When I started replying to the accusations made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) last night, he, unfortunately, was not in his seat, and I am sorry to see he is not in his place to-day because I would like to have ascertained whether this changed attitude of his compared with his attitude at the South African party meeting at Bloemfontein, is due to a proper appreciation of the mischief caused by that statement or whether he now sees that the basis on which he put these alleged retirements at Bloemfontein is entirely without foundation. It is wrong to speak of the retirement of these officials, it is not so much a question of retiring them as of not keeping them. The legal age for retirement is fixed at 55, and unless the Minister obtains the consent of the Public Service Commission to keeping them on, their services automatically come to an end. The Act says the retiring age shall be 55. Of those who are not being retained, there are some bearing Dutch names who are fully bilingual. I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) were looking at this question from an entirely wrong angle. We hear so much in the House about the sanctity of the claims of the civil service. If they are legal claims, they cannot possibly be interfered with. When on the one hand you have claims for indulgence, and on the other hand public interest, it seems to me that public interest must be paramount. One wants to be perfectly fair to the men concerned. After they have been retired or left the service, it is possible that some of them may seek employment elsewhere, and for that reason one wants to deal with the matter as fairly as possible and without putting these people into an impossible position. As I emphasised, the defalcations amount to a considerable sum of money, but I am not for one moment suggesting that any of these gentlemen who have been retired have anything to do in the way of supervision with these defalcations. Where a man has exercised improper and insufficient supervision he has been dealt with in an extreme case by the Public Service Commission. I instanced these defalcations as a symptom of slackness in certain grades of the service that must be cured. I find that the figures are really higher than those I gave last night, although the period is somewhat longer. In 1922-’23, the defalcations were £1,870; in 1923-’24, £242, in 1924-’25, £54; in 1925-’26, £183; in 1926-’27, £143; and in 1927-’28, £179. The average is less than £120 a year, for the four years ’24 to ’28, if my arithmetic is correct. For the year after that, and it is difficult to limit the period, for defalcations have taken place over a considerable period, and adopting a somewhat arbitrary method of computation, the amount for 1928-’29 would be £4,833, and up to date, which includes the further period, it is £2,167 in addition. That is more than the £6,000 I mentioned last night—it is more nearly £7,000. These defalcations are due to lack of supervision. Our methods of checking are perfectly adequate, but, of course, if those checks are not properly applied, and if any senior officer is lacking in his duty, defalcations take place.

Were all these officials responsible ?

No, I have made that quite clear.

What have you done when people have been slack ?

Where it could be brought home to them, that it was obviously their slackness, they have been tried by the Public Service Commission. In one case last week, a fine of £100 was imposed. The non-return of these officials is not a question of punishment—it is simply that the average was such that I feel the public is not getting full value, and I am citing instances which have nothing to do with these gentlemen to show there is a certain amount of slackness in certain grades. In answer to an interruption by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), I said that in every instance I knew of there has been a prosecution, and as far as my period of office goes, that is so. There have been two small defalcations where it was very difficult to show whether it was merely negligence or theft, where the Attorney-General, in one case, and the Solicitor-General, in the other case, declined to prosecute. Hon. members will, of course, realize, where you have a number of defalcations, the number of cases where there is slackness and no defalcation takes place, is infinitely greater; fortunately theft is an isolated case.

Why emphasise the defalcation side?

Simply because these defalcations have increased to an amount absolutely unknown in the last few years. The newspapers have emphasized it, and it shows that there is some slackness somewhere, and the hon. member, if I may point out, is not doing these men a good turn by suggesting inferentially that they have something to do with these defalcations. The whole tendency of my speech was that the average is too low. Taking the administrative side, I do not know whether there has been much difference in the complaints received from that side or from this side where especially in country districts hon. members are not satisfied with the way administrative duties are being carried out. Those complaints one takes with more than a grain of salt—sometimes they are due to political difficulties, or to personal prejudices. Admitting all that it is still clear that, on the administrative side the very highest standard is not reached. There is one factor which may account for the reasoning of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). One of the reasons why the administrative side very often suffers, particularly in country districts, is because officials have not a proper knowledge of Afrikaans. No man’s services are being dispensed with because he is not bilingual, but if, not knowing the other official language, he is not able to carry out his duties and to reach the level which the public are entitled to expect, then I am not prepared to accept his ignorance of Afrikaans as an excuse for keeping him on. Take the third portion of the duties of the ordinary magisterial official. I do not think there is a single member on either side of the House who is prepared to tell me that as regards civil and criminal judgments we have that standard which the public is entitled to. There are fortunately quite a number of exceptions, but on the whole the average standard usually found in connection with bench work is not sufficiently high. The average is too low. We need not consider the question of salary, because there are other people who are more efficient willing to take on the job at the same salary. It is almost pathetic to see the eagerness with which the people of a district try to cling to a magistrate who is about to be removed because he is good at bench work. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says there has never been a black mark against these officials, and that there has never been an unfavourable report concerning them. If there had been an unfavourable report against such a man he would have been tried by the civil service commission, and, if found guilty, dismissed. The hon. member said that many of them have been promoted. So they have. In the service promotion is very often simply the result of seniority, but in many cases promotion itself may be the reason why these gentlemen are in an unfortunate position. Many a man is promoted who in a lower grade was 100 per cent. efficient, but who in a higher grade is not able to supply the average standard of efficiency the public are entitled to. Any slackness in the higher grades is bound to affect discipline, industry and even honesty in the lower ranks. We have to consider not only the public but the junior grades who may be affected by the example of seniors. In other words, if the average in the higher grades is not well up to what the public is entitled to expect, I am afraid the average in the lower grades will be much lower. It has been asked whether it is any use retiring these officials, and whether we can guarantee that those succeeding them will be more efficient. We are fortunately in the position that the junior grades contain a much higher proportion of officials with much better qualifications, and whose zeal and discipline are such that I am satisfied that when promoted they will raise the average very considerably. None of these gentlemen are being retired at the end of a given period. Whether they are 55, 56 or 57 they get a full 12 months’ notice, to allow them to adjust themselves to the change of circumstances which takes place on their retirement. In two or three cases where there was a suspicion, only a suspicion, just the possibility of some equitable reason for their not being retired, that was sufficient to induce me to cancel the notice of retirement. A man need not necessarily to be retained be over the average as regards discipline, administration and bench work. If he is over the average in any one of these three parts of his duty, he is being retained.

Are these people given an opportunity of placing their case before you ?

Many of them have done so. I think most of them have done so. Each case is very fully investigated by myself, and they have a full opportunity of placing their case before me, and in each case I either personally discussed the prospects and the career of the officer to be retired with Dr. Bok or Mr. Bateman, or obtained reports from these gentlemen, and in each case the approval and concurrence of the Public Service Commission was sought and obtained. The hon. member for Yeoville emphasized that there were people who had children to educate. It would be very regrettable if in an isolated case a man at 55 had not completed the education of his children, but, on the other hand, the State is not a private employer, and if the only appeal is one of sentiment, and if the public interests really demand that a man’s place should be taken by somebody more efficient, I am afraid I cannot allow myself to be swayed by that argument. If the hon. member wants a list of the new appointments in the places of those retired I can supply it to him. The hon. member for Yeoville has raised the question of expense, and has suggested that retiring these people at 55 meant an additional expense as far as the Treasury was concerned. The hon. member is entirely wrong. The gratuities to be paid out amount to £6,400. Those gratuities would also be payable if these men were retired at 60 years of age. The only loss is the interest on this amount of £6,400. Then, they obtain their pensions five years before they otherwise would, but those pensions may be less than they would be in five years’ time. Against the pensioning of these men there is a saving of £7,652, because the officers succeeding them are on a lower notch of their scale. The officers to be promoted would be on a lower notch and this would result in the saving of £7,652. I am not claiming that there is any profit on it; it is difficult to ascertain exactly how it will work out. I want to repudiate the assertion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that this means an additional burden. I may say the rule is temporary. If you are replacing men of lower efficiency by men of higher efficiency it is just a matter of time until you bring your average to the required standard. The mere fact of the rule being in existence has already had the effect of a general tightening up in the service. I must say I am sorry the hon. member for Yeoville raised this question at a political meeting at Bloemfontein. I do not think it can for the good of the men concerned.

Why?

For the simple reason that when you explain that the average in the service is too low and this is ventilated in this House and broadcasted by the press, then when the man concerned applies for some position in civil life it may count against him. It cannot do them any good when the press has given the impression that the reason for non-retention was a racial one. From the point of view of the service it is also a pity this point was raised.

May we not offer criticism?

It is not a question of criticising the Government. The slightest investigation would have revealed the fact that no racial principle was involved. There are already many grievances in the service; the majority of them are imaginary grievances, and I am afraid the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has only added another one to a long list of imaginary grievances. My own attitude in this matter is that where no legal right of a civil servant is affected; where it is a question of grace or equity; and where his claim conflicts with the claims of public welfare, then however sorry one may feel for the official the claims of the public are paramount. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) referred to an appointment which had been made under my predecessor, Mr. Tielman Roos: the appointment of Mr. van Rensburg. Mr. van Rensburg is generally admitted to be an exceptionally brilliant young man, and I think the service is fortunate in obtaining men of that type instead of allowing them to launch out in private practice where they would do much better financially. He was appointed as private secretary. I do not see any harm in that. I do not see why the Minister should not choose a private secretary without consulting the public service. We have four legal advisers at present. All four were at some stage private secretaries. One of them goes back to pre-Union days. Two of the remaining three were private secretaries of Ministers appointed by the late Government and promoted over the heads of many men in the public service. I have no doubt that at that time there was the same protest from the Public Service Association as in this case, but the Government of that day deliberately ignored that protest, knowing that the changes were in the public interest. These men who were appointed over the heads of people in the service are men of whom we have every right to be proud. I must say the member for Klip River was on dangerous grounds when he referred to protests by the Public Service Association to support his contention that an appointment had been wrongly made. I have had something to do with the Public Service Association, and I can only hope that on the last occasion when I had to deal with them— when I incurred their displeasure—was an exception to their ordinary conduct. They protested against the employment of someone outside the service who will in a few years take the place of Registrar of Patents. They protested it was not necessary that the Registrar of Patents should be a lawyer. But members who have had anything to do with these questions will admit that the Registrar has to judge points of law involving thousands of pounds of costs and subject matter to the value of tens of thousands of pounds, a task as arduous, difficult, and intricate as it is possible for a Supreme Court Judge to face. Yet we find the Public Service Association lodging a protest of this kind and saying he should be someone in the public service. I am surprised at their modesty. If this is an example of how they think and act I would not be surprised if they claimed that judges should be appointed from the public service and not from the bar. I hope that the member for Klip River will in future rely on something stronger than protests from this source when criticising Ministerial appointments to the service.

The Minister of Justice has dealt with the question of retrenchment from his department which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I do not propose to go into his defence because there are other hon. members on this side who are much better qualified to deal with this question. I would however like to mention a point he raised last night when he challenged this side of the House to examine the names of the members of his staff who have been retrenched, and he felt sure we would be satisfied that there had been a more or less equitable division between those of Dutch extraction and those of British extraction.

I disclaimed any racial distinction.

He suggested that we should find that he had shown no preference to men who might be of Dutch extraction. I would like, for the information of the House, to read the names of those who have been retired from the service of the Department of Justice under the scheme inaugurated by the hon. Minister. The House will then judge for itself how equitable the Minister has been in his selection. The list starts off with the names of H. M. Boam, G. B. Essene, P. Beckwith, H. C. Ward, O. A. E. Greene, W. H. Goss, F. Mannnig, A. C. Pearce, A. E. Walton and E. H. Robins. A nice selection of typical South African names! “The following officers who have previously been retained have now been given notice of retirement,” presumably on the ground also of inefficiency:—E. Bowles, H. M. Devitt, T. Hennet, F. S. Stead, E. M. McAllaister, L. W. J. Gool, Johns, Graham, Heher and Mr. Priest. I read these names to show that the suspicion that preference was shown to certain classes of his employees was justified. When we realize that these gentlemen have been retrenched on the grounds of inefficiency it is interesting to notice the names of Mr. Bowles and Mr. Devitt, two magistrates who, so far as the general public of South Africa is concerned, are held in very high regard in their capacity as magistrates, and it is difficult to know how the Minister arrived at any conclusion in respect of their efficiency.

Devitt, as a matter of fact, has been retained on other grounds, on a promise by tire Secretary for Justice.

Then why not Bowles ?

That certainly shows there is some justification in our criticism. The point is that it is very difficult indeed, and the Minister must admit it, fairly to assess the efficiency of any individual. The only way you could assess the efficiency of a magistrate would be to see the number of his convictions which were reversed on appeal. The magistrates included in this list have had an excellent record. The Minister has said that our raising this question will prejudice these people if they want to obtain other employment in private life. I can assure him that anyone wanting to employ these people in private life will judge for themselves on the men’s own record and will not be guided by the judgment of the Minister. I did not rise primarily to deal with this question, but to deal with a question of more interest to the Minister of Finance, namely, the disastrous result of our attempt to borrow money in London. I should like to ask the House to consider very carefully the causes and the effects of the failure on the part of the Government to secure the money that it wanted. I would remind the House that this is the second successive loan that has not been a success. It will be remembered that on the last occasion when we went into the market to borrow £5,000,000 we got £850,000, the balance being subscribed, as I hold, very unsoundly, by the Public Debt Commissioners.

That is not a fact; that is not true.

I may be inaccurate to the extent of a few pounds.

In a very essential part.

I assert that this is the position. The Public Debt Commissioners took up, approximately, £4,000,000 of our last debt. This is the second successive loan that has failed, and we shall find ourselves in a position of serious financial embarrassment unless we take steps to see that such failures do not occur again. The failure of a Government loan is not confined to the scope and limits of Government finance. Once the idea gets abroad that there is something unsound about the state of our financial position, other borrowers, whether industrialists or anybody else, will have difficulty in persuading their friends overseas to put money into this country, and it will be difficult for them to expand their activities when they require to do so. It also means that the underwriters will be chary about undertaking our loans, and in consequence, the taxpayers will have to pay a more onerous rate of interest than they have paid in the past. We are told on every hand that the credit of the country is good, and I believe that it is, in fact am satisfied it is, but the fact that we have failed to get the money we wanted does not imply necessarily that the credit of the country is bad, but it probably does imply that the credit of the Government is not good. I have read, and heard, many explanations for this failure, but for the most part, I must confess I find them unconvincing. We are told, on every hand, that it is due to two principal causes. One is described as the state of the money market, and the other is said to be due to financial stringency. I am afraid that we must dismiss both those explanations. We must recognize that, at the present time, conditions for borrowing on gilt-edged securities were never more favourable. This is a time when, in England, there are, very considerably, misgivings in regard to the industrial future. Her industrial stocks are being quoted at the present moment at a very heavy discount. Her trade outlook is not good, and there is no considerable demand for commercial finance. She is passing, like every other part of the world, through a period of severe agricultural depression, and last, but not least, the Bank of England is lending money at 4 per cent. I think, if we recognize these facts, we shall realize, first of all, that, as there is no demand for money anywhere else, in any industrial, agricultural, or any other form of activity outside of gilt-edged securities, there must be money awaiting investment in stable stocks. One would assume at a time like this, that the public in London would jump at the opportunity of investing their money in gilt-edged 5 per cent. securities. I hope the Minister of Finance will not allow himself to be deluded by talk of financial stringency, but that he will indulge in a little searching of the heart and see whether there is not something wrong with our finances to justify the attitude of the overseas investor. Let him realize that there is no market of any kind that is so sensitive as the money market; the smallest suspicion or the least distrust and supplies are cut off at once. Even sentiment plays a very considerable part in the floating of public loans. The sentimental factor, which for many years we have been able to count upon, has now, I am afraid, completely disappeared, very largely owing to the heavy bludgeoning it has received from hon. members opposite. The day of sentiment has passed, we now live in an age of “quid pro quo.” That is the policy of the Government, and sentiment has been obliterated. We have pointed out the many consequences that must follow such a policy, and not the least consequence is that our Government loans are to be failures in future unless we offer better terms. I would remind hon. members opposite that the dominions that behave themselves financially have always been able to borrow in the London market at least ½ per cent. cheaper than an equally sound country outside the commonwealth. Thus one can fairly easily assess the value of sentiment at ½ per cent., and it may be that in future we shall have to offer 5½ or 6 per cent. I think the hard-headed business investor would be impressed to-day with the fact that, although we have a very large country, and, although our public expenditure is rising by leaps and bounds, we have done nothing to broaden the basis of our prosperity. Our population remains practically stagnant, and we are governed by a party who, when we suggest that we should do something to encourage people to come to this country, raise howls of derision, and who place every obstacle in the way of immigrants coming to South Africa, and even if immigrants do come, every obstacle is put in the way of their obtaining employment. It was only last week that the Government was barring and bolting the door to those immigrants who still insist on coming here in spite of the frosty welcome they receive. I do not know that it is altogether a coincidence that the failure of our loan in London synchronized with efforts made by hon. members opposite to give offence to a very important race, who, at least, have very considerable influence in the money markets of the world. The hard-headed investor will find that the cost of governing South Africa 10 years ago was £2 8s. per head, but it has now risen to £4 4s. a head, an increase of nearly 100 per cent. in 10 years. He would probably see that extravagance at home was being followed by extravagance abroad, and that the Union Government chooses this time of depression to spend something like £30,000 annually in the capitals of Europe on what I term the “maintenance of the higher status” account. Another thing which would strike the overseas investor is the recently completed commercial treaty with Germany. I leave sentiment aside once more, but I will refer to the practical aspects of this particular piece of window-dressing—the bargain under which we sacrificed our best and only good customer, and in exchange we got terms which amounted economically to nothing at all. Let hon. members look at the trade returns of Germany and see what a curious result has followed this treaty. I think the hard-headed investor would say that leaving sentiment aside, any country which was so foolish as to enter into such an agreement, was not fit to be entrusted with the handling of his money. I met on the mailboat from “Europe last Monday a financial authority of very considerable magnitude from London, and I asked him for an explanation of the failure of our loan. He replied that he was on the high seas while the loan was being offered, and, therefore, he could give no explanation, but he assured me that the passing of the German treaty had created a very bad impression in the city of London. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance was about to float a loan, the Prime Minister was, perhaps, a little lacking in tact a few months ago, in predicting financial and trade disaster in this country. He would have been well advised to wait until our loan had failed, before he rubbed it into the people of this country and before pointing a moral which is now so obvious. There are many other points which might be considered, but I shall confine myself to one in particular, for it is a very important one. The Government have definitely committed themselves to an ambitious scheme of state industry—I refer to the Pretoria steel works. A little experiment like this might very easily explain the failure of quite a number of loans. If the overseas investor is anxious about the steel works, we on this side of the House are probably more so. We are very anxious to see a steel works established, and are willing to co-operate, if it can be done at all economically, or within reasonable measure of being done economically. We are not against the steel works, but we don’t like being permanently committed to the spending of very considerable sums of money and being told nothing about it. I see tenders have been called by the Steel Board for the supply of plant. We also see, at the same time, that the Steel Board has no money. They had £500,000 which Parliament granted them, but that has probably largely gone by now. I do think, as we understand the public is not going to subscribe, and the Minister has to come to Parliament for the money, he might take us a little more into his confidence as to what he is going to do and what the prospects are. If the prospects are so good that they satisfy the Minister, why should he not tell us what they are? I think as representatives of the taxpayers we are entitled to ask what has become of this £500,000. As far as I know, no annual report or balance sheet has been issued. We have nothing to show for it. For some strange reason, when this Act was passed, Parliament accepted that the corporation should be free from the operation of the company law. I know in the past when we have had the temerity to ask for information the Minister has told us it is no concern of ours, that he has appointed a powerful and an impartial board—all we have to do is to hand over the money. He makes a claim for the board which he would not make for himself. Ministers are held strictly to account for every penny, and their departments are held to account for every penny they spend, but here we are told that the spending of public money is no affair of ours, and this spending is left entirely to the discretion of the Steel Board. I also noticed a curious thing in connection with the Steel Board. Although the Government is finding the money, it was stated in the press that Mr. James Leisk, who is well known to us all, was appointed to the board to represent private shareholders. Are we to assume there are some private shareholders in the steel works? Is there something going on behind the scenes? Have private interests taken a block of shares, or is his appointment to represent shareholders who are in prospect? Another interesting thing appeared in the Statist on February 1st. I will read it—

It is curious nobody in the country has ever seen that agreement—

That will be interesting to the hon. members for Pretoria—

It will be so small that it will not matter—

They have not reached this side either—

Do you believe all you read in that book?

My complaint is that this is the only thing we are told here. We are getting nothing official, and that is the whole basis of my complaint. In the absence of anything official I have no alternative but to assume there is something in what is stated here. I would like to deal briefly with another aspect of this steel business, and I do not propose to take the House into the technical difficulties the steel works in Pretoria will have to face. If I am wrong the Minister, no doubt, will correct me—I have to assume a great deal because I have nothing official. We have already spent £500,000 on the steel works, I understand; at any rate we have voted the money, and I am given to understand tenders are being called for new plant which will involve a further £3,500,000, which will give a final capitalization of £4,000,000. Experts have assured me that that is not really enough, and we will have to spend more before we actually market the steel—but we will assume that is sufficient. On this £4,000,000 it will be necessary, since it is Government money, to pay interest, and that will have to be paid at the rate of 5 per cent., which will absorb £200,000. Government money also carries with it the drawback that it must be redeemed, and it will have to be assumed it will have to be done at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. That gives us another £120,000. Then comes the important factor of amortization and depreciation, for which I think we should take an all-round rate of 10 per cent. Interest charges will have to be met during the next five years before profits are made, so a further £1,000,000 will have to be allowed for this, which, at 4½ per cent., equals £45,000. The charges to be met on the steel to be manufactured at the Pretoria steel works will therefore amount to £765,000, charges over and above the actual cost of manufacture. The amount of steel per annum to be manufactured is set down at 180,000 tons, and the provision for this £765,000 will therefore amount to no less than £4 5s. per ton. The other day I asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what the cost was of the steel sleepers we are importing, and the figure he supplied me with was £4 19s. delivered f.o.b. continental port. Let me deal with another figure. It takes two tons of coal to make a ton of coke, and it takes 1½ tons of coke to make a ton of steel. If you get the coal at 1s. 6d. per ton, it will cost 12s. to carry it from Glencoe to Pretoria. Two tons of coal for cost and railage will amount to 27s. per ton of coke. There is another factor, however. When you are making coke out of coal, you have to wash the coal, and you lose 30 per cent. of it in this process, which gives us a total coal cost of 36s. per ton of coke. Therefore, you have a total cost of £2 16s. for coal for the purpose of making coke alone per ton of steel. That makes £6 19s. as against the delivery price of steel sleepers of £6 8s. 3d. If, however, we add the cost of making the steel, which I am told will come to about £5 allowing for any profit made on by-products, we get a total cost of approximately £12 per ton. A duty of 200 per cent. on the f.o.b. value of Belgian steel will be required to enable our steel sleepers to compete with them.

I thought Parliament dealt with that when the establishment of industries was decided on.

That is a Parliament I was not a member of.

I think that is very evident.

I just want to correct the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) in connection with his attack on the Government. I have listened attentively to the criticism from that side, but there was very little constructive in it. What, however, appeared still stranger to me was that the hon. member read out a list of English names to prove that they had been retired on account of their nationality. Is it honest to read out a list of names without giving a single instance where an English official had been retired and an Afrikaner put in his place? If it were true that English people were retired in favour of Afrikaners, I could understand the criticism, but not a single case is mentioned, yet the hon. member says that the people have only been retired on account of racial feeling. In replying to this, I must say that I am not doing so out of race-hatred, but just to give an example what the truth is, so that we can test the position better. From 1920 to 1924, that is the last period of the South African party Government, the number of Afrikaners appointed was 1,760, and of English people 3,071. Does the hon. member call that race-hatred also? Or does he also admit the fact that so many English people were appointed during the period of office of that party? If I were to use his arguments, then I could say that that side gave the preference to English people. But take the period from 1924 to 1928, and compare the appointments then made. Three thousand and seventy-nine Afrikaans-speaking were appointed, and 3,151 English-speaking, therefore still more English than Afrikaners. When we make this comparison, then we see that we can have confidence in this Government, because both races are treated alike. We can mention another instance. During the last four years of the South African party Government, only six Afrikaners, but 189 English, were appointed to posts with a salary of £600 or more. Have we, then, not the right to say that this shows clearly that the South African party Government gave preference to English and put the Afrikaner in the background? So we could go on, but it would take us no further. But when hon. members opposite talk of a better relation between the races, then they must abandon that kind of argument. They can deal with the matter when they can prove that Afrikaners are being better treated than English people, but otherwise they must be silent. I also want to refer the hon. member for Turffontein to the Postal Department. There we find that one out of 50 people in the high posts is an Afrikaner. When we see that, we must conclude that the South African party merely look after the English and not the Afrikaans officials, and yet we are accused of treating the public servants differently on account of their race. Further, the Government is accused of preventing English immigrants coming to our country because it does not behave sympathetically towards them. I want to tell the hon. member that English people have gone to England to talk over their own flesh and blood in a misleading way to buy land in our country and come to South Africa. That was done by their own people, and when those individuals come here they find that they must go back to England because they have been misled by their own flesh and blood, but the Government gets the blame of it. Then I come to the charge that the hon. member makes against the Government with regard to the iron and steel industry. The hon. member probably quotes his information from a book, and then attacks the Government. It may be possible that there are negotiations proceeding between the steel factories at Vereeniging and the Government industry established in Pretoria to see if they can reach an agreement in certain respects. Can the Government, however, be expected to say in advance what is happening if no agreement has as yet been come to? The hon. member, as a business man, knows they cannot do so. If he used those arguments for a speech we can understand it, but he cannot seriously make such an attack. He would do much better to test matters inside his own party, and it would be more useful to rectify matters inside his own party. We find here, e.g., an hon. member of his party who asks for 8s. a day for the railwaymen. Now there is no one who is more anxious than hon. members on this side to pay that wage to the railwaymen if it is possible; hon. members opposite know it, they had 13 years in which to do it, but did they ever try to introduce it? No, they only tabled the motion to try and make political capital, but the result was that all the front benchers of the opposition left during the division. Is that not a proof of how divided his party is, and that if it ever again comes into office it will never introduce that policy? Take also, e.g., the Bill on the Immigration Quota; there again it was proved that his party cannot stand the test which is necessary to govern a country. They proved there that they were afraid to abide by their first decision. Such a party is not able to govern. I do not wish to debate the women’s franchise, but there is a point about which I want to ask a question, and I hope the opposite side will reply to it, so that the House and the country outside shall know where we stand with reference to the South African party. They talk in one way in this House, and during the elections they talk differently. In one part of the country they talk quite differently to what they do in another. I want, however, to leave this alone, and just draw attention to one thing. On the 17th February, 1928, the leader of the Opposition said, when the women’s franchise was being debated, and there was a motion to give the vote to the coloured and native women as well—

The hon. member cannot discuss women’s franchise now.

I do not want to do so, but just to point out that the South African party does not always speak in the same way, and that the leader of the Opposition said during that debate—

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot further refer to it.

In any case I want to point out that that party never talks in the same way. If I have an opportunity later, I will ask the question of what their real policy is. It is no use saying one thing one day and another the next. If hon. members opposite are able to say what their policy is with reference to certain big questions, I shall be very glad, but those arguments that they have used are nothing else but a waste of time.

I think some hon. members of the House were somewhat startled when the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) raised the point he did. We have had rather disturbing rumours with regard to the steel question which give us cause for anxiety. According to a recent newspaper report, it appears there is now a new arrangement by which we are asked to give up our national steel industry, and establish a state-aided concern. If the report be true, I think that would be a calamity. It would appear to us to be a betrayal of the position as far as the people of this country are concerned in that it was understood it would be a state industry and would be established in Pretoria. If there is any truth in this statement, it would appear that Vereeniging is going to do very well out of this change. We have seen a report that the industry might go to Newcastle, and now we have this report evidently based on something more than hearsay, that some other scheme is in contemplation. I do not think it is right that any Government should undertake communications of this kind without letting the House know what the position is because we passed the Act after the matter had been thoroughly thrashed out. No. If there is any truth in this, then it is a betrayal of the position and one that the House cannot allow to go on. I hope the hon. the Minister will clearly and emphatically let us know what the position is. The hon. member for Turffontein rather amused me with regard to his statement as to what the cause of the failure of the Union loan might be. He, of course, referred to one or two very good reasons, and probably he also included in it this statement that it is not a coincidence that the failure of the loan coincides with the barring and the bolting of the door against certain immigrants. It is amusing to me. If that is the reason, then the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), equally with the majority of the hon. members on the opposite benches, is guilty with the Government for the failure of the loan. If he puts forward that argument, it must be so, for he was equally responsible with the Government in passing the Bill referred to. I take it, he referred to the Quota Bill, when he said that two years ago we had barred and bolted the door against certain elements. As the hon. member himself voted for that Bill, then I take it he is equally responsible with the Government, and I do not see how he can get up and use such an argument as that. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries is not here. It is important that this question of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission, or the terms of reference, should be very clearly and definitely put right this afternoon. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Defence told us the circumstances of the appointments of the select committee at the beginning of 1929, and consequently the appointment of the commission, and the fact that the terms of reference would embrace all these things. The then hon. member for Springs raised in the House, not only the question of the working of the Phthisis Act, but also matters incidental to the employment of the miners themselves, and the difficulties they had. The Minister of Defence told us that they had gone into that, and they believed that the terms of reference were wide enough to get all these grievances brought before the commission and evidence led, and that some conclusion would be arrived at by the commission. He went so far as to say that if the terms of reference are not sufficiently wide, then he would see to it that they must make them wider. I want to know if that has been done. I would also like to know if the Minister has consulted with the law advisers of the Crown. I think the matter is too serious to have the position left like this, if, after the commission’s report is received, we find the very things the miners wanted, which are vital to them, have not been dealt with in the form of any recommendation by the commission. The Minister said they would be dealt with. I asked him a question, as a supplementary question, if, in dealing with an appendix, they could subpoena further witnesses. My reason for asking that question was this, that the leaders of the Rand National party appeared before the commission. They did not actually put a scheme forward, but they spoke about a scheme which they had, to the effect that the commission should consider the question of making phthisis compensation pension right through. They had also in their scheme that the commission should consider compulsorily paying out men after they had been working a certain number of years underground. I think the suggestion was ten years. They did not put in that scheme. I understand that the chairman of the phthisis commission told those gentlemen that the scheme they referred to was outside the terms of reference, but as they were there, he would hear them. The point is this, that great publicity was given to that evidence through the press. Every miner read that evidence with a great deal of hope. He felt, “Here are the leaders of the Rand National party talking in this way. Surely it is likely that we shall get this thing.” Now what I want is that there shall be no question about the commission being able to subpoena further evidence, for this reason: if they had not got that power, they will not be able to get evidence from the chamber of mines, unless the chamber of mines care to come along and give evidence upon the point. The commission is placed in this position, and I think the interjection of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) is also a good reason for having this. He is in possession of some further information, and the House should clearly and without any misunderstanding know exactly where the phthisis commission stands, what its powers are, and what it can do. The Minister should see to it to-day that those powers are given, and that there can be no mistake about it. The miners on the Reef have been led into a position that they want it to be clear that there shall be no misunderstanding in regard to it. I do not want to say that there may be an element of bluff on the part of certain people in connection with this question. I do not want to suggest that for a moment. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) yesterday charged the Government with bluff in connection with this matter. I will not go so far as that. I will ask if the Minister of Mines and Industries will clearly lay down what the position is. Not only that, but I say that every trades union will require to give evidence before this commission, and they cannot give evidence in view of the fact that the terms of reference do not allow them to do so. Other political parties will wish to give evidence, and our party may wish to do so. Mr. Allen, who was then the member for Springs, definitely warned the Government at the beginning of 1929 that unless they broadened the scope of the resolution then before the House, and sent it to select committee, he could foresee trouble, and the very trouble he could then foresee we are faced with to-day. We have now arrived at the stage when the commission is in Cape Town, and the miners are anxiously waiting for this report, and the House is also anxious to see the report received and to deal with the question. We want to make it possible that there shall be no further misunderstanding in regard to it. I personally deprecate any question of political advantage in regard to a thing like this. It is too serious a matter and one that affects the health and the future outlook of a large body of men. I want to assist the Government in this direction, and my criticism is put forward purely and simply for the purpose of clearing the matter up, so that we shall know to-night or to-morrow morning that the position is clear and that the committee can give finality to its work, and that all things the men have raised will be dealt with by the commission and we shall know where we are. With regard to the statement made by the Minister of the Interior as to housing, whilst we are all pleased that Government is undertaking a share of the responsibility in solving the problem, I do not agree with the methods the Minister has adopted in the carrying out of his slogan: “The slums must go.” The fact that the £500,000 is to be spread over three years, while only £100,000 will be available during the coming year for the carrying out of the Government scheme, is not a very satisfactory way of putting into force the slogan: “The slums must go.” A great deal more money than that will be required to achieve the purpose. Further, it is useless to leave the matter in the hands of local bodies. I have the highest regard for local authorities, and have been actively associated, for many years, with the local authority of Johannesburg, and know their difficulties, and while they would like to do the best they can they are circumscribed and held back. If the slums must go the Government must do the work, and sweep aside local and vested interests which always interfere with anything in the nature of competitive housing as against private ownership. If the Minister would reconsider the application of this money, he would be well on the way to solving some of the worst slum conditions in Cape Town, Johannesburg and other big towns. Side by side with the abolition of slums and the building of small houses to be let at uneconomic rents, the Minister of Labour should get the Government to agree to a policy of a minimum wage. It is no use talking about removing slums and letting houses at low rentals when people are paid so little that they cannot even afford to rent a house, although it is let to them on a non-paying basis.

It is subsidizing cheap labour.

It is essential that there should be a minimum wage. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) gave us very full information in regard to the finances of the provincial councils, and he made the important point that the field of taxation left to those councils has become very circumscribed indeed. The policy introduced by the previous Government, and continued by the present Government, is more responsible for the present position of the provincial councils than anything else. This policy was initiated about 1921 or 1922, when the Government took away from the Transvaal Provincial Council the right to impose a tax on gold mining profits. This tax would not have affected the low grade or non-paying mines. Since then there has been a continual change in the provincial system of taxation, until we have made the provincial councils very unpopular indeed. Nevertheless, I still believe that the provincial system properly applied and with the fullest local powers, is much better than the continuous centralization we are getting to-day, particularly in regard to education, hospital control, road and bridge construction, etc. It would be much better if the councils were left with the powers given them under the Act of Union, and they should be entrusted with even more powers. I advise the people to hang on to the provincial councils, for if they do not do that they will see centralization of their hospital and educational systems, and one or two other provincial services, and I am afraid the centralization will not be to the advantage of the people in the various provinces. This centralization would not be in the interests of the Transvaal, Natal or Free State. With regard to education, not only will it not be so effective under a central government, but the people of the Transvaal will have to pay directly for the education of their children. As it is, the Government has taken over the technical training of apprentices, and the apprentices have to pay for attending the trade schools. My point is that on the one hand the Transvaal is in a position that parents have to pay for vocational training as against wealthier people who are able to keep their children at school up to the matric standard, having free education. It is an unfair position. I am glad to see the Minister of Mines and Industries has come in, and I will repeat my question.

If I may interpose, in my reply yesterday I said I had been advised by the commission that although they did not consider it within the terms of their reference they would report on that question in an appendix to the report. I have since reconsidered the matter, and I think it would remove all cause of grievance if I extended their terms of reference, and this I have done.

I am very glad the Minister has done so. I hope they will be able to go on with as little delay as possible because it is the miners’ desire that the report should be completed this year, and that the Government’s attitude should be known to them. They are very anxious about it—I have never seen a body of men so anxious. That is satisfactory so far as it goes, and we now know the commission have the power to report fully on the matter. Another point with which I want to deal very briefly is the question of unemployment in the towns. In Johannesburg we have a labour bureau, but to-day it is not used to the extent it could be. The officials are not entirely to blame, but the position is the men who belong to that bureau put their names down and get work for a period of time, and then are put off the work. Others who have been waiting for a while are sent up to the relief work. On top of that we have a large number who do not report to the labour office at all because they see the hopelessness of the position. They realize it is useless, and the result is the unemployment position is much worse than the official figures show. I would impress on the Government the necessity of tackling this great evil. We were hoping our national steel industry would help much in this, but this has now disappeared. There are many ways in which this question can be considerably improved by the Government. The people expect more from the Government, especially those who voted for them; the great majority of the poorer and unemployed classes supported the Government, and they hope the Government will see to it that economically at any rate they will be in a better position than before—not be in a position of being spoon-fed, but being given employment.

I have, on a previous occasion, referred to Mr. Baldwin, President Coolidge and President Hoover, each of whom have in turn emphasized the evils which (spring from undue interference with the liberties of the people, and on the 19th of last month our Minister of Finance endorsed that sentiment. Yet never in the history of this country, nor, do I think, in the history of any other country outside of Russia, has there been such a crusade against the freedom of the people as we have been having, and are having, at the present time. We have boards of control, inspectors and officers dominating every branch of our national life—the mines, commerce, labour, agriculture in all its branches. The farmers are likely within a very short period to be obliged to weigh their cattle alive. They are being dictated to as to the methods of packing their skins, and of labelling them. Their wives are told in what special manner they must pack their butter and label it before they sell it, and will have the privilege of paying a levy for so doing. I cannot understand how a freedom-loving people, such as we South Africans are, can submit to a system of bureaucracy of this kind.

The hon. member must not reflect on any motion that has been passed, or any Bills that have been before the House. If a Bill has been passed by the House, the hon. member must not reflect upon it.

Officers of the Government should be the servants of the state and of the people, instead of which they are becoming our masters, our governors and rulers. It is a very serious condition of things which we are drifting into. I wonder how the Minister can reconcile all this with the sentiments he uttered on the 19th of last month, when he agreed with what the presidents of America have said. I do not absolve some members on this side of the House for aiding in this direction, which is gradually, like a huge octopus, spreading its tentacles over the liberties of the people, and threatening to strangle them. That is not all. The Minister of Agriculture has intimated, and I think, with a degree of pride, that he has at least nine measures he is going to push through this session. I take it, if I have to judge them by other measures we have had, that each will be an additional imposition upon the freedom of the people. I would like to know what all this machinery in operation at the present time is costing us. It is something immense. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because it was towards him that I intended chiefly directing my remarks. There is something which the Minister of Finance may be able to give us more light upon, and that is with regard to the wheat question. We have had deputations waiting on the Minister, but we do not know whether the measures contem plated are going to relieve the position or not. One thing which has come out in discussion is that it is costing the wheat farmer more to produce wheat, and that he cannot produce it for less than a sovereign per bag. Is the Minister going to try to devise some means of reducing the cost of production? I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is now here, because I wish him to understand the views of many farmers in the up-country districts. Speaking for my own district, I am correct in saying that our wool cheque is at least 50 per cent. below what it was last year. If that is general, then the wool growers of this country are losing about eight-and-a-half millions sterling. That is a great loss to the country. The wool grower, unlike the wheat grower, has to depend upon world markets. I would like to know what assistance our Government has given towards ameliorating their position. I cannot think of anything, but I can point to one or two things which the Government has failed to do, and I will here read some eloquent figures from the report of the auditor-general. I find here with regard to the railage of wool, these figures: Referring to the railage on wool from point to point, we see from Middelburg, Cape, to Algoa Bay, the rate is 56.5 per cent. above what it was in pre-war days; from Colesberg Junction to Algoa Bay it is 68 per cent. more, and from Harrismith to Port Natal, 140 per cent. more than in pre-war times. There is a whole list of items here, but wool seems to have had the least attention of them all. It appears to have had no sympathetic attention from either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The Minister may tell us that these high charges were put on by his predecessor. But he must remember that during the years prior to 1918, we were passing through abnormal circumstances, when war conditions and martial law prevailed, and the Government had no option, but had to do the best it could under the circumstances. For the next four years after that, we had a period of deflation, so that it was hardly possible to deal with these matters then. But the position has been different since this Government came in. They have had huge surpluses every year, and prosperity on every hand. Yet to-day the wool farmer has to pay 140 per cent. more than in pre-war days to get his wool to the coast. He is being very badly treated, and I am surprised that the voice of the Free Stater has not been raised in connection with this matter, seeing it is a pastoral and agricultural country. I would like to refer the Minister to the Drought Commission report of 1920. I think he will admit the authority of that report, which was written by some of our most practical men. That report is, perhaps, one of the most valuable we have had before us. It says that the jackal was costing the country £15,000,000 per annum, and I do not think that took account of the mischief and damage of erosion. Another point, they suggested a comprehensive system of jackal fencing and paddocking, and said this country would carry at least 54 per cent. more wool sheep under such conditions. In 1922, when the previous Government was still in office, an amending Fencing Act was brought in by the then Minister of Agriculture, in order to conform to the recommendations of the Drought Commission. When it came to the vote, the whole of the Opposition, with the notable exception of Mr. Petrus van Heerden, who certainly did know something about farming conditions in this country, voted against the motion that the one condition which the Drought Commission stated was more essential and valuable to farming than anything else. The Minister may say he was not sufficiently intimate with farming conditions at that time. In 1926 I moved a motion in this House which had the support of several farmers’ congresses and the Agricultural Union—

To show his lack of appreciation of fencing, the Minister said this—

That was in 1926. The Minister does not like this; it is not very palatable. Speaking on that same motion, the hon. member for Somerset East, who is a practical farmer, said that he could state without fear of contradiction that the greatest danger to the stock farmer in Alexandria and Uitenhage was the jackal. There is a natural boundary formed by the Zuurberg, but as soon as you go over the Zuurberg and get on to Crown lands, there is a reserve containing elephants, and there we find the Government is doing nothing. The Government there have a reserve in which they are breeding jackals, whilst the farmers on this side are trying to breed sheep. The Government will not contribute towards the erection of these fences. Let us go further. Along Herschel and New England the boundary conditions are like those described in Somerset East. There, fences were erected as far back as 1902, and from that date right up to 1924 the then Government contributed towards the maintenance of those fences. When this Government came into office in 1924 it discontinued to do so, and these fences have since been maintained by the Border farmers solely. In the Free State a congress was held, to which I was invited, to discuss this matter. We have had select committees in this House which have urged upon the Government the justice of making the Government also shoulder their responsibility. It is unfair on the part of the Government to say to farmers where they have joint boundaries: “You shall divide the responsibility,” while the Government refuses to do it in respect of the land that they own. That is very unfair. The hon. member for Albert(Mr. Steytler) the other day said that his was the side of the House which was in sympathy with the farmers. He said: "Place the interests of the farmers in our hands and they will be looked after.” I say the wool farmers have fared infinitely worse at the hands of the present Government than they did under their predecessors. I read in a paper a couple of days ago an article which suggested that the farmers should work harder, more scientifically, and be satisfied with smaller returns. I don’t quarrel with that, but what I do somewhat resent, and what seems to me to be unfair, is that people who have no knowledge of farming whatever, people who live in offices and shops and anywhere else other than on farms, get up and criticize in a most unsympathetic manner, the farmers of this country. They say that the farmer is indifferent and blind to his own interests, and he deserves all he gets.

Are you referring to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth ?

Such speeches come from all sides. I have explained where they particularly emanated from. These very people, when they are discussing the payment of income tax, say that the farmers are very much alive to their interests, that they are cute as it is possible to make them. It cannot be both ways. It is surely very unfair to find that while the farmers are being exhorted to work harder, more scientifically, and to be satisfied with small returns, measures are being suggested for shorter hours and bigger pay under the Labour Department. I think that is very unsound. My contention is that high wages mean dear production, and dear production means increased cost of living. The Labour members have quoted America as an example of high wages and cheap production. The conditions in America are totally different from the conditions that obtain here. In America the employer of labour is entitled, if he does not get service from his employees, to cashier them, to turn them off. Here we have our labour unions, who come in and say: “No, we are the bosses; we must look into this matter and determine.” That makes all the difference in the world. I know a man in this city who is to-day paying 7s. 6d. to, say, 10s. or 12s. per day for unskilled labour. If your unskilled workman devoted his full time and energy to his work, I daresay he would earn such wages. When he does not do that, but keeps his eye on the clock all the time and fritters his time away, then he is dear at half the price. A couple of years ago the Minister of Labour tried to introduce into the rural districts of this country certain wage determinations which applied in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria and elsewhere. Under which rural districts, such as Molteno, Prieska, Hopetown, etc., would come under the operation of this wage determination. Under those conditions it was laid down that the workmen should not be permitted to be paid by results. Now, that, I think, is one of the most vicious principles to advocate. It is putting a premium on idleness to say that a man shall not be paid by results, and that you may not engage yourself to work by results, but that you shall work by the hour and get, say, 2s. 9d. per hour, no matter what you do or what you do not do. That is unsound. Measures such as these, and a policy such as this, discourage enterprise and, instead of helping our country ahead, brings stagnation and unemployment.

I do not want to detain the Minister long. On the main estimates we hope to deal with this matter more fully. To-day I only want to raise a few points which affect my constituency in particular. It is strange how the depression in the country has suddenly come down especially on the farmers. There is at present not a single thing the farmer produces which does not suffer very much under the terrible depression. It is the same everywhere with forage, wheat, barley, maize, wool, and lucerne. We have had a full debate about wheat, and I do not want to go into that, but I just want to say that up to the present the Bill that we passed has not yet had any good effect in the way of raising the price of the products. We can only live in hopes. Oats and barley are in close relations with wheat, and in the western parts there was I might almost say an abnormal production of oats and barley this year. In consequence of the seasonable rains in the interior, the farmers’ stock at the moment are living on the veld, and there is no question in the interior about our oats, lucerne, or maize, for stock purposes. We are thus dependent on the export market, and in the district of Caledon the farmers are now getting no more than 4s. 9d. a bag of oats of 150 lb., and even then there is no firm and good demand. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has announced that he is prepared to reduce the rate on oats for export by 25 per cent. We are thankful for that, but what are the practical consequences? At the moment we pay 6¾d. for a bag of oats from Caledon to Cape Town. If you deduct 25 per cent., it amounts to 1¾d. a bag. It is of very little value to the farmers, and will assist them little in connection with the export. The same position prevails as regards barley. I want to suggest that the Government—this is unfortunately the only body from whom we expect assistance in our troubles—should agree that the nominal price for the transport per ton should be charged. I believe that we have at present at least a surplus of half a million bags of oats in South Africa. Let the Minister carry them for, say, 2s. 6d. a ton to the harbours to get them away. I admit that it is little, and nominal, but the State must sacrifice something to assist the farmer in his difficult position. As for barley, we have also had a great over-pro duction of that, and the overseas market is weak. Instead of asking for a subsidy on the export, such as is granted in connection with other industries, we ask for the reduction of the rates. We shall be thankful for a subsidy, but if we get a subsidy, and the rate remains the same, then the subsidy will have to be higher in proportion. I suggest that oats should be carried to any place in the Union at a fixed amount, a flat rate, per ton. That is not adequate because then it is also necessary that the freight paid to the shipping companies to carry oats and barley should be reduced. The freight is now 28s. a ton. I understand that it is proposed to reduce that also by 25 per cent. That brings it to 21s. a ton, which will not help us much. Cannot the Minister use his influence to induce the shipping companies to fix the freight at 15s. a ton? I think the shipping companies have a certain obligation towards South Africa and although the Minister cannot demand that they should do so, the shipping companies get a considerable profit out of the carriage of our-produce, and, seeing the position is so difficult we might hope for a little patriotic feeling on the part of the shipping companies. The position in the case of maize is also difficult, The harvest is tremendously large, and a bag of maize has at present a value of only about 7s., and there seems little prospect of a radicar alteration in the price in the near future. The Government owns certain ships, and I want to ask whether the ships cannot be used to transport the surplus of our produce when they may try to get a load for our ships on the other side. That will help a little. Oats can be kept a little while, but the position with regard to barley is urgent, After some months, all kinds of diseases get into barley. The farmers are now getting 1s. 9d. at the harbours forlucerne. After paying the transport which they still have to pay, there remains 1s. per 100 lb. for the farmer. It is almost ridiculous to say so, but the famers get for lucerne now what they get for bedding. The lucerne farmers are therefore in a sad position. I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to the matter, and will try to assist the farmers, especially in the Western Province.

There are one or two matters I am anxious to bring to the notice of the Government. We were deeply interested in the report made by the Minister of the Interior on the housing question. For many years past municipalities have knocked at the door of the Government and asked it to deal with this as a national question. According to the report made by the Minister, the Government at last has realized that it is a national question, and that it itself must take its share of the responsibility, and not throw the whole responsibility on the municipality, as heretofore. I do not propose to go very much into the reasons, economic and others, for the slum question, which have been debated on many occasions in this House, but there are one or two aspects of it to which I think I should refer. The Minister never attributed the slum question to a large abnormal increase in the white population, but rather to the influx of people from rural to urban areas. We were told last session by the Prime Minister that this is a worldwide movement and tendency, and that people find it more congenial to be in the urban centres. Does that not immediately raise the question of the whole fiscal policy of this or any other Government; why it is that people in the rural areas do not find the country as attractive as the towns? I maintain that if we are going to maintain South Africa as a white country, we have to settle as large a European population as possible on the land. The occupation of the land should be our chief endeavour, but to-day the whole tendency is, in rural areas, to increase the size of the holdings. The rich European farmer acquires more ground, and gradually squeezes out the small man. Is that a healthy state of affairs? We have been told that the failure of the rural population is largely due to drought conditions, and in certain parts that is certainly the case; but in a district like my own, which is considered to be fairly wealthy, and does not suffer from drought to any great extent, I can remember the time when we had 50 tenant farmers who were ploughing and reaping on shares, and who were making a comfortable living, who have left the land and disappeared. The European population is going down in numbers in the rural areas. I think that is a very significant fact, of which the Government should certainly take cognizance. The proposal of the Minister to loan £500,000 at 3 per cent. towards housing the very poor can touch only the very fringe of the matter. I doubt whether it is going to supply the needs of Cape Town, leave alone Johannesburg, Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London.

They always ask for more money than they can spend—they have never spent the money available.

I am glad the Minister has raised that question. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth will give him the reply he got from the Housing Board—that they could not get money. Municipalities can themselves go into the market and borrow at 5 per cent., and the Government was not conferring such a wonderful favour on them by lending them money at 5 per cent. Is it a big sacrifice the Government is making? When you look at the report of the Postmaster-General, you find that the deposits in the post office savings bank amount to £5,951,801, distributed among 391,527 depositors, the average being £15 4s., on which the Government pays the great sum of 3 per cent, interest. Where does that money come from? Is it from the rich people? They are the deposits of the poor people, and so the Government is getting nearly six millions from the savings of the poor people of this country, for which they pay only 3 per cent. I hope that this £500,000 is merely an earnest of the Government’s intention to give a more adequate amount in connection with this great scheme. We have heard from the Minister of the Interior that the slums must go after this £500,000 has been spent. It reminds me of another slogan we have heard, “He won’t be happy till he gets it,” and yet another, “Eat more fruit.” It is not necessarily the buildings that make a slum. I think slums are caused more by the people who occupy them. There are some people who would make a slum anywhere. You have only to take Cape Town as an illustration of how slums come about. The old Dutch houses, once the residences of the aristocracy of Cape Town, are occupied to-day by slum-dwellers. I believe that in London very old and beautiful houses have been included in slum areas. It is not necessarily the houses that make slums. It is the people who inhabit the houses who make slum areas. I have mentioned the tendency in the rural areas of the wealthy farmer to acquire more ground. I have a case in mind that happened within the last few weeks of a farmer who has just purchased 60,000 morgen in the north-western districts. This farmer has a son and daughter under eight years of age. One individual trying to develop 60,000 morgen, an area that should support a large number of people. When we speak about slogans, the most important slogan is that of “Back to the land.” Our policy should be to make the rural areas attractive. But by the policy prevailing to-day, the small man is being squeezed out. That brings me to an important matter which I raised by question early in the session. I asked what the policy of the Government was in connection with the wool-growers. In November, 1929, there was a meeting held in Cape Town of the South African Agricultural Union, and amongst the motions on the agenda was one by the Transvaal conference, requesting the Minister of Agriculture to institute a searching investigation into the reason or reasons for the decline of the price of wool, for the purpose of protecting wool-gowers against the slump. The Minister’s reply to my question was to the effect that the reason was financial stringency, affecting manufacturers overseas. He said that no specific inquiry had been made, but that the department would investigate the matter further. On the following day the Minister at the congress stated that it was well known that the present-day position was that a great majority of farmers must sell their wool as soon as the sheep were shorn. The result was that the wool was mostly thrown on to the market at one time, and middlemen bought it, and sold it at better prices in the off season. I asked the Minister a further question as to the cause of the low price of wool, to which the Minister replied that he had no information on the point, but that the Government was giving the existing situation its serious consideration, and yet I find that on the 11th September last the Government had a report from its Bradford correspondent. [Report read.] The question is whether Bradford was rigging the market, and was responsible for this terrible catastrophe of the slump. I don’t for one moment suggest that to be the case, as I have not sufficient information on the subject, but there is a widespread opinion that the market is being rigged by certain overseas buyers. The Government had information from its correspondent at Bradford, and when the whole country was anxiously waiting for a definite statement, I was told in reply to the question I put that they had no information on the point. It would be useless for me to impress upon this House the importance of our wool industry. I find that at the end of 1927 we had approximately 37,000,000 sheep which to-day, with increase, should be in the region of 40,000,000, and last year we exported wool to the value of close on £20,000,000; and taking the industry as a whole into account, on a very conservative basis, I can say that over £200,000,000 capital has been invested in the sheep and wool industry by the farmers of this country. The Government has spent colossal sums in the eradication of scab and improvement of stock, and in every way fostering the sheep and wool industry. Next to the mining industry, I consider wool is the most important. A crisis in wool will have far-reaching results. It is estimated that the drop in the price of wool has resulted in a decreased spending power among the farmers of about £7,000,000. It has been estimated at as high a figure as £10,000,000, but I put it conservatively at £7,500,000. This is very serious, because it will have repercussions throughout the country. When the farmer draws in his horns, grows his own foodstuffs, and does not go away from his farm, and has no money to spend, the rest of the country is going to feel it seriously. I trust before the 30th June farmers in the country will get some statement from the Government as to what it is doing. We know a levy has been made, and a board constituted to advise the Minister, but we want to know what the Government itself is doing. The brokers’ reports state that there are approximately 100,000 bales of wool in hand and to come on to the market by the 30th June next, and it is anticipated that the prices may be seriously affected if the short wool comes on to the market all in a heap or exceeds the demand. Last season there was almost a panic among our wool farmers. They rushed their wools on to the market. They sold almost at any price. That was to the distinct advantage of the buyers. I attribute this in a measure, I don’t say wholly, to that unfortunate speech of the Prime Minister at Bloemfontein. In South Africa we can only get 8d. to 11d. per pound for our grease wool. In Australia they are getting 23d. per pound. That is an enormous disparity. Why is it? Notwithstanding this tremendous slump in the price of wool, we find that woollen blankets and woollen clothing are still sold at the same high prices. The farmer gets only 15s. to 18s. for his hamels: he used to get 25s. to 30s. Yet the price of meat has not come down. The Minister held a meeting with the wool brokers, and I think there were four resolutions passed at that conference. The country is waiting to hear what the Government is doing in connection with those four resolutions. The first was that in view of the prevailing low prices of wool the conference recommended that the Government should consider the provision of facilities to enable the land bank to make advances to the wool farmers. Unless there is some assistance given to the wool farmers before 30th June, they will be compelled to sell at any price. The second resolution recommends that the Government should immediately get into touch with the Commonwealth of Australia with a view to stabilizing prices. The country wants to know if anything has been done in this connection, and, if so, what? The third resolution recommends that the Department of Agriculture should establish a wool information bureau. I think the more information available on these matters, the less criticism the agricultural department will be subjected to. The position is critical. On the 31st December, when the interest on bonds was falling due, these farmers just manage to pay interest on their bonds. A large number of these farms are mortgaged. The danger I foresee is on the 30th June next, when the interest on the bonds again falls due, and the farmer has no income and cannot sell his stock. What is going to happen then if he cannot meet the interest on his bonds? This is what I fear is going to bring about a serious state of affairs. I therefore plead with the Minister of Agriculture not only to say that a board has been appointed, but to tell the country what assistance the Government is prepared to extend to the farmers, so that they will not be compelled to accept any price offered for their wool, as they did during the last wool slump. It is not only the big farmers I plead for, but those who farm with 500 sheep or less. Where the farmer gets about 10s. for his wool per sheep, his income would be £250 per annum; this man could just pay his way. If that is going to be reduced by half, before long he will be compelled to sell his sheep and drift to the towns to take a job at a few shillings a day. Let the State make a sacrifice if necessary; but let us keep the small farmer on the land, even if it costs the State something. I appeal to the Minister to come to the assistance of the small farmers, who are the yeomen and backbone of the country.

I first wish to deal with the attitude of the Prime Minister in regard to the floods at Weenen. Every member in this House, no doubt, will have read in the papers during the last few days of the disaster which took place there, resulting in the loss of life and also in rendering a large number of these people homeless and destitute. I was astounded and dumbfounded by the statement of the Prime Minister. The Minister said that he was not prepared to do anything until representations had been made to him. He further said that he was not prepared to institute any investigation in the matter; that no doubt the provincial councils would deal with the matter. Now, I say that a question of this sort is not a provincial matter. A disaster of this sort is a national matter. It is a matter for South Africa. When our fellow South Africans, through an act of God, are placed in a position of great suffering and loss, it is a question for the country, and not for a province to deal with. I claim, in spite of what the Minister said, that representations have been made to him. The chairman of the local board there sent him a telegram pointing out to him the position of affairs there. I also went to him after receiving telegrams from those people in distress, and asked him what he was prepared to do, and I understand that the local magistrate has also made representations to the Government, perhaps not to the Prime Minister himself, but to heads of his department. I would just like to explain what sort of a place Weenen is. Evidently some of the Government and some hon. members opposite may think that Weenen is just a small village, a small settlement of people. Weenen is really an irrigation settlement of farmers. It is a settlement that we Natal people are very proud of. They are not in a position of people on most irrigation schemes in this country, who have borrowed money from the Government and to-day are in a moribund condition, and whose case is being considered by the Irrigation Commission and by a select committee at the present time to see how much money the state is going to write off to put these people in a sound position again. Weenen is one of those settlements which owe the Government nothing. They have paid for their works and for their land. Although they are poor people, because their holdings are only small holdings, they are people who are maintaining themselves and living good and respectable lives. Now these people, through an act of God, and through no fault of their own, have been placed in most unfortunate circumstances. I feel it is the duty of this House to take their case into consideration. In saying this, I say it is nothing new for this House to have done, because it is on record that the House has done it many times in the past. I have here a record with regard to the Leeuw-Gamka irrigation scheme, which, unfortunately, had an experience of flood too. In that flood the irrigation settlement suffered very severe loss. The Government took their matter into consideration, and voted funds from the general revenue of this country to an amount of £23,000 under the head of “Flood Relief,” and those people were helped in that respect. That money was given to these people without any liability on their part of having to pay it back again. I claim, with regard to Weenen, that we can go to the Government and ask for similar treatment. That is not the only instance in which this has been done. It has been done in several other instances. Besides this, the Government makes provision for drought and flood relief with regard to farmers in most parts of the country. When farmers, through no fault of their own, but through drought and other circumstances, are in a very bad way, the Government comes to their relief, perhaps not by giving them money, but by lending them money, and if the Government would treat these Weenen farmers in the same way, I daresay that would meet the case just as well. These men are not poor whites, although they have to be helped to be put in the position to continue their work as farmers on the land, so that they can continue to earn their living. I ask the Prime Minister if this treatment is meted out to the rest of the Union why not to Natal? Are we outcasts in Natal, or are we wild men of the west, as we have been called, or are we true South Africans belonging to the Union of South Africa? I may say that this place Weenen should have a particularly soft spot in the Prime Minister’s heart. It is the place where the old voortrekkers settled when they went north, and what they did was for the benefit of South Africa, and many of the people there to-day are descendants of those old people. Now by treating them, I won’t say generously, but fairly, we may put them in a good position again to retrieve their loss and the misfortune that they have had. I leave the matter of the Weenen floods to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will take it into serious consideration and do what he can for these unfortunate people. I now wish to say something with regard to the Agricultural Department and its present policy. The Minister of Agriculture yesterday threw down the gauntlet and challenged us to pick it up. If the Minister, when he made that challenge, meant that he defied us to take up any attitude with regard to the Government insisting upon their doing what is right, to fight for clean and good government, and to fight for the best interests of this country, we on this side of the House are quite willing to take up that challenge, and we will fight him to the bitter end, if that is what he means. I only hope that at a later stage he may say something on the point, if that was not his original meaning. We are not racialists.

I am very glad to hear that.

Yes, I claim that, and I think every hon. member on this side of the House will also claim that we are not racialists.

I am afraid that your speeches have not indicated that.

I claim that we are out for the best interests of this country, and in spite of whatever threats are made to us, we shall stand to our guns for those interests. With regard to the Agricultural Department, I claim to be able to speak with authority on that subject, as I have been intimately connected with that department since Union, and have worked with every Minister of Agriculture we have had during that time. I have also been in intimate co-operation with several branches of that department, and, in addition, I have a very large knowledge of practical farming and the needs and problems of the farmers. I have studied the last annual report of the Agricultural Department. It contains about 80 pages, but I have not been able to discover in it any reference to the Minister, so you would think it is a self-contained department, and that the Minister is only a figurehead.

You can keep on the whole evening; we know what you are up to, but it does not matter.

The Minister is not a figurehead, but has a tremendous power to make or mar his department—the farming industry of this country. Has he been a success as a Minister? I make bold to say he has not. Before everything else he is a politician, and, above all, he is a Nationalist, and he places the interests of his party and his politics far and away above the interests of agriculture and his department. That is a strong statement to make, but in dealing with many of the Minister’s actions that can easily be proved. We will first deal with the power the House has given to the Minister to make regulations. We have been urged by hon. members opposite to trust the Minister as he is out for the best interests of the farmers. The Minister has always told us that he is a farmer, and the farmers’ interests would be his sacred trust. But what do we find? Whenever farming interests clashed with the interests of some members of his party, the interests of party come first. I refer to the regulations allowing the export of sour oranges. When the matter was under discussion, regulations had been made laying down the standard for export. The Minister had agreed to those regulations, but in the interests of a few farmers in the northern Transvaal—

It seems to me that the hon. member is now discussing something upon which the House has already decided.

I am discussing only regulations. If Mr. Speaker holds that I am not able to discuss them, I will stop, but I ask: am I right in doing so?

The hon. member may proceed.

These standards did not suit a certain number of orange growers in a certain part of the country, and they brought pressure to bear on the Minister to get around the regulation. He made another regulation which made the former regulations of no value to the industry. The new regulation was that as long as certain oranges were marked “sour” or “tart”, they need not comply with the regulations previously made. This was in opposition to the views of 90 per cent. of the orange growers of the country, who had devoted their time and money to organizing the industry. The people whose advice the Minister took, were tobacco farmers, who were in trouble about the tobacco market, and he tried to give them some relief by their exporting sour oranges. I mention that to show that he has first the interests of his party at heart, before those of the orange-growing industry. A great deal has been said of his power to appoint officers in his department, and also to retrench them, so I will not say a great deal on that, but I must mention the position in Natal in regard to this, because it is one of the provinces which has suffered most from the Minister’s power to appoint officers when the present Government came into power. I asked a question in the House as to the number of inspectors in January, 1929, and the reply was that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300. I asked how many were in their position at the time this Government took over, and from the reply I received from the Minister, it would appear that 160 had been retrenched and replaced by others. That was done six months after the present Government came into office. Now we claim that the men who were in office at the time the Minister took over were, if anything, better than the present staff he has to-day, and they were doing their duty in a right and proper manner. These new inspectors, if one was to go into the history of them, would be found to be, in practically every instance, not Natal men. They have been imported from the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. I would like to ask the Minister what is the matter with Natal men, and do they not make as good inspectors as the Transvaal and Free State men—or is it that Natal is practically solid South African party, that these men have been retrenched? The Minister has proudly stated that his slogan is: “All things being equal, preference will always be given to a Nationalist in the making of an appointment.”

He has always said that.

Yes, but he has now gone one better. It is not only what he says; it is what he does. Whenever a Nationalist can supplant a South African party official, the Minister sees that this is done on the first opportunity.

He never said anything of the sort.

He said it yesterday. I will pass on to another subject on which the Minister is very strong, the question of bilingualism. Since the Minister has been in office it has been made compulsory for half the lectures at the agricultural colleges to be delivered in English and half in Afrikaans. There is one exception, and that is Cedara. An attempt was made to enforce it there, but it was found that if it had been enforced, they would not have had a single student. As far as the other three agricultural colleges are concerned, unless a student is bilingual, it is useless for him to go to one of these colleges. A student who only speaks English can only get the benefit of half the lectures, and the same applies to a student who only speaks Afrikaans. The position to-day is that at our agricultural colleges we have only 150 students, at four of these big institutions, and it takes one lecturer, or one of the staff to provide for one student. The number of students does not exceed practically the number of the staff of the colleges. That is a most serious state of affairs. Those students cost the country, on the average, £700 a year each. I do not say that the colleges do not make something which can be placed against that, because they do make an income, but even taking the income into consideration, after giving credit for that income, each student costs the country between £400 and £500 a year to maintain. Why cannot the Minister make a different arrangement? Why not make half the colleges English and the other half Afrikaans, so that a student may be able to get instruction in either language? Then we would not have this position that only bilingual students could go to those colleges. I know that the Minister has tried to make the Agricultural Department bilingual, but in spite of everything he may do, he will never make this country bilingual by force. That is the object.

I am glad to know that.

You can force people in your employ who depend upon you to learn Afrikaans, but a free and independent people can never be forced to become what you wish them to become. These agricultural colleges not only instruct students, but also give advice to farmers. It has been the practice in the past for the staff of these colleges to reply to correspondence received in the language in which it is couched. But the Minister was not satisfied with that. Afrikaans he considered must be fairly treated, and the staff were given instructions that as many Afrikaans replies as English must be sent out irrespective of the medium used in the letters of enquiry. I believe the number of English letters received doubled that of those in Afrikaans, so the result was that half the English letters would be replied to in Afrikaans, and would possibly be unintelligible to the recipients. I make this statement on very good authority. I used to visit these institutions regularly as inspector of cattle, and the information I got was from employees of those colleges from some who have gone to better and more useful employment. I would like to show how some of the appointments are made at the colleges. At one of them the chief stockman decided to leave, and a man was recommended to take his place who was not an Englishman by any means. That man’s nomination was passed over, and a man from the Minister’s constituency was sent down. He was the son of a great supporter of the Minister there. This man arrived to take charge, but only remained a week, because he found he had not the slightest knowledge of how to treat cattle, and eventually the man who should have been appointed originally got the post. I would like to deal with the report of the Secretary of Agriculture. The department I first wish to deal with is the department of animal husbandry. When the Minister first took charge there, he found a department which had been organized by a Minister of Agriculture front this side of the House, and the department was a useful and well-organized one. But when the present Minister came into office, he set about to reorganize the department and make it a better one. He wished to economize and to save the country money, and so he has practically cut out some of these divisions we had in the old days and has combined them with other divisions. Take, for instance, the animal husbandry division. We had there Mr. Thornton, who had been in the department for 20 odd years. He was a South African who knew South African conditions. He had a thorough technical training, as well as practical experience, and was a man who was doing his best to give the farmers the best assistance and advice he could in regard to animal husbandry. To assist him he had two of the best young South Africans we have ever had in this country—Dr. Romyn and Mr. Morkel—who, unfortunately, died before he was transferred somewhere else. These were the heads of the animal husbandry division. Unfortunately, they were not given an adequate staff, so they were never able to do a great deal more than the three of them could do by themselves. The Minister decided that that department of animal husbandry was quite unnecessary, and he has now combined it with the veterinary department, which he has done with a great many other departments in which the farmers are interested. We have now at the head of the animal husbandry department of this country, not a practical, trained or field husbandry man, but a scientific man who is interested only in diseases and how to treat animals suffering from disease. Well, I know we have a great number of diseases in this country, and I would not for a moment say that it is not a most important part of our industry—the investigation of these diseases. Dr. du Toit is one of the most valued men in the department to-day, but his time is too valuable in the department where he can do his best work, to put him in charge of the department of animal husbandry, of which he knows nothing. If he is going to devote himself to animal husbandry, he will have to educate himself right up from the bottom. He will have to neglect the work in which he can best be occupied and give best service. We shall not get satisfaction from either of these departments by combining them. Mr. Thornton, who was best qualified to run that department, has now been sent to the native territories, and the natives will get the benefit of his experience and advice which we farmers so much require. Now the same has been done with the field husbandry department. This department, which was being run by men who were practical, field husbandry men, is now being put under the botanist, who deals with plants, not agricultural crops. He deals with plants and plant diseases in a scientific way. He knows nothing about the growing of crops, how they should be treated, their cultivation and fertilization, and all those points which we farmers require assistance on. The same remarks I made in regard to the animal husbandry department also apply to this division of field husbandry.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I move—

I do so in no frivolous spirit, but because, as a result of the Prime Minister’s action this evening, we are faced with a serious parliamentary crisis. If this sort of thing goes on the House will be reduced to a bear garden.

The hon. member must confine himself to reasons for his motion.

I am explaining my reasons for bringing forward the motion, and if I am not allowed to explain my reasons for taking a somewhat unusual course, I would prefer not to propose the motion at all. I propose the motion not to waste time, but because the action of the Prime Minister in casting a gross insult on us this evening—

The hon. member should not go into that now.

It is the crux of the matter. I am moving this in order to give us time to consider what to do in view of the gag.

The hon. member is not allowed to use the word “gag.”

Then I will say in view of the serious curtailment of free speech imposed on the House.

May I refer the hon. member to the following ruling given by a previous Speaker (V. & P., 1919, p. 109)—

The hon. member will have a further opportunity of discussing the Mozambique treaty on the main estimates.

I notice that the previous Speaker’s ruling allows considerable latitude, and I throw myself on your mercy. If I understood you rightly, I must confine myself to discussing the conduct of the business of the House, and the method of procedure. I submit, with all respect, I was discussing the conduct of the business of the House.

The hon. member must confine himself to discussing the conduct of the business of the House.

That is what I am trying to do. The conduct of the business of the House depends to a large extent on mutual courtesy, and I say we have not had that courtesy shown to us to-day. If the Government told us this afternoon that the Prime Minister or the Government wished to switch off to some other business this evening, we would have had no objection. But the conduct was inconsiderate and discourteous. Take my own case—I was hurrying through the evening meal in order to be here. We were met with this motion. I asked the Prime Minister for his reasons, and he met us with discourtesy. I say with all emphasis that if the House generally is going to conduct itself—

The hon. member is referring to a discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the debate which has been decided.

No, I am referring to the personal conduct of the Prime Minister. May I not discuss the conduct of the business of this House? I ask you how are we to conduct the business of this House if we are going to be treated in that way? All through the debate this afternoon, there was not one frivolous speech. Hon. member after hon. member made an excellent speech, all touching on important public questions, but we met with insult, and were told we have no leaders here. On this side we are different; on the other side apparently only the leaders may talk; on this side we allow our rank and file—our stalwarts to speak, and when we are carrying on an important debate, we ask something else from the Prime Minister than this gibe at us. That is not the way to conduct the business of Parliament—the mouthpiece of democracy—of the people. How is the business of the country to be carried on if this is allowed to go on? The Prime Minister undertook to lecture us how to comport ourselves, and he should remove the beam from his own eye before he tries to remove the mote from that of others. When it comes to conduct, good manners and courtesy, I think the attitude of the Prime Minister has left much to be desired. We were treated to a tirade yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, who made some extraordinary accusations against us. I was waiting my turn all the afternoon to deal with them—and I wonder whether the Prime Minister was afraid. This steamrolling business and government by the big stick may suit some countries, but it does not suit the temperament of the people of South Africa. We represent a very large and important and intelligent section of the people. We warn the Government benches that they cannot carry on the business of the House in this manner. We can be led, but not driven. So long as we meet with courtesy we will return it. I cannot recall one single occasion on which we have contumaciously refused to meet the Government. It is very galling and humiliating to come ready for a debate, and an hon. member, with a smirk of satisfaction in having caught us out in some way or other, moves the motion for the adjournment of the debate. I fail to recall a single instance of such complete lack of courtesy shown to the Opposition. It is necessary for both sides to think over the matter in a calmer spirit. I hope the Prime Minister will feel his action has been injudicious and has resulted in unnecessary delay and waste of time. The Prime Minister is a serious-minded man, but at times, to use a vulgar expression, he is inclined to “go off at the deep end.” In order to afford him those calmer moments, I move that the House do now adjourn.

I second the motion, and in doing so I would like to speak with the calmness and deliberation a motion of this sort deserves. We have heard some speakers getting out of hand to-night. I should like, however, to speak in a manner befitting the dignity of this House. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that on a motion of this kind, we must confine ourselves to a discussion of the conduct of the business of this House, and the few observations I shall make will be directed to that object. I think the conduct of the business of the House should be directed to the adequate representation by those members who are duly elected, of the electors of the country, and it is the duty and privilege of every member, as I can see it, to do his best to represent those who may be outside the House. He has to give expression to the views of the inarticulate thousands who are looking in see what the Government and the Opposition are doing. And it has always been the duty of the Opposition to direct fair criticism of the Government on matters of public importance. At the present time it seems to me that there are a large number of people outside the House looking to the members for a lead to guide them in the present crisis which has arisen in the country. The Prime Minister has told us that we are in the throes of a depression, and there are thousands of our farming community who do not need to be told it; they know it to their cost. Surely when we are going through a very severe depression there should be adequate opportunity given to every member of this House to express his views. The Prime Minister on the 23rd of January, 1923, moved a vote of no confidence in the then Government, the South African party Government. In the course of his speech he said—

These are matters which can be raised on the main Estimates, or on the Part Appropriation Bill, when the debate is resumed.

I bow to your ruling— but I say, with the greatest respect, I am merely referring now to the conduct of the business of this House, and I am trying to show to this House that no less a person than the Prime Minister is a supporter of the doctrine that every member of this House has a right to express the views of his constituents in this House on a matter of national importance. I submit that what I have to quote is now in order. The words I am about to quote were uttered by the Prime Minister on a previous occasion in regard to the conduct of the business of this House. I will quote his words in Afrikaans [translation]—

They, the members of Parliament, are the responsible people in the country. We are responsible to the people outside for closely seeing to it that those who are at the head of affairs carry out their duties in an honourable and exact fashion. It is one of the first duties of the Government to see that the business of the country is properly attended to, and that the honour of the country is maintained at the highest possible, and I am convinced that a great part of the population feels that neither the one nor the other has been done by the Government during recent years. It is our duty, as members of the House, to be impartial and, without regard to party interests, to give attention in that body and to watch over the position of the country, so that it be maintained in as good a position as possible, and if we find that such is not done, then we must examine whose is the fault, and if we see that the cause of the miserable condition of our country is a result of the actions of the Government, and of their neglect, then it is our solemn duty to take immediate steps to put an end to such a state of affairs. It is surely not necessary for me to draw the attention of those present to the position as we find it to-day. We hear complaints in every direction, complaints from farmers, complaints from business men, complaints from manufacturers—as a matter of fact every section of the population is suffering under this condition of affairs. Unemployment has increased to such an extent that it actually constitutes a threat to the state.

If the hon. the Prime Minister were to get on a public platform to-day and make that utterance, he could not give truer expression to the present position of our land.

The hon. member should not drag in extraneous matters.

I am protesting against the stoppage of legitimate discussion on a matter of public importance. My contention is that we have the farmers, and the industrialists, and all classes of the community crying out respecting the position of the country at the present time, and when the Prime Minister and his followers stop free discussion, then I say it is a case of going back to the days of mediaevalism.

Are hon. members in order in criticizing a decision of the House?

The hon. member is out of order. I have allowed him a great deal of latitude. The hon. member has not confined himself to the conduct of the business of the House and is now reflecting on the decision of the House that the previous debate should be adjourned.

I thank you for the liberty you have given me. I may have another opportunity of dealing with this matter.

I do not know how far the Opposition have succeeded in turning this session into what the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) has called a bear garden. I am now convinced that that hon. member is leading comedian in that bear garden. I now, however, come to the motion for the adjournment of the House. It is now 10.10 and we began at 8 o’clock.

Yes, it is two hours and ten minutes.

I am glad to see the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) still knows so much of what is going on in the House, that he is able to tell us that we have now wasted two hours and ten minutes as the result of the malice of the Opposition.

Whose fault is it ?

The fault is sitting right opposite to us. It has been asked what the Opposition said that was frivolous. Can there be a better proof than the fact that we have now been sitting for two hours and three minutes without doing anything? Resulting in the waste of that time ?

It was appropriate.

It was a very frivolous protest. The child that is naughty and gets a beating also protests, but that doesn’t prevent the beating having been deserved. It is as clear as possible that everything the Opposition have done was only meant to prevent the work of the House going on. I will leave it to the public to judge. I now want to point out another thing. It was proposed that the House should adjourn after we had wasted two hours and ten minutes. If there was anything serious in the motion then the leader of the Opposition, or one of the other two leaders, would have spoken, but again it is all left to the irresponsible member for Barberton, or to the younger and irresponsible members on the back benches. It may possibly be that the Opposition now has its leaders on the back benches, but then they must give us notice. We do not know it, and as long as the leader remains silent, I do not even know what the Opposition actually want. But will the hon. member for Yeoville in all seriousness be courageous enough to identify himself with the waste of time we have had to-night ?

Yes, certainly.

Yes, as a protest.

The hon. member says yes, but he takes very good care that he remains silent instead of getting up and giving a lead. As my hon. colleague (the Minister of Finance) has said there is a duty resting on the leader of the Opposition, and that duty is not to abandon and run away from his leadership. To-day they ran away, but I still want them to give a lead. I should like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to tell us why the House should be adjourned. This whole thing is merely to waste time. I am, however, convinced that it cannot go on this way. It is a very great insult to the people who sent us here to work if our work is made futile by the irivolousness of hon. members opposite.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister is very anxious for me to speak, but when we speak he accuses us of wasting time. I do not understand the position. He appeals to my friends on my right and on my left to speak and give a lead, but when we talk it is a waste of time.

If nonsense is spoken.

I was one of the first to rise because I saw what was coming. I asked very courteously for an explanation, very moderately and patiently. I said that there was not the least intention on this side of the House of wasting time. We only wanted to know why the debate was being adjourned in that drastic and unexpected way. Ordinarily the Whips of the parties consult each other, and for facilitating the work we get information about what is taking place. I was prepared, as far as I was concerned, to accept the adjournment if the Minister for Finance had risen and said that he was anxious to go on with other work, and that it was not the intention to muddle us. I therefore rose early and asked what the intention was, and I did so in a way which could not offend the Prime Minister or anyone else. The Prime Minister has chastised us and read us a lesson just as one chastises children. We are not children, and the Prime Minister must not think that he can play the schoolmaster here. He knows that the dignity of the House does not permit anyone playing the schoolmaster, and to treat any section of the House as school children. What took place here this afternoon was by way of a protest against the Prime Minister treating us on this side in that way. I agree that things in the country are serious and that we must not waste unnecessary time, but one of the most serious questions is the privileges of Parliament and the freedom of speech and to act on behalf of constituents that have sent us here, and they, as far as we are concerned, represent the majority of the electors of the country. There was no intention of delaying the House, and when I merely rise to reply to the Prime Minister I hope that he will not again accuse me of wasting time. I just wanted to correct him, and to remind him that if the dignity of the House must be held high there must be a certain amount of give and take. Tyranny or steamrolling or forcing things on to people are not possible in a free Parliament, and in that way no progress can be made. We have now taken 2½ hours to teach the Prime Minister this little lesson in parliamentary procedure. I hope he has learnt it. What I have said here is not meant in a bad spirit, but merely to assist. We are only at the start of the session, and I do not want the rest of the session to be continued in a bad spirit. Let us help each other. The Minister of Finance will admit that we have done everything to assist the Government and not to unnecessarily delay the work during the whole of the two months that lie behind us. It is our intention to continue in that spirit. The Prime Minister wanted to teach ns a lesson, but I hope he has also learnt a little lesson.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is now trying to throw oil on the waters, but if he had been here during the debate he would have had to admit that we had cause for complaint.

I was here all the time.

No, the debate has been going on a few days, and at the commencement the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that this was not the occasion to discuss the whole position. In a few days we shall have the opportunity of debating everything fully. The hon. member for Yeoville only said a few words to give a lead. After that all the long speeches came. I have not the least objection to them, as far as I am concerned you can go on another two days. What has, however, happened this afternoon? Hon. members were talked out. As usual, they handed in a list of speakers to Mr. Speaker, and the list was completed. Then a movement took place in the House which we all saw. We are not children. In consequent of certain replies to the criticism which followed from this side, a decision was come to this afternoon.

No.

Yes, it is so. An attempt was made to continue the debate longer. We did not close the debate, but it was only adjourned so that we could go on with other work. We, however, saw the spirit prevailing, and noticed that we could not progress in that way. We have a great deal of work, but there was not the least attempt to gag hon. members. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says that he protests against our making an attempt to gag them. That was never done. Hon. members can go on for three days more, but I say without hesitation that a decision was taken this afternoon and steps were taken to keep the debate going after it had been talked out. We thought that if we went on to other things, that a better atmosphere would be found to expedite the work of the House, and hon. members could continue the debate on Monday. I have not the least objection to criticism, and I emphatically deny that it was the intention to prevent criticism. We, however, felt that it would assist the House if in the meantime we went on to other business.

This is the second time this evening that the Minister of Finance has accused this side of the House of deliberately spinning out the debate. It is the second time that he has said that there was “someone going about stirring up hon. members to speak.” That someone going about amongst members was me, and it was my duty to do so in the absence of the chief whip. It was my duty to arrange the order of our speakers. I have a list of speakers here, of hon. members on this side of the House who have been asking to be allowed to speak. I have a long list here of two pages. So far from trying to protract the debate was I, that I told some of the members that we did not want to spin the debate out too long, and allow it to flag, and I asked them not to protract their speeches, and those hon. members will bear me out. I informed several hon. members that, as so many members wished to speak, it would be impossible for everybody to get a turn. When I was going round the House, therefore, it was not to look for speakers, but in order to arrange times at which hon. members could speak. Here is the list which the whips could have seen. I spoke to the Chief Whip on the other side of the House this evening, and told him that it was not an organized opposition to protract the debate. I told him that there were many members still who wished to speak. The hon. Minister of Finance has said that Mr. Speaker had reached the end of the list of the speakers handed to him. That was not the complete list. It is not the custom of this House to hand in a complete list of speakers for one day. Various things occur in debate to make it impossible for a man to speak, and he must, therefore, be replaced. I wish to make that statement here, and the hon. Minister of Finance will believe me when I say that there was no attempt to “rake up” men to protract the debate. On the contrary, the difficulty was to see how to avoid making the debate too long, and therefore dreary. I say deliberately to-night, although I have not been long in Parliament—I have only been here six years—that I have never known a debate to deal with such important subjects, or aspects of a subject, without repetition and without going over the same ground, as the debate which has taken place. There are matters of great importance to the country to be discussed. South Africa is perturbed about many things. If we, as an Opposition, are not to do our duty and are not to criticize the Government, but are to say “ditto” to everything the Government pleases to do, I say that is not our function. There are few self-respecting men who will go to Parliament, men representing the people of the country, if they feel that the views of their constituents cannot be expressed by them, to the best of their ability, if the views expressed are not agreeable to the powers that be, and that they would be muzzled, and stopped from speaking their minds.

Who muzzled you ?

Technically it is not a muzzle, and technically the Government was entitled to move the adjournment. It was the way it was done and the reasons given and the words used by the Prime Minister that he would “teach us a lesson because we were talking nonsense.” I do not say that he used the word “nonsense,” but that is the effect of what he meant; he wanted to “teach us to speak sense.” He took us to task for the absence of our leaders, which is not his affair. We cannot all be on the front bench, and amongst the back benchers here there may be front benchers of the future. Personally, I would rather be on the back benches on this side of the House than on the front benches of the other. It is a fact that there was no attempt at all, certainly no organized attempt, to “waste the time of the House.”

Do all your colleagues back you up in that?

Every member from the front to the back bench will bear me out that there was no attempt to waste the time of the House.

I rise to a point of personal explanation. I give the hon. Minister my word of honour that this afternoon in going round the House I was trying to find my name on the list of speakers. There was no intention or any effort in the slightest degree to get in new speakers. I was continually consulting with my hon. friend there, and everybody knew exactly what I was going round for. I hope the hon. Minister will believe me. Between 5 and 6 o’clock the question was whether the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares) should precede me or not, and whether the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Basson) should continue the argument. I give the hon. Minister my word of honour that, personally. I was trying to arrange the order of speakers and trying to get myself fitted in. Not in the slightest degree were we trying to organize obstruction or to get more speakers. We were all tired of the debate. I have had communications from my constituents who will take it very much amiss when they find that I have not carried out their mandate and have not set forth in this House what they asked me to do.

You will have an opportunity later on.

People do not understand that. May I ask the Minister whether he accepts my word? I feel that this unfortunate evening seems to have been founded on a misconception—let us leave it at that. I am sure the Minister of Finance acted on a misconception. I was fairly busy this afternoon trying to arrange at what time my speech should be delivered, and the Minister misconstrued my activity, but as he has accepted my word there is nothing more to be said.

As the hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) has further explained, what we were doing this afternoon was to arrange a rota of the various speakers. I wish the Prime Minister to realize that we are not here like a lot of idle schoolboys wasting the time of the country, but as serious men hoping to do some good to the country.

I will accept the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.