think, in this country. He has a department which has practically no administrative work to do, as the defence force, we are informed, does not exist except in name. He sits there as a Minister, contemplating the chasm yawning in his party. I think the Prime Minister is to blame for the choice he made on this occasion and for sending away the Minister of Railways at this important juncture. There is something wrong with our railways—that is the impression in the country. We have a competent staff—men who have grown grey in the service, men whose pride it is to carry on the administration properly, and yet we see there is a loss of grip. We see deficits taking the place of surpluses of years ago. We read of accidents day by day of a scale which is really alarming the people of the country. There is a lack of grip. How can you expect anything else with the responsible Minister away, and his work being done by an overburdened or sick colleague? I think my hon. friend will have another breakdown; he is already one of the most hard-worked men, and I do not think he can carry the additional burden. The result must be that under an administration like that, the railways must drift into chaos. The Government is very seriously to blame for their arrangements. We have lost Sir William Hoy, the best general manager we have ever had. There is no doubt about it, I have never come across a man of greater administrative capacity than Sir William Hoy. He has been succeeded by a man of very great ability, but by reason of this change there was all the more reason for the Minister to remain at his post and see to the business of this country. Our railways are a very big concern. They are responsible for the largest part of our public debt. According to the accounts last year, the railway portion of our public debt amounted to £135,000,000. What it is this year I do not know—considerably more. It is growing apace. Every year millions and millions are added to the railway portion of our debt. If this huge machine is not kept in order, if there is not the utmost discipline and the closest watch of this machine, I think this country is going to be left very badly. If there is one department of the State in which we dare not relax the closest grip, it is the Department of Railways and Harbours, and this is the very department where I say there is this laxity, this want of grip, and where the Minister has this curious conception of his duty to the country. If our railways were to lapse into a non-paying state, the condition of this country would be very parlous with the unproductive debt going up by leaps and bounds owing to the non-payability of our railways. It is a condition which we have to contemplate. It is what is happening in Australia to-day, I am told. The Australian State railways do not pay any more, according to the figures. In Canada, where a large portion of the railways belong to the State, they have been a non-paying incubus to the State, and I ask what is going to happen to this country with the enormous burdens it is already carrying if our railways should become non-payable, and the public of this country has to make good by way of taxation the interest which is payable on the railway debt? One safeguard was established in the South African Act, which made provision that our railways should be run on business lines, but that is not done either. Our railways are not run on business lines. I can mention two points to show where there is a clear and open breach of this provision of the South Africa Act. If our railways were run on business lines, surely there would be statistics kept in regard to these branch lines. The branch lines, we know, are the really non-paying part of our railways. Nobody is opposed to branch lines. I am not arguing against the building of branch lines. We have been building them in the country since the beginning of time, but from a business point of view we should know what the position is. We should not be left in the dark, and we have known up to a year ago, when the Minister, in clear and deliberate defiance of this provision of the South Africa Act, decreed that there shall be no further statistics kept.

In defiance of what provision of the Act?

That the railways should be run on business lines. I say it is an absolutely unbusinesslike arrangement. I have never heard of a private business being run on those lines—that you should not know what is really going on. Take the question of civilized labour, which in part is good and in part may be bad, but the least the country can legitimately expect is that the accounts should actually reflect what the financial results of this policy are. The Auditor-General, who is responsible for seeing that the accounts of this country are properly kept, has advised this House that the present system is wrong and indefensible.

Was it accepted by the Railway Select Committee?

No, no. The Prime Minister knows that unfortunately everything in the finance committees in this country, and railway committees, is run on party lines.

Was it accepted by this House?

Also party. It is most unfortunate. The Prime Minister has no right to shield himself behind his self-created majority. My whole point is that there is a clear provision of the South African Act prescribing that our railway business shall be run on business lines, and I say here are steps taken and provision made which are conflict with true business principles.

Who is to define what are business lines?

The Prime Minister might consult business men and he would hear. He might consult on his side of the House, or on this side of the House, or in the country. This country is not so bankrupt of business talent that we cannot tell him what are business principles. There is no division of opinion on these matters. Every person who knows agrees that on business lines we should have to keep these accounts properly, so that, at any rate, we should know what these things cost, hut we are now going forward in the dark. We do not know what the civilized labour policy is costing us. We vote millions of pounds occasionally for building branch lines. We do not know whether these lines are paying, or how much we are losing on them. We know nothing. We know that in prosperous times when everything seems to be running all right, when the Minister of Finance is showing big surpluses, our railways are getting worse and worse from the financial point of view, and the position is developing in a wrong way. I think there is something wrong with our Railway Administration, and you need not go further than this budget and previous budgets to show that that is so. With all this we find the Minister gone. There is another cloud appearing on the horizon no larger than a man’s hand, but it may develop into a very big storm, and that is the motor competition. There has been a warning by the previous general manager, by the present general manager, and the Minister has spoken strongly on it. We know that for once this Railway Administration which has been a sheltered business protected against all competition, is up against competition of some sort, and we find signals of distress going up, and demands being made for the protection of our railways against this very mild form of competition I look upon the matter as serious. Experience elsewhere has been that motor competition is serious for the railways. The experience in other countries has been that for short distances motor services can compete successfully with railway services. So much of our railway capital is locked up in branch lines, and our whole railway rate system is so based on rates discrimination between short and long distances, that it is of the utmost importance for us to scrutinize the ground carefully, and to see where we are, because if we are not careful we may find that a rent has been made in the protection given to our railways, which will have very far-reaching results. We do not know what is going to happen, and I can quite understand that if we are not careful the competition of motors may be such that in the end the railway system of this country may get a very serious blow. Now what is being done? I would advise the Government very strongly to make enquiry in time.

What do you suggest?

I will suggest just now. In New Zealand various attempts have been made to cope with this problem. They have exactly the same difficulty, the same position to face, and there repeated attempts have been made by the Government to deal with the motor traffic. Every way of dealing with the competition of the motor traffic has led to greater evils and abuses than they were trying to remedy and we might find the same here. I would strongly advise the Government to make inquiry in advance. Some action ultimately may be taken, and it may be the wrong action. It may be action which will throttle the development of this country. You do not want to go against the motors if they are a legitimate way of rapid development in this country, and I think any Government here will be up against a very serious outcry from public opinion and a very serious situation if, merely to protect the railways, they were to try and limit the expansion of motor traffic in this country. They have had much more experience in other countries of the situation. In the United States, for instance, considerable sections of railway lines have had to be closed down because of the motor traffic. It has been found that the motor competition was too much for the railways, and even the companies themselves, which are run on business lines, have shut down their railways, and they have instituted motor services which are cheaper and more serviceable to the country. I would advise the Government to make inquiries in advance, and find out what has been the experience in other countries. Let the Government make an inquiry in time, so that we may know in advance where we are, and so that action is not taken her which will do this country more harm than good. I want to refer very briefly to a couple of other points. I must say I read with a good deal of agreement the statement which the Minister of Finance made on the question of protection. As long as protection is applied in this country on the lines which the Minister formulated in his budget speech, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion, any considerable difference of opinion, in this country; that is to say, as long as we recognize agriculture and mining as the great primary producing industries, every man who wants to see this country develop and go ahead will not hesitate to give the necessary protection to the subsidiary industries. So long as agriculture and mining, which are the primary industries, are not hampered, and are helped, we want to help the other industries, too, and I want to say clearly that as long as the Government carries out that policy as formulated by the Minister of Finance, I shall have no objection. Some criticism has been made on this side of the House in regard to the step which the Minister has taken so far as boots are concerned in not reducing the duty by 2½ per cent, in accordance with the arrangement which was adumbrated some years ago, but there, too, I think this is a matter where we should be guided largely by the advice, the expert advice, of the Board of Trade, and if they think that the boot industry is not yet so firmly established as to be able to do without that preference, then let us go slow. We ought not to break down our own work, and I think that the Minister probably was right in the action which he took there in abiding by the advice of the Board of Trade. But there is one point connected with this matter that I think we should give closer attention to than we have done before, and that is the question of British preference. On inquiry I find that a great deal of the competition which we have to-day comes from the Continent, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia and other countries, where the labour conditions are far worse than in Great Britain or here, where hours are longer, where wages are lower, where conditions are in every way worse, and the competition which we have in the boot trade and, I am sure in other industries, to-day comes very largely from those countries with deteriorated labour conditions. I think it is very unfair that we should put the British manufacturers on the same footing as these people, and I think the Government ought to consider very seriously whether three or four years ago they did not go too far in the way they dealt with the British preference. I assume, quite frankly, that there was no intention to injure our trade with Great Britain, and that the whole and sole object of the Government was to help our own industrialists here, to help our own industries. I think that the Government went too far, and that it would be, from every point of view, wise and proper for this country to revise the position and to see that, as against other countries, our trade with Great Britain be put on a better basis and that a better system of preference be arranged for British industries. I mention this because I think we are all minded in this country to do the just and the fair thing. There is no doubt that the development of this country is very largely dependent upon the financial assistance we get from Great Britain. As the Minister of Defence has just now said, the defence of this country by us is practically impossible. It would entail such expenditure on our part to defend our coasts properly against dangers that might threaten that it is almost useless for us to attempt the impossible task; but, under the circumstances, the inevitable corollary is that we are dependent upon the British fleet to do so, and, therefore, not only from the point of view of the financial assistance which we get year by year in increasing measure from British capital, but also in view of what Great Britain does in connection with the defence of this country. I think, purely apart from sentimental reasons, simply as a business proposition, we might do more by way of preference, and I hope that the Government, in shaping their industrial policy, will bear that in mind and see how far it is possible to give more favourable treatment to British manufacturers than has been done hitherto. I do not want to detain the House any longer. I thought I might make these few remarks in regard to the budget.

My intention is not at all to answer the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), because I prefer to leave the points he raised to the Minister of Finance to answer. But yet there are a few on which I want to make some remarks. I must say that I found the speech a little amusing, and I do not blame the hon. member for Standerton, because they must of course try to make a case even when they have none. The hon. member tries to attack the Minister of Finance for his bad financial policy in having a surplus of millions, and immediately after he says, “Good heavens, but the railway budget is much worse still, because it does not show a surplus.” I cannot help laughing when I hear that, and we know exactly what it all means. He says that the Minister of Finance is not so well known for his surpluses as for his incorrect estimates. I do not wish to injure the hon. member’s reputation, but still, I think that he tries too much to father his own weaknesses on to the Minister of Finance. This evening he restrained himself from doing what he did last year, when he entertained the House in an amusing way with quite a lot of figures, and I am glad the hon. member did not subsequently try to defend the figures on the public platforms. What is so amusing is that he wants to make us believe that one of the Minister’s sins is “running the expenses up to the utmost limits of revenue.” Just imagine, for the four years the Minister has been in office, he has rushed up the expenditure as high as the revenue would allow, and yet he has nevertheless had large surpluses. I do not know how my hon. friend will square that. Then he goes on to a few points on which I wish to say something. The hon. member says that the Minister of Railways should not have been absent. With all respect, I beg to apologize for it, but I want to argue that no other Minister ought to go in the circumstances. The hon. member for Standerton knows just as well as I do, that it is indeed true that one of the points to be eventually dealt with will be the natives for the mines, but he knows equally well that that is not actually the great question which awaits settlement, and that the negotiations also will not deal much with natives, although that is an important incident, but that the actual big issue is the railway line, Mozambique-Transvaal. Then the hon. member for Standerton said that the railways were in such a remarkably bad condition and He at once wants to put it down to the new general manager of railways.

No.

Well, he put it in such a way that the impression was created, incontrovertibly created that there was nothing to complain about the railways up to the time Sir William Hoy went away, while after that time there was so much to complain about

That was not my intention.

I am glad to hear it, because I just want to remind hon. members that although I entirely concur in the admiration for the capacity of Sir William Hoy, and I realize how much the country is indebted to him as certainly one of the most capable officials we have ever had, notwithstanding that during his period of office the largest number of complaints came in about conditions on the railways. I need only refer —I do not say that they were correct, I think they were very unfair—to all the agitation which was intentionally created about 14 months ago, which made every right-thinking South African feel that it was so improper in those that were responsible for it that they ought to be ashamed of it. I only mention this because it was during Sir William Hoy’s time, and therefore to want to give the impression as has been done to-night, that now in consequence of the change in the railway management during the time of the present Minister there is much to complain about on the railways is not fair.

What agitation are you referring to?

To the agitation as if all the accidents which unfortunately quickly succeeded each other at that time were things which were not actually simply due to incompetency, but to something else as well. We all know that Sir William Hoy expressed himself very strongly about it, and pointed out the danger of such an unjust and unjustifiable agitation. The hon. member for Standerton has again represented to-day that the railways are not run on business principles. I asked him then who was to decide what the business principles were, and he replied that I must ask business people outside. My hon. friend knows well that that was not the object of my question. In the first place he spoke here as if the right should be given to the Auditor-General to decide what business principles were. I absolutely deny that that lies within the ambit of the Auditor-General’s work, and I therefore asked the hon. member what the Select Committee on Railways had to say. He said that the party majority decided there. Then I asked him what this House had said about it. He replied that there also the party majority prevailed. Of course, but it is the misfortune that this is one of the matters about which one party or the other has to decide, and the good fortune or misfortune now is that in the case of a Government the Government decides whether the railways are being run in accordance with business principles or not. Of course if the hon. member assumes the right of the Opposition to decide what business principles are, then he is entitled to speak in the way he did. We are, however, prepared to defend ourselves to the people, as we have always said from the start. Ultimately the people can be the only arbitrator, and we have always said that we were prepared—from the commencement of the policy—to let the people judge of it, and even at the last election we put the matter before the people because it was one of the points which I always stood for, that the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was a pernicious one.

You have represented it wrongly.

I merely say that during the elections and everywhere I stated that your policy, by which white labourers were discharged to make way for natives, was a pernicious policy.

That is incorrect, it is not true.

It was never said at that time that I was wrong and my hon. friend will remember that he himself told the House that 6,000 or 7,000 white labourers were discharged.

Never.

Well I know that 6,000 or 7,000 were discharged and what was also mentioned in the House was that along the railway line houses of white labourers were being broken up, some of which I saw myself between De Aar and Prieska, because white labourers were discharged and natives put in their places. That is a fact, but be it as it may, I am not harking back to it, but I say this, that whether it be right or wrong, the civilized labour policy was submitted to the electorate during the last election, and was one of the things on which we stood, and we told the electors that we would carry it out, if we were returned. If, therefore, hon. members say that we never had the consent of the electorate, I refer them to that fact.

The point is one of statistics, so that we may know what it cost.

Either the policy is pernicious or not. If it is sound, then I do not see why so much weight should be attached to statistics, because then we might just as well ask for statistics in the case of natives, and I have no doubt that if the hon. member wants statistics they will be available, but he must get them by the ordinary method of question and answer.

The Minister refuses to give them.

You are so far correct that the Minister said that if he had to calculate everything accurately, it would require so big a staff that would not be worth the trouble.

He said that the returns were in the office, but that he would not give them to the House.

The statistics are there, but the Minister said he did not want to publish them.

You are now talking about branch lines. The Minister said they were there, but that he was not going to publish them, because he said the previous Minister of Railways had published them practically with the object of constantly scrapping and retarding the branch lines, and he was always reckoning on that.

Nonsense.

My hon. friend is very sensitive on that point, because he knows how often we attacked him in that connection, and said that he was making the branch lines pay more than they ought to pay, and that he did not sufficiently allow for their value as feeders of the main line. The present Minister has now said, “Why should we publish them, because there is no one who can go into what the branch lines actually contribute.” It is impossible and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) himself admitted that he would never do it, and yet he made use of the figures to injure the branch lines. I do not say that he did it with the intention of injuring the branch lines, but his principal policy was that he always wanted to show that we should have as little as possible to do with the branch lines and should always look to the main lines; therefore he credited the main lines and debited the branch lines as much as possible.

Yet I always built them.

I do not know whether he was always keen on it, but the House placed the duty on him. Now I come to the competition of the private motor services. I should, however, have been glad if the hon. member had been a little more precise. I do not entirely blame him for not being so, but it occurred to me that at one moment he was speaking of the serious condition which was at our doors, and then again of the “mild competition” of which the Minister was so frightened. That seems very conflicting to me, and I hope my hon. friend did not do so in order to-morrow or the next day, when some question or other is raised, to jump as he pleases from left to right.

Make enquiry in other countries.

We have already done so. We can give any hon. friend practically everything that is being done in other countries. However, I am glad that the hon. member for Standerton has emphasized the matter, because it is a very serious one, in connection with which we shall have to do something. We cannot possibly permit the large capital we have put into the railways to be simply sacrificed, and that the public shall be put into the position of again being the victim of public competition, without any railways to provide properly for their requirements. I do not want to go further into it, but just want to say we are considering the matter, and I hope in course of time to be able to place adequate measures before the House. I do not want to answer the criticism on the Budget any further, but will leave it to the Minister of Finance. I actually got up to answer a point raised by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), namely, a suggestion made by the “Friend,” the Free State newspaper, that South-West Africa should be taken, and all the natives of the Union transferred there. I will only say that the “Friend” has never yet been my medium for publishing information about the intentions of the Government, and still less to publish personal statements of my own, and what is more I must say, as far as the Government and myself are concerned, we know absolutely nothing more about such an idea than I have read in the “Friend.” We need not, I think, deal any further with that extremely mad idea. I do not know whether there is anyone else who thinks that such a thing could occur. As for me, I think that if I were to say that such a thing was at all possible, it would be a fair indication that I had very little grasp of what was possible and what impossible. I want to say here clearly that there is not the least reason for believing that any such idea existed in the mind of any member of the Government. I must say that I am a little surprised that the hon. member for Tembuland did not at once tell the natives, who enquired about it—possibly he did do so—that it was directly in conflict with what I had previously said as to what ought to be done for the natives of the Union and with what I was engaged in doing through the various Bills now before the select committee, because I do not see how such a scheme could exist alongside the attempts we are making by legislation to get further land for the natives inside the Union.

What about the heavy taxation of the natives?

I will leave the reply to the Minister of Finance, but I do not admit that the taxes are heavy. As for the Cape Province, I admit they are heavier than before, but my hon. friend must not forget that the natives in the Transvaal formerly paid twice as much as to-day, and so did those of the Free State. The conditions in the Cape Province cannot therefore be applied to the Free State and Transvaal natives. I think it would not be fair, and I think that the taxes now imposed are fair. The question was submitted to the chief officers of the department, and for the view of the Native Affairs Commission, and the proposals were ultimately adopted without objection. If subsequently it is found difficult for the natives to pay it, the House will have to reconsider it, but the information available does not show that the tax is unfair. Perhaps it would be unfair to demand a tax from the natives who have suffered through the drought.

What about the tax on blankets? Various members have referred to the heavy tax.

The Minister of Finance recently stated that he was assisting the natives.

£8,000 a year.

And he gets about £4,000 out of the natives.

If hon. members can show that the tax is unfair, I have no doubt the Minister will alter it, but I am not convinced of the unfairness. I see the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is here. He, like the hon. member for Standerton, was indignant at what, according to the newspapers, I am supposed to have said in the Town Hall about “soulless members of the S.A. party.” I see that the “Cape Times” goes still further and says that I actually meant “soulless English people.”

“Soulless Afrikanders, and jingo imperialists.”

It amused me very much to see all that was attributed to me, even by my friends like “Die Burger,” but I thought it wise to send them a copy of what I had actually said. Recently I have always been careful to put all I say on paper, and I also recorded all I said that night. It is only a pity that no one took the trouble to take it down, but I must say that if I were on the bench to-day and had a case before me in which it was claimed that someone had said so and so at a public meeting, I would not accept it as absolutely correct, unless the person who was repeating the words of another person declared on oath, before me, that he had reported verbatim what was said. I made the speech, without exception, word for word according to the record, and the report by one newspaper was about as bad as that of the other. Now I just want to give my hon. friends an opportunity of agreeing with me by quoting what I said. I am convinced that the hon. member for Standerton will be glad to hear that I did not malign them as much as he possibly thinks. I said, inter alia—

My hon. friend may differ from me, but I am only saying what I think. I continued—

What are you quoting from?

From this morning’s “Die Burger,” to whom I handed my manuscript. I said further—this is also of importance in that connection—

Was that at a birthday party, or at a public meeting?

Neither the one nor the other. It was an occasion when the leader of the Nationalist party was received by his associates, and at which I thought I could do no better than to point out, and to do so with pride, what the Nationalist party had been able to do for South Africa, and, let me add, that with the greatest sympathy for the S.A.P. I referred to it, because I felt that if the South African party did not improve, and actually become a party where they are what they represent themselves to be namely, national, even if they are not Nationalists, it would just as surely disappear as anything else. I see that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) looks very unhappy; I thought there was something wrong with him. Of course, he shed tears because I was supposed to have spoken of soulless Afrikanders, and he is now very much hurt because I have assisted him out of his dreams.

You will see that in your speech as published this morning you did call our Dutch-speaking section “soulless Afrikanders.” You did not read that out.

I will just read it—

That lack of national feeling and national spirit then meant the unavoidable downfall of the South African party—as it must necessarily mean for any party in any country. The S.A. party has been for that very reason from the commencement of her existence, and is still to-day, a party without soul and without inspiration. She is in a living death—and as testified by one of her English-speaking South African followers, she offers a “home” to no one—no Afrikander, Englishman or Dutchman feels actually at home in it.

Now the hon. member for Caledon may regret that I hold that view about the South African party, but I not only hold it, but I am certain that there is no one in South Africa who knows the South African party who holds any other view about it. Let me once again say that I should like to see the S.A.P. becoming a party with a South African soul.

You spoke of individual people without souls.

That is not true.

South Africa can never have a healthy political life as long as one of the chief parties of the country is based on the sentiment of an exotic spirit. That has always been the case hitherto with the South African party, and it led it off the right road, and only when the South African party feels that this is its country, its mother country, and that it is a child of this country and ought to look after its interests, will it be able to exercise a healthy influence on the population of South Africa. I must say that I am thankful for the opportunity the hon. member has given me to bring to the notice of those who have been misled how much he has been misled by all the misrepresentations, and I only hope that now he also will be converted, and be a better son of South Africa in the future.

I think it is a most unfortunate thing that the Prime Minister should have taken up the attitude in that respect which he has taken up in the speech he has just delivered. In the first place he has entirely misrepresented what the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said when he made reference to the present general manager of railways. What the right hon. gentleman was referring to and making a most justifiable criticism upon, was the absence of the Minister of Railways and Harbours at this most important crisis in the Railway Administration from the debates in this House, and he pointed out that one of the reasons why the absence of the Minister was all the more to be regretted, or was all the more reprehensible, was because at the present time at the head of the Administration we have a totally new general manager of railways, and I think it is most unfair on the part of the Prime Minister to have attempted to misrepresent what the right hon. the member for Standerton said when he knows perfectly well that in no sense whatever did he put any blame or responsibility upon the shoulders of the present general manager of railways, and all that he was doing was to make use of the most proper criticism that the fact that there was a new general manager really made it all the more reprehensible that the Minister of Railways and Harbours should be absent from his place in this House. The right hon. gentleman is the last person in the world to make any attack upon a public official in this way, and, in fact, he spoke most warmly about the ability and efficiency of the present occupant of the office of general manager of railways. It was a most mischievous speech that the Prime Minister made. Then we come to the explanation that he actually gave of the absence of the Minister of Railways. This House and the country are entitled to have a full and proper explanation as to why the Minister of Railways is absent at this particular time from this debate. No explanation has been given as to why at this particular time it is necessary for the Minister of Railways to be away, and why it could not have been postponed until a later date after the session of Parliament had been concluded. Then we come to this other matter, and that was the lamentable position taken up by the Prime Minister on this subject of business principles. He asks, after all these years, that the Act of Union has been in force, in a way that is really almost child-like and bland, what are business principles? That question coming from the Prime Minister of this country is really one of the most extraordinary contributions to this debate that could possibly be made.

Will you define business principles?

Here is the head of the whole Government asking at this time of day what is meant by business principles. Now, if you ask me what business principles are

I want to know whether you know what you are talking about.

Does the Prime Minister think that question is worthy of him?

Certainly.

A personal attack made upon a member of the House asking if he knows what he is talking about

May I explain? All I meant by putting that question: “What do you mean by business principles ?” was, whether you know when you use those words what you are speaking about.

The Prime Minister is most unfortunate in his way of expressing himself, whether he is talking about members of this House, or Afrikanders, or whoever they may be. I will take the words “business principles.” They have got their obvious meaning as the principles upon which an ordinary business man would conduct ordinary reasonable business.

According to that, the ordinary business man in this country won’t have a place for a white man in his business, apparently.

The Minister is capable of much better things than that. That is rather an absurd suggestion. Take what the Auditor-General has said. He has said over and over again that the running of the railways by means of payment for services which are beyond what the services will justify is not a method of running a business on business principles. No one challenges the general principle of giving as much labour as possible to the white inhabitants of the country.

Your actions don’t show it.

The only thing is this: The country is entitled to know if it is necessary to carry out a policy of that kind, what are the railways paying for it; and the second point is, who should bear the burden of paying it? The only question is, should the railway department be made the vehicle of that policy, the body to pay for that policy to the extent it is over and above the services the railway department get out of it. That is all we want to know. Why cannot the Ministry give us this? the Ministry know perfectly well that when the country gets to know what the cost is, even if it endorses the policy, the country will say, “Bring up this extra cost in the general budget and don’t conceal it in your railway budget.” No amount of display of pettiness or sarcasm will get out of that. Where the country has to bear the burden, whether it is for a black labour policy or a white labour policy or anything else, if will willingly do so on proof being shown of the necessity for it, and provided it is paid in the proper way and provided the country knows what it is paying. The Minister smiles. The Minister knows perfectly well that with the majority behind them they can carry off the bluff, but the point we come back to is what is it costing the Railway Department, and Jet the country know that.

Is that your only objection to the policy?

If the Minister will divide it into two parts, there is the question of the cost of the policy and then the question of who is to bear the burden. Do not confuse those issues. They are perfectly clear and distinct. It is exactly the same when we come to the branch lines. A business man is bound to know what return he is getting for his expenditure. When you have your branch lines, we are entitled to know what are the costs of those lines so as to know the extent to which you are justified in putting down further branch lines and in continuing existing lines. How are we to know? If it were a company, what right would a company have to prevent its shareholders from knowing what is the cost? So that they may know whether to start more branches of a similar character or close down branches already established. What right has the Minister to conceal this information from the country? It is concealed, on the ground that the country is not entitled to it. We have had the extraordinary doctrine from the Prime Minister as to what we mean by business principles, and that the Auditor-General has nothing to say, but the party in power is the one to decide—that is the essence of it.

There is not the least doubt about it. That is the position the Government takes up.

There is not the least doubt about it. It will be so interpreted, but the point is how it is to be interpreted; what is the real, proper and reasonable meaning of the Act of Union, and there can be no question about that. The point of view of the ordinary business man is that he, his partners and shareholders, must have knowledge of every branch of the business which is being carried on, and must exercise the most rigid economy. The Ministry are the custodians and trustees for the country, and must work with a view to making these railways pay. If you find that they are being run at a profit you must see whether it is not for the benefit of the country that rates can be reduced, so as not to make a profit next year. There must be a just recognition of the fair claims of all who are in the railway administration’s employ, and it must be their endeavour to make the railway pay, but the rates should be reduced as soon as you find they are paying sufficiently. The Prime Minister, in another of his unfortunate references, spoke about the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the business principles or lines on which he ran the department when he was in charge of it—and that white people were discharged in order to give employment to the natives. I want to challenge the Prime Minister. Has he gone into this question with the railway officials, and has he ever verified this charge which he is making; has he ever looked at the records in the blue books and the reports, to see whether his charge is correct? If he does me the honour to reply to me later on, I challenge him to say that there has been, or give, a single instance where a European was discharged by the then Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Jagger) to make room for natives. I will ask the Minister of Finance.

The facts are that in one year the whites decreased by 1,000 and the natives increased by 9,000.

I ask you whether a single man was discharged for that purpose. Is there any justification for the statement the Minister made just now that white people were discharged?

Yes, there was justification—vote-catching.

The Prime Minister made this statement while vote-catching. How dare he stand up in his place in the House and in his capacity as Prime Minister repeat that white people were discharged to make openings for the natives? I challenge him to say whether there is a word of truth in that, and I challenge the Minister of Finance as acting Minister of Railways to say that I am wrong, when I state that none of the staff was discharged to make room for natives. I now come to another matter, the Prime Minister’s speech at the city hall. Speaking as an English-speaking Afrikander, I do not think I have ever known anything that has cut the Dutch-Afrikanders more to the soul so much as the Prime Minister’s allegation that the Afrikander members of the South African party were “sielloos” (soulless).

You repeat that after what the Prime Minister has said?

I say I listened most carefully to what the Prime Minister said just now. He read from a report

Is there a word about it in that statement?

Will the Minister wait until I have finished? I am not going to shirk any issue. Has the Prime Minister denied that charge to-night?

Yes, he has.

When did he do it? I listened carefully to what he said to-night. The Prime Minister said, “I read from the speech as it appeared in ‘Die Burger,’ and that is from my manuscript.” I took it that that meant that the Prime Minister read carefully prepared memoranda and interjected remarks. We have heard him do that in this House. Will the Prime Minister state that he did not interject the remark? He has said that if he were a judge on the bench he would not accept any statement as to words that had been uttered unless there had been somebody present who had taken a word for word report. Beyond the statement that he handed the manuscript to the press, he did not specifically deny the use of the word. On the contrary, he went very far when he said he described them as Afrikanders without souls and without inspiration. I do not know that there is very much improvement to say that the Afrikander members of the South African party are without soul and without inspiration, which I think is an insult.

He did not say that. He said “party” not “Afrikanders.” That is the justice of an Englishman! I have only contempt for that kind of argument.

I say that the South African party will take with the greatest calm and confidence the verdict of history as to how far it has had a real South African spirit from its genesis. I say that the history of the last 17 years of this party has been one to show the absolute falseness and injustice of making a remark like that about this party.

I only wish to repeat what I interjected here just now. I only have contempt for this sort of controversy and argument that the hon. member has been indulging in when he dealt with the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister.

You will calm down by to-morrow.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.