When the House adjourned on Mondoy last, I was mentioning the matter of telephones. Farmers and others are suffering severely because of the delay that occurs before they can be linked up with the telephone system. At present the department sends a gang of men to a particular district, finishes the work there, and then moves on to another district. That is an economical method, but it results in considerable delay, sometimes amounting to many years, before people who subsequently desire telephones can have their requirements met. I know of a case in which in 1920 application was made for a telephone. The request was repeated in January last, and the replies to both requests are couched in almost identical terms. I suggest that a special sum be set aside from year to year for telephone extensions, and that a technical man with a few assistants should be given the special task of dealing with individual cases of would-be telephone subscribers. This will be a cheap and economic way of doing the work. In regard to the wider areas in the north-western districts of the Cape Province, where farms are sometimes 20 miles apart, a cheaper system of telephone construction should be adopted. Greater consideration should be given to that part of the country, as the Union is under a sense of obligation to those big-hearted men who have made their homes in that dry part of the country, and are rendering a signal service by occupying land which would otherwise lie idle. I think further consideration should be given them by the Minister of Irrigation. We have repeated claims and calls, and quite just ones under the circumstances, of farmers wanting assistance, made to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Railways and Harbours, which have been met. If sufficient consideration was given to the matter of water you could cut out nine-tenths of the trekking of stock. I would suggest that a matter of something like £60,000 should be set aside, to build the new type of combination drills that would suit that part of the country. It is absolutely hopeless to meet the dire needs of the people of that part of the country with what has been done in regard to drilling. It would repay itself a hundredfold in regard to stock and so forth. There is another matter I wish to touch upon, and that is the suggestion I put forward during the last short session with regard to the export of Persian lambs. To send one consignment is no use. You do not want to send samples but regular shipments, which must be of the right quality. There is no doubt we can send sufficient numbers. If the Government will set their minds to it to send them over at regular intervals it would be rendering the country a signal service. Also in regard to the attempt made by members of the agricultural union to send oxen overseas, the vessel that was set aside was not able to keep up to the schedule time which was expected and there was an unavoidable mishap. I feel that there was an opportunity; and if only we could have had that co-operation I suggested the other night and if even at the eleventh hour a sum of money could have been put up to make up the difference, they might have been sent. The main thing is to get the trade established. Those oxen were ready to be sent; the owners were prepared with the necessary grain to harden them for the journey so that the cattle should not lose unnecessary weight. In so far as the education of the farmer is concerned we have extension officers—young lads full of good things, but to my mind the department should rather employ farmers, for a short time who have gained experience and proved that they have made a success of their own business, and they should go through various parts of the country as disciples to the more backward farmers; spend the night at their home, discuss matters with them, persuade them to get in better stock for breeding purposes, show how they can enter into negotiations with the Land Bank, how to close up sluits, and so forth. Many farmers do not know the advantages of dealing with the Land Bank, which has done so much for the farming community. A good deal of information in this way could be imparted which would be of material assistance to the farmer. The other night we heard statements made by certain of the Ministers. There were some mutterings and something that seemed to be like curses. I think it is the case that the thinking men of the country are beginning to realize that things are not just what they have been represented and painted to be in the past, and they are beginning to consider that much money has been spent for which they are not getting good value. I take it it is the duty of the Government to bring about the state of better economics about which we have been told. I think it is the duty of the Government to demonstrate and illustrate it in better directions. If a man starts a tea shop along the roadway he will in a week or in ten days find out whether it is a paying concern or not, but with a big Government department it takes a long time to find out; it is like a glacier and the movement is slow. But once it starts in the wrong direction it takes much time to get it back into the right direction, and it is very difficult. It needs much hard application before we get back to the old state of things. It was thought that a change of Government would be good, only to find that we have had to pay for it pretty dearly. I quite recognize that the Minister of Finance in his charming optimism has put a picture before us that is not quite realized by the man in ordinary business. We do not quite realize that the trend of business is in the wrong direction. We have had suggestions that Ministers should have autocratic powers; there is the Minister of Justice, with a nimble brain, who has unbounded energy and might almost be called the Winston Churchill of the Cabinet. As far as the Minister of Defence is concerned, the unemployed were told that they need not worry. He was going to build up a labour colony where they could make homes for themselves under satisfactory conditions. Even the Prime Minister was gulled by that. Addressing a meeting not long ago, the Prime Minister told the people that unemployment was a thing of the past. What is the position to-day? It is absolutely the reverse of that. The number of unemployed is increasing, and there is no doubt that we are going to have serious trouble in that direction very soon. I should like the Minister of Mines to give earnest consideration to the position of the gold mines. We farmers realize that at least half our income is derived indirectly from the work carried out by the mines. That work is the sheet anchor of South Africa, and were it not for the gold mines, it would be impossible for us to keep up our credit in the eyes of the world. Every consideration possible should be given to the request of the mines that something be done to reduce the cost of production. Once you close down a mine that is the end of it. It is necessary that the mines should be kept alive as long as possible. The condition of the country is so serious that I would suggest that we call a pause of five minutes, just to think over the condition of things in South Africa to-day [interruption]. Hon. members on the other side of the House should listen to us, because we realize the duty we owe to the country, and I hope hon. members opposite will come to a more reasonable state of mind. I would give a text to the members of the Government, which I hope will soak into their minds. When you stand behind the farmer in a time of stress and strain, ready to aid him financially when necessary, when you are strengthening the very foundations of the state. I hope the Government will act on it.

I am afraid that I cannot endorse altogether the suggestion of the hon. member who has just sat down—that we have a five minutes’ pause to think over our sins. I can quite understand it on the other side of the House, they would desire such a pause to think over things. There is a certain monotonous regularity about budget debates. A certain routine has to be gone through, and whatever Government is in power, a leading member of the Opposition front bench starts off with a most woeful tale of the way in which the Government is increasing expenditure, and declares that red ruin is staring us in the face. Then for the rest of the session, opposition members, during the consideration of the estimates and at other times, press upon the Government that they ought to be doing this, that and the other, which means expenditure. The only variation I can see on this occasion is that that latter process has been anticipated. While their leaders are telling us that we are spending too much money, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) wants the Minister of Finance to increase the educational subsidy in the Cape, and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), while one of our sins is the creation of new boards, wants an efficient and enterprising board to be created to co-operate with the Empire Marketing Board. You do not get an enterprising board for nothing, and the board contemplated by the hon. member would cost the country a lot of money. Another curious proof of extravagance, which the brilliant hon. member who sits at the lower end of the Opposition bench has discovered, is that, while our expenditure has increased by 37 per cent. our population has only increased by 18 per cent. over a certain period of time. That is proof positive. Well, I am old enough to remember when the population of Great Britain was from 35,000,000 to 40,000,000, and when the British budget was a matter of £80,000,000. It is now somewhere about £700,000,000 or £800,000,000, but I have yet to learn that the population of Great Britain has increased to 300,000,000 or 400,000,000. We none of us advocate extravagance, and hon. members opposite are ignoring facts in order to prove that the Government has been guilty of it. One of the principal facts ignored in that type of criticism is, first of all, that wealth production does not always depend upon an increase of population. Steps taken by the present Government, and prior to the time when the present Government took office, have resulted in an increase of wealth production. Further, social conditions continually place upon the Government more and more functions which it is their bounden duty to perform. Whatever Government is in power the same necessities have to be met. One salient case is old age pensions. On both sides of the House that expenditure, a matter of £1,200,000 a year, is absolutely agreed upon. The only thing is that some of us feel strongly—I speak personally— that the age might be reduced, and that the pensions must be made more adequate. That will come in time. Fifteen or sixteen years ago old age pensions were looked upon as an academic question. To-day these pensions are looked upon as a provision that must be made. The accusation against my hon. friend is that he is a careless guardian of the public purse; well, I think his colleagues will differ a good deal from the critics there. We are the real sinners in spending money, and our only complaint against my hon. friend is that he is too stern.

Too stern for your department.

The very criticism against my hon. friend by this side of the House is a testimonial to the good government of this country. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said our revenue from taxes had increased by millions since 1924, but what is the real position? In spite of my hon. friend being able to dispense with many channels of taxation, owing to the greater confidence which this Government has given to the country, and owing to the general confidence with which enterprises have been embarked upon, the revenue through those attenuated channels of taxation which remain has been so ample that at the first hint of depression we meet the shortfall can be made up by that 20 per cent. of income tax which was temporarily remitted. That is a testimonial to the sound management of our finances.

It means bigger spending power.

I will come to the hon. member in a moment. I am only presuming to offer these remarks because my hon. friend when he replies will make hay with his critics of the Opposition on the purely financial aspects. The hon. member for Yeoville—I do not know whether he is the finance Minister of the shadow Cabinet, or whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—but the criticism of the hon. member for Yeoville, I am bound to say, is characterized by that candour and fairness we all expect from him, and which perhaps detracts from that more vigorous style which his less candid colleagues permit themselves. But there were some most ambiguous remarks which the hon. member made in the course of his speech which I wish to discuss, because we have a right to know and the electors have a right to know what they really indicated and what precisely he meant. These are important matters of general policy, and I think we have a right to know what the policy of the Opposition on these important matters is. Take the question of protection. The policy which we have embarked upon we made clear in 1925; a policy of protection on which we should build up our secondary industries, and thereby increase the area of civilized employment. We have done all we can to build up this country in the only way it can be built up, by developing secondary industries in the country. What was the position when we took office in 1924? The party on the opposite benches said—they have not to-day the advantage of that protagonist of free trade with them, Mr. Jagger—they were partly in favour of protection, but the complaint was no one knew what would be the policy the manufacturers made next year. “We do not know,” they said, “what protection we are going to get, or whether protection given will not be withdrawn a year or two later.” The hon. member for Yeoville says now on the subject of protection that he and his party are in favour of a protection policy, but every argument he used was an argument against protection. The hon. member’s argument was that by protecting certain industries, you are preventing the cost of living going down. He said, increase importation, buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest market, and bring the cost of living down. Why, that is the very slogan of the free trade policy in fighting against any protection policy. Then he severely warns us that the protection policy is a drug habit, but he did not say what secret remedy the opposite party has for arresting the drug habit at the proper place. He said, “Beware of the protection policy.” I suppose he was advocating the protection policy on behalf of the party he represents when he called the attention of members of this side of the House to the fact that in America and Australia farming communities were coming round to free trade, and eschewing protection. That is the way he preaches the virtues of protection. What the country wants to know in regard to this new professed adherence of the party opposite to the principles of protection, is it the kind of policy they tried to run for some time—a mild, philosophic admiration of protection, restrained by the free trade principles of Mr. Jagger; or is it free trade, camouflaged by protection, and let the industries of this country go hang? That is all that can be adduced from the criticism of the hon. member for Yeoville. The leaders of the Opposition on the front benches maintain an equivocal position. We have the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) advocating the eight-hour day, a thing that I personally advocate.

How did you vote?

I voted—

You ran away.

I did not run away. I was officially paired by my whip. Well, really, hon. members are propounding a new doctrine that when you pair, you are running away. When you are officially paired your vote is just as much regarded as on the side against which your pair votes as if you and your pair voted on the opposite side of the House. New members may be excused for not knowing this, perhaps, but only new members. On the general policy of employment of unskilled labourers on the railway, our policy is clear. But what did the shadow Cabinet do on that occasion? They are the leaders of the party opposite. We are entitled to know how much reality there is in that motion. I looked through the division lists, and I find that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the leader of the party, was not here. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was not here. His twin brother, the other leader, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) was not here; the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) was not here. Was he paired?

Yes.

The Minister of Railways to be was not here. Was. he paired also?

Yes.

With whom?

Ask your own whip.

I say that if an hon. member pairs his vote is just as much recording his vote against or for a motion as if he were here. I would point out that most hon. members opposite were not paired. They had gone away out of the House, so as not to incur the responsibility of voting for rejecting the motion. We have a right to know and the country has a right to know where they stand. Our policy is perfectly clear. What we have done and are doing is not a mere temporary measure, such as hon. members now and again introduced. We have adopted the use of civilized labour on the railways as a permanent institution. We aim at so increasing their efficiency, and particularly the efficiency of those who are organizing them, that we shall be able, step by step, to improve their position as I believe it can be improved.

At a starvation wage.

What hon. members want is to make an electioneering point, and hon. members on the front benches opposite want to encourage their followers to make promises which they know perfectly well they have not the slightest intention of honouring.

What about the eight-hour day?

Now we come to my hon. friend, the budding Minister of Finance to be. He is always of interest to me, because I remember the occasion when he first won a seat in this House at my expense.

You have never forgiven him.

I think I am a greater admirer of my hon. friend than many hon. members on that side, and have often fought his battles in a minor way. The hon. member attacks my hon. friend for having only estimated for £800,000 when it turned out there was £1,200,000. Shocking, shocking !

He should have had far better sources of information than the commission gave him, which was appointed to enquire into these matters. It is a curious change in the attitude of the official Opposition to my hon. friend. We have been told for five years that he is one of those men who under-estimates his revenue and comes out with a bulging surplus. He is one of those over cautious men who under-estimates the revenue. Then, hey presto! the whole situation is changed. To-day my hon. friend is one of those incorrigible optimists who will not take heed of the depression, and so overestimates his revenue. I do not know whether I inferred rightly from the hon. member’s remarks, that if my hon. friend had known and told us old age pensions would cost £1,200,000, he would not have supported going in for old age pensions. I suppose he did not mean that. I do not think he would chance his arm and say that that was the implication of his remarks. Possibly I am now giving him an opportunity of denying it.

You suggest that it is not a matter of criticism when he gave the wrong estimate?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was on that commission. But perhaps it is the hon. member’s purist mind that revolts at careless or inaccurate figures. We know that the hon. member is meticulously accurate, so much so leally, that when you come up against any statement of his it is horribly unreliable. For instance, in his general airy way he says in regard to the Labour Department that everything in the way of extravagance is attributable to them. He staggered me by announcing to the House that no less a sum than £450,000 has been spent on loan account by the Labour Department in the Hartebeestpoort area. I was so staggered that I asked him what he referred to, and was referred to page 315 of the Auditor-General’s report. I find that the Auditor-General there says—

He does not say the expenditure from loan account. The hon. member has been long enough in the House to know that it is the practice to lay upon the table estimates of expenditure from revenue which are numbered 1, 2, 3 and so on, while the estimates of expenditure from loan vote are always alphabetically numbered A, B, C and so on. On the table he refers to he will see Vote 28, Agriculture, which is not from loan; Vote 33, Lands, which is not from loan, and a vote for irrigation, which is not from loan. But the hon. member said it was the loan vote. The actual figure from the loan vote expended in that area by the Labour Department itself is a matter of £100,000, of which £30,000 is a payment for the farm, making our real expenditure a matter of £70,000 from loan vote. Now the hon. member says that the cost of the Hartebeestpoort area is £450,000. That includes all expenditure, administration for several years, amounting to a matter of £300,000, and it includes the passing through of men. Something like 8,000 men have passed through our books there. It includes the whole expenditure, improvements, living, subsidies and everything else. I can imagine the hon. member taking some friend over the Union Buildings and being asked what the buildings have cost. On the same plan, he would look at what the buildings stand at and add to that ail the wages and salaries paid all these years to the officials working there, including the Minsters who have been working there, and he would tell the staggered spectator that the buildings cost £15,000,000.

You admit that you spent £450,000 on Hartebeestpoort farm.

I don’t admit anything. We will have to go on spending if we are going to do justice to the poor white problem, but a little error between £450,000 and £70,000 is a trifle to the hon. member, who speaks in millions. He poured scorn on the idea of our protecting the clothing industry and, incidentally, on those persons engaged in earning wages in that industry. He said it was a bastard industry. Evidently, in the opinion of the hon. member and his friends, if an industry imports its raw materials it must receive no encouragement and no protection. What a novel theory! On that principle the people of Great Britain should have no care for or give encouragement to their cotton industry, because there is not enough cotton grown in England to make a reel of cotton. According to the hon. members, the skill, enterprise and brains that assist in building up industries are to count for nothing.

Is the English cotton industry protected?

Mr. Speaker, you may remember the story of the servant of a distinguished artist who was showing some friends round the studio in his absence. He said to them: “I put up the easel, I stretches the canvas, I mix up the paints, and all the artist has to do is to put them on.” That represents the views of hon. members opposite with regard to affording protection to South African industries. The enterprise, the skill and livelihood of the workers and the foresight of those of our industrialists who are catering for the future amount to nothing in the eyes of the Opposition. The whole of the attitude and the speeches of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in regard to protection may be summed up in the language of the immortal Mr. Punch —“Don’t.” They say: “Don’t protect this, and don’t protect that,” but at the same time they say: “We must have protection.” According to them we must not protect an industry unless the raw material is produced in South Africa, and we must not support the iron and steel industry which will make steel and iron out of our products. They say: “You are 20 years too soon.” According to them we must put it off for 20 years until the gold industry is well on the down grade, and, meanwhile, we are to dream of the tons of gold that are going to be produced from millions of tons of two-dwt. rock by some magical means to be discovered by a select committee. Just as it was in 1924 so it is to-day. They do not dare to say they are free-traders, for then they would alienate the support of many of their importing sympathizers, but all the same they grumble at protection.

Excessive protection.

Yes, that is it. In the eyes of the Opposition any protection that the importers do not like is excessive.

Would you give any protection that an industry wants?

No. But those industries which lead to the employment of men at civilized wages and which are recommended by the Board of Trade, those industries we protect as much as we possibly can. It is the same old South African party, the same old Unionist party, the same old progressive party. Under whatever alias they happen to be using for the time being it is the same old party, whose motto is—

Love South Africa.

It is the same old party whose motto is: “Go hard aport and a little bit to the starboard at the same time, and then you have something to satisfy everybody.” They curry favour with the manufacturers by pretending to be protectionists, and they curry favour in other quarters by advocating measures which are incompatible with the protection of our secondary industries. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout honoured me by prophesying my actions in the immediate future, and predicting what the verdict of history will be on me. I did not think that I was a person of such great importance that history would bother itself by passing a verdict on me. But the hon. member is rash in prophesying. Does not he remember nine short months ago how a gentleman well-known to him with whom he is in the most intimate confidence and whose judgment I know he regards far more highly than that of any other person in this living world, predicting that I would never see Parliament, and that the Government would be formed by the hon. members now sitting on the Opposition benches? He was signally wrong in that prophecy, but he now takes it upon himself to prophesy what is going to happen to us. The hon. members’ interest in the labour party is intensely touching, and warns one not to take too seriously their expressions of real dislike when we are strong enough for them to feel it wise to express that dislike. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout having struck a personal note, I am taking the opportunity of making a few remarks about the sort of language that hon. members opposite habitually indulge in, thus giving the impression that everything is wrong in the Labour department. They say that the Labour Department can do nothing right. I will have plenty of opportunity when we come to the estimates of dealing with it. I deal with it now in passing because they forget that in simply fastening an attack in this form upon me, they are doing an injustice to a number of able, hard-working public servants. They also forget they are doing their best to draw attention off the really difficult and important problems the Labour Department has to deal with. In all these assumptions and expressions implying that the Labour Department have muddled this, that or the other, I know that motive is simply to level attacks against myself and my predecessor in office, and this section of the Labour party. I am perfectly well aware that in the 25 years I have been in public life I have never enjoyed the enthusiastic admiration of the party that is represented opposite. Any shadow of such a tendency, if it existed, was, anyhow, overcome by the dislike and hostility I incurred when I was largely instrumental with my hon. friend the Prime Minister in forming the Pact, and when through that, the South African party was ejected from office. If that Pact had not been formed, goodness knows what South Africa might still have been suffering under the Government of the South African party. I know full well that they were bitterly disappointed because of their prophecy that the Pact would not last six months, and their antipathy keeps on growing because they cannot smash it. We are amused at the transparent efforts they make, and their press makes, to try to bring about what they desire. The wonderful organ of theirs—the press of South Africa has good society, but here and there is a certain amount of blackguardism in the fringe of the press—that great organ the Cape Times makes a speciality of this business. A few weeks ago it was pointing out how right and useful it would be if the right hon. gentleman over the way would abandon the leadership of the party opposite. It is not above using a lie now and then to make a point. The other day, in the course of an attack on me, it quoted Die Burger as if it had made a remark which it had not made. Certain newspapers will take and print purloined private letters. I call that an act of blackguardism.

Can you substantiate that?

When the Cape Times published that to which I referred just now, Die Burger next day called their attention to it in the following terms, and it is just as well that it should be read by the public—it is a translation—

But in these days many men are afraid of offending the newspapers.

What is your point?

I am merely pointing out that the right hon. gentleman need not be too much disturbed by the attacks of the Cape Times on him. We have a great interest in the right hon. member, and we don’t like to see one of his own organs using him like that. I understand all these jeers—among others, that we owe our seats to the Nationalist votes. So we do, and so do a large number of Nationalists owe their seats to Labour votes, and that is exactly why you hate the Pact, because, instead of making way for you, we are governing the country better than you did. An hon. member over there comes to one of their favourite things—they always want to know what my intentions are. It is most embarrassing. I hope the Prime Minister and my Cabinet colleagues will not take umbrage at my discussing my personal intentions—so delicate a question—in this public manner. But for those who take so great an interest in me, I may say, paraphrasing the old tag in the story, “that my intentions are strictly honourable, but not resignational.” And let me add that if in the next week, month, year or two years, they alter in the latter respect, let me assure hon. members opposite any such alteration will not be due to any jeers or any attempt of their press to determine our action for us. But they will be simply and solely due to what my friends and I may consider to be best in the interests of the country and of the special views we represent, and not in the interests of the Opposition. Like every other pact, this pact is like all other human beings—it has its beginning, period of vigour and its end. In the beginning it has acted in accordance with the principle the right hon. gentleman has made immortal in what he has written—the principle of integration which he has called “holism,” and when we do find it necessary to dissolve the Pact, we will do it with this satisfaction and conviction, which the country already appreciates, that by the inauguration of the Pact and by the work it has done, the progress of the country and general confidence in the future of this country and the better temper that prevails to-day have been due to it, and that it restored the country from the morass and distress and antagonism in which the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues left it.

I do not think there is any necessity for anyone to ask the hon. the Minister his intentions. I think everybody knows them. They are to sit as tight as possible. The Minister, as on other occasions, has proved himself to be thoroughly irresponsible. I am not going to deal with all that he has said. I am going to leave him to his friends on the cross-benches who used to be his colleagues. I wish to refer to only two matters mentioned by him. He said that we, on this side of the House, have been continually preaching increased expenditure. I think his thoughts must have been wandering. Perhaps they were still on the Transvaal elections, because, if he had listened carefully, he would have heard that every member on this side of the House pressed for the cessation of wasteful expenditure. He did not hear apparently what his colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, said the other day. The Minister of Defence says that our policy is not to raise the pay, but to turn men out, as Mr. Jagger did. If he had listened carefully, he would have found that the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours was going to follow Mr. Jagger’s policy with regard to branch lines.

made an interjection.

On this occasion we have had to depend on newspaper reports of the Minister’s railway budget speech, and it is natural that they published only such parts of the speech as they thought might interest the general public. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that on future occasions, when we are bound to continue the debate within a few days after having a mass of figures quoted, he should follow the example of a former Minister of Finance, and have his speech printed and circulated amongst members. It is difficult to follow the speech and to criticize it afterwards under present circumstances when we have to depend upon newspaper reports. I therefore follow the estimates laid on the Table of the House rather than the Minister’s speech. The estimates of 1930-’31 show that without adding the usual additional appropriation of from £250,000 to £750,000, there is an increase of £759,000 in expenditure, and an estimated revenue increase of £718,000. The Minister budgets for a deficit of only £145,712, considerably less than the deficit of the past year. He estimates for harbours alone a surplus of £414,894, and the shortfall on the railways therefore must be considerably over £500,000. He bases his estimate on an average weekly revenue of £518,000. This, I think, requires some careful explanation, because, if we consider the departmental reports, we find that this is £14,000 more than the average weekly income during the last year, and £19,000 per week more than the highest week from the 1st January to 8th March of this year. He claims he is justified in anticipating this increased revenue because he anticipates a large increase in maize traffic. He also mentions a year’s income from the movement of manganese ore, and the Minister knows that for four months to come there can be no such movement as the railway will not be in working order till then. We know there is a serious falling off in traffic all round. The hon. the Minister admitted that. Yet, in face of that, and in face of the failure of his optimistic forecasts of last year, he has nevertheless put forward these estimates. Take, for example, January of this year. It cost £60,000 more to obtain the usual £2,500,000 income for the month than it did previously. Usually we know there is a great improvement in exports and imports in the summer months, and yet we find from the weekly returns that there are no such improved movements reflected in the returns. The expenditure once fixed is always very difficult to reduce, and it is certain that, with a falling revenue, you cannot reduce your expenditure to keep pace with it. The mileage is increasing, and interest on capital is increasing. We cannot change these. They are fixed quantities, and already we pay by way of interest the sum of £6,148,000 per annum. On railways, it is £5,500,000 per annum, and on harbours £580,000. We know that trade is bad, our industries are in a bad way, incomes are decreasing, traffic is falling off, interest must be paid and expenses are increasing, and yet, in face of all this, the Minister is budgeting for a position in this financial year far better than that of the past year. Last year, when introducing his budget, the Minister anticipated an increase in passenger receipts of £25,000; on goods and mineral traffic, an increase of 1,000,000 odd tons, with an increased revenue of £1,375,000; on maize an increased tonnage of 554,000, and on local consumption of coal an increase of 316,000. With regard to road motor services, be said he was going to have an increase of 326,000 odd passengers, an increase in goods of 47,367 tons and an increase of 209,000 gallons of cream. So sure was he that his forecast then was a very correct one that he said he was “now able to contemplate rate reductions on a very much larger scale.” Yet we find that his estimated deficit of £105,171 has increased to £289,564, although he has had only two months of depression, or at the most, three months.

Four.

That is not reflected in your weekly returns, with which I am dealing now. In spite of what the Minister of Finance has told us in regard to the general position, he is still optimistic and budgets for a smaller deficit in the coming year than in the last year. Hon. members should not depend too greatly on the Minister’s estimates. We have had some particularly bad examples. In 1926-’27 the Minister was out £370,000; in 1927-’28, £275,000. In the estimates of expenditure for 1926-’27 he was wrong by £876,000. while in revenues his error was £816,000. In 1927-’28 he was out in his estimate of expenditure by £635,000, and revenue £488,900. But a more serious matter is in regard to the traffic expenditure, which the Minister estimated at £46,000 in 1927-’28, whereas the actual figure was over £80,000, or an excess of £34,000. In 1928-’29 he was again out by £34,000. Now he budgets for £52,000; goodness knows what his excess of expenditure will be. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister is so optimistic. He has given no reason for it. We know that surpluses are nice to show when you are encouraging people to support the Government at the general election, but why the Minister is doing it now I do not know, unless even the provincial council elections influence him. One is glad to hear him say he recognizes the necessity to curtailing expenditure, but is he going to do it? We have the estimates before us, and find that his expenditure is increasing all round on every item excepting one, and that is the permanent way. It is disappointing to us on this side that the Minister persists in his basis of train and engine mileage instead of ton mileage in comparing efficiency and expenditure. Two years ago the Minister said he was going to change over, and three years ago we urged him to change over, and explained to him that statistics on ton mileage were in vogue in every civilized country, in Great Britain, Austria, Germany, Canada, Italy and the United States. It is the only proper system of comparison. But if the Minister does not want to follow what is done in other countries, let us come nearer home. In 1927 we had a statement by his own Railway Board that “any comparison based upon train and engine mileage ignores certain important factors which are of a varying nature, as, for example, loads of trains, and, consequently, any comparisons and deductions drawn are liable to be misleading.” In spite of that the Minister still continues to give us train and engine mileage instead of ton mileage. He knows, his board knows, and his whole staff knows, that he cannot make a sound comparison in regard to efficiency and expenditure on this basis, yet the Minister persists, and I feel that on account of this system it is almost impossible really to appreciate what is happening with regard to increased traffic. For instance, we find that while the tonnage under tariff 7 and under, went up from 18,000,000 odd in 1926-’27 to 18,300,000 odd in 1927-’28, that is by over 300,000. the revenue decreased by £94,000. If we had a ton mileage basis we could say whether this is due to want of efficiency or to what otherwise. As it is, the Minister alone knows what the true position is. Revenue has increased under the Minister from £24,500,000 in 1924 to £31,750,000, an increase of £7,250,000, whereas expenditure in the same period has increased by £9,000,000— from £23,000,000 to £32,000,000. According to his summary of estimates we find that the estimated increased income for the year is £718,605, and the estimated increased expenditure is £759,146. Most of the increases in salaries are due to increases in head office in the accountant’s office and the Railway Board; increases are really for staff, and not for the ordinary labourer. In the general manager’s office for this year there is an increase of £3,000; in the accountant’s office, an increase of £19,000. We find, if we go back to 1926-’27, in the general manager’s office the increase in five years is £48,173; in the accountant’s office the increase is £156,000. In the Railway Board office the figure has increased from £11,513 to £16,784 and that, by the way, is a board which is being severely criticised by everybody. Take the salary of the staff. The railway staff pensonnel is increased by 2,627 with increased salary list of £590,207. That is the estimate for the coming year. An interesting position is that while the harbour staff is increased by 364, the harbours being the only branch which is expected to show a surplus, there is a decreased salary list of over £12,000. Those are very interesting figures as I shall show when I come to my argument on wages a little later on. In any case also they are very difficult to understand. If we turn to the Auditor-General’s report we find that on the 31st of March, 1929, the staff of the railways and harbours was 99,000 odd. Even if we deduct the construction staff and the labourers on piece work, which, of course, is wrong as the estimates should make provision for all, we find according to the Auditor-General, and he takes his figures from the railway department, that the Minister should have a staff of 95,396, whereas his staff in 1929 actually was 86,636, or a difference of 8,760 on that basis. That I think requires a very careful explanation. In 1929-’30, according to the Minister, the staff is 85,900 odd. This year it is 88,000 odd. We come back to the Minister’s summary of the estimates and we find some very remarkable results. We have on the harbours an increased staff of over 300 and a decreased expenditure of £12,509. In the railways it is very different. I have taken the trouble to get out the figures under the heads of European labourers, “labourers,” casual labourers, and natives and Indians. I find some very interesting figures there. The European labourers number 14,111, an increase of 157, and an increased salary list of £88,942, an average increase of £566. That is, of course, not the average payment for each individual man himself but it is an indication of what an increase in European labourers means. It is clear that as far as the European labourers are concerned, the average increase is fairly high. We come to “labourers." There is no indication of what these labourers are, whether they are white, coloured, black or Indians. I find the increase there is 480 and the increased salary list £30,427. The average increase is £63. These, therefore, cannot be European labourers. Therefore the increased number of labourer’s, 480—for, again, they can hardly be coloured—must be natives. For casuals we are not given a comparative figure at all. We only know that the increased pay of casuals is £22,000, so they may be European, coloured, natives or Indians. Indians and natives increased by 2,412 with an increased salary of £101,540, or an average of £42 per annum. That is clearly for Indian and native and there can be no possible doubt. We thus, leaving out “casuals” altogether, have an increase of 480 and 2,412 with increased salaries of £30,427, and £101,540, and these increases must be coloured, native and Indian. They cannot be European unless the Minister admits that he is grossly under-paying for what he is pleased to call civilized labour. Has he abandoned his civilized labour policy? We should be told. We should know this and we should have a clear explanation of the meaning of these significant figures. I ask again has the Minister gone back on his policy of civilized labour. I want to know whether the native and coloured workers at the several harbours have now replaced those Europeans who replaced them when the Minister started his civilized labour policy. The figures clearly indicate this more particularly in regard to the reduced pay at the harbours. I understood him the other day to say that he was taking the European labourers off the branch lines.

No.

It seems to me that they are being taken off. Two years ago the Minister stated that the Government would stand or fall by this policy. We then found that the position, according to the estimates, was that the European labourers increased by 15,500, and the others, the coloured and native, decreased by 7,000. That is a very different story from what the present estimates show. One year ago we found that the position was even worse so far as the non-Europeans were concerned. The Europeans increased and the non-Europeans fell off by more than in the previous three years. I put it to the Minister that if in those years it was clear from his estimates that the Europeans had increased in numbers in salaries and wages, and from his estimates now, the increases are in regard to natives and coloured people, he must have abandoned his policy of civilized labour and if not then what is the true position. I think we are entitled to a very clear explanation of that, for the Minister has told us time and time again that the Government will stand or fall by this policy. We come to salaries as distinct from wages. In 1923-’24 the salaries amounted to 40.2 per cent. of the total cost of expenditure on the railways. In 1926-’27 it was 49.57 per cent. In 1928-’29 it went down to 47.59 per cent. according to the general manager’s report. I do not see this in the Auditor-General’s report. From the present estimates we find that this percentage has again gone up to over 49, and the Minister told us at the beginning of his speech that he was quite prepared to submit to the proposition that he should cut down expenditure as far as possible. Let us consider the important matter of tariffs. While all this goes on it is quite impossible, everyone will realize, to bring down the tariffs. Tariffs must remain high when expenditure is always increasing. The Minister has often boasted about what he has done in regard to tariffs and in regard to the reductions he has made. It is only right, if he went back to 1923-’24 to gain credit on some points, that we should go back to the same date. In the Minister’s speech he made certain comparisons with that year. I shall make a few comparisons in regard to the change from 1923-’24 to the present day. I am taking the date when the Minister came into power. In the five years 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924 and 1925, the South African party reduced revenue by £4,500,000 by surrendering rates. In the five years since the Minister has been in power he has surrendered revenue of under £1,000,000.

What did you do in 1918-’19.

It is just as reasonable to ask what did Napoleon do in 1815. For five years the Minister has been in power, he has surrendered income to the extent of under £1,000,000. During the five years while the Minister was surrendering £1,000,000 in revenue he made a great point of the wonderful surplus be showed every year, but the fact remains that while we were making losses, we reduced railway rates to the extent of £4,500,000; the Minister has done exceedingly little in that direction. In the last four years, he surrendered revenue in the shape of reduced rates of only £756,000. On the other hand, the railway income increased from £21,747,000 in 1924-’25 to £26,090,000 in 1928-’29, in other words, only £750,000 was surrended although the railway income increased by just on £4,500,000. During the corresponding period the working expenses of the railways grew from £16,800,000 to £20,298,000—an increase of £3,500,000. In other words, during that period to earn an increased revenue of £4,250,000, his expenses increased by £3,500,000. That is a very expensive way of running any organization. His general charges have increased by £24,000, this being due to a very large extent to the more extensive use of the Hollerith card system. The old excuse for not giving us branch line statistics is therefore to a great extent overcome. The Minister told us on a previous occasion that it cost the country £12,000 a year to obtain these statistics, but now he has tabulating machines which can do all the work. The Minister is very fond of referring to losses on the Cape Town suburban line. How is it that he can always tell us exactly what the losses on that line are, while he cannot give us the information in regard to other branch lines? I should like to know on what system his accounts against the Cape Town-Simonstown line are kept. I am interested in a very small way in a company which guarantees the loss on a branch line, and were I to read the charges made by the department against the company the House would be astonished. Not a single item is forgotten.

That is the business part of the department.

Many of these items are obviously unfair. Is the Minister treating the Cape Town suburban line in the same way? He should run the suburban line much more economically, and I am glad to see he is making investigations in the matter on the lines over and over again suggested by us, but I hope he will not delay action too long or it may be too late. We should have statistics more regularly. For instance, the only statistics we nave regarding branch lines are for the year ended September 30, 1928. The figures show that the loss on 61 branch lines amounted to £589,000. Twenty-six of these lines showed a loss of under £5,000 apiece; 15 lines showed a loss of between £10,000 and £20,000 each, and on nine lines there was a loss exceeding £20,000 each per annum which aggregate £369,622 or a percentage loss of over 62. Comparing these figures with those of 1923-’24 we get some remarkable results. We find, in one case, that, although the receipts declined by £7,000, the expenditure increased by £22,900. In other cases, the increased receipts and expenditure were: Receipts £8,000, expenditure £21,000; receipts £12,000, expenditure £55,000; receipts £24,000, expenditure £55,000. All these increases in working costs have occurred since the South African party government left office. On our branch lines, for every pound received, the Minister spent £3 9s. 6d. and in one notable instance, £5 18s. 3d. were spent for every pound of revenue. Year by year the select committee have requested that railway statistics should be kept very carefully. Even when the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance favoured us with their presence in the Select Committee on Railways, we passed resolutions asking that these statistics should be kept. The two Ministers were particularly keen on statistics, and a motion was passed at the instance of the then Opposition members stating that: “These statistics are essential for any effective parliamentary control of railway and harbour affairs.”

You did not agree.

That is where you are wrong. We all agreed on that, and we had the then Minister of Railways holding very strongly that branch line statistics should be taken out. Since then the Railway Board has expressed its agreement with that view.

Do you agree to the pulling up of non-paying branch lines?

When motor traffic can replace branch lines without doing the districts of the country any injury, those lines should no longer remain. If you cannot improve the position and the district is not dependent on the line then in the Minister’s own dictum with regard to the Sea Point line that line should be pulled up. It is exactly the same argument. It happened to be Sea Point and not Humansdorp; that is the trouble and the difference.

What about carrying goods at a low rate?

I said very clearly “without doing any harm to the country.” We come now to a very important matter, that of the maintenance of the permanent way, which I have discussed before. I consider the Minister treated me very unfairly the other evening. If he will turn to what I said on the Part Appropriation Bill, he will see I said—

The Minister tried to make out that we are blaming his staff. He knows better. He said that Mr. Pybus was one of the most eminent civil engineers. What has that to do with the matter?

He is in charge of the permanent way.

The Minister should not convey the impression that we for some reason or other are blaming his staff. We are doing nothing of the kind. He was fortunate, when taking office, in finding a staff perhaps second to none in the world. The staff had traditions which all the Minister’s policies fortunately could not alter and if he would leave a little more to his staff and have fewer policies conditions would improve. The staff has no say in regard to policy and it is the policy we criticize. We only asked the Minister to appoint an independent board of enquiry. I do not reflect on the staff, but I question the administration of the Minister. He knows the wish for an independent enquiry has been expressed right through South Africa; he is a very great actor and can always play any part suitable to the occasion, but let him rather meet our arguments. The maintenance of the permanent way is easily the most important head of expenditure from the safety factor point of view. We find that in the last three years the estimates actually show a nett decrease of £221,885, notwithstanding the annual increase in open route mileage due to the opening of new lines. In the same period and as indicating additional wear and tear to the track the train and engine mileage increased by over 14 millions, and this does not entirely indicate the full additional wear and tear on our railway tracks for we know that with the progressive increase in weight and haulage capacity of our locomotives train loads have increased to a substantial degree. Unfortunately in this respect we are without any reliable guide as to ton-mileage of our carried traffic. In 1928-’29 the Minister explained that “The estimated quantities of rails and other permanent way material for track renewal are less than the previous year and in consequence there is a saving of £107,000 in labour costs.” And in 1930-’31 that “The decrease is due to lesser provision necessary for sleepers, rails other permanent way material and the consequent saving in labour for track renewals of £150,000. The Minister told us on two occasions, with regard to the permanent way, that, although there appeared to be a decrease on the estimates, there really was an increased expenditure on the permanent way because he was taking sums from the betterment fund.

And renewals.

I want to draw his attention to certain figures, because, and he will excuse my saying it, the information given then was not correct; some information which should have been given was withheld. The increase on provision for contributions to Renewals Fund tor depreciation on permanent way and works and rolling stock was from £1,890,000 in 1929-’30 to £1,947,000, or £57,085, but there was no indication given anywhere as to what part was to be spent on the upkeep of the lines and what part in the way of new rolling stock. We have always understood from the Minister, in all his speeches, that there was a gradual increase in the amount that was spent on permanent way. Now it takes us 18 months to find out the reply to some of his statements, and we get no opportunity but from the auditor-general’s report. The auditor-general shows that the relative provision for permanent way works and telegraph plant exceeds the provision for replacement of rolling stock by approximately £324,000, but when we come to the expenditure from renewals fund we find the position reversed and that two-thirds more was spent on rolling stack than on permanent way. The Minister has told us over and over again he has spent more on permanent way, and that there is an increased, and not a decreased expenditure, but in actual, not estimated, expenditure we find less is being spent, and I think this is a matter of such importance that the Minister ought, without trying to get away from it by side issues, and referring to his staff every time, to go into the matter to see what the true position is. On both occasions the Minister was away, when we brought this up very prominently. In Great Britain they have an Act of Parliament which forces every company annually to give a statement which contains the actual expenditure during the year on permanent way; categorically it must give the number of cubic yards of ballast put in, the number of sleepers put in and the cost, the number and cost of new lines put in the permanent way during the year. The Act was deliberately passed for the safety of the public, and if in England they consider that so necessary, and in cases of accident to appoint an independent inquiry, why should we not be allowed to ask the same here? The Minister should really now make up his mind to give us full information, if he can, or appoint an independent commission of enquiry. He must not try to get out of it by saying that we have no confidence in his staff. Every time we try to criticize the Minister he must not try to make out that we are criticizing the staff. We know that he has a very efficient staff, but as far as policy is concerned, we have a right to blame the Minister, and in doing so we are not casting a reflection upon the staff. The Minister will remember that three years ago we drew his attention to the fact that he did not get a clean certificate, and he said that that was for the branch lines, and not for the main line. That was not blaming the staff as far as we were concerned. We still say that the public is nervous about the position, and that it is the duty of the Minister to appoint the commission that has been asked for over and over again. I think he would be very wise if he were now to appoint that commission, and satisfy the people.

I wish to refer members to rule 62—

I did not call you to order, but I think it is advisable to point out the existence of the rule.

Does that refer to the reports of members’ speeches in Hansard?

The rule is very clear.

I have never understood that we were debarred from referring to members’ speeches in Hansard, because it happens to be a book.

I wish to point out that in a previous session Mr. Speaker ruled that Hansard is excepted.

I have not got that ruling before me. I have the rule I have referred to, which is in the standing rules.

I think that the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), not so much on account of what he said, but chiefly on account of what he did not say, was a compliment to the Minister’s budget. I think that the Minister, and the whole House, will feel that there is comparatively little criticism about the railway administration. The hon. member did indeed raise and indicate a number of points, but it was difficult to ascertain what ins points or objections actually were. He spoke in the first place about increased expenditure; the House has heard a lot about this recently. Hon. members opposite are continually hammering on it. It is the right of the Opposition to assume that attitude in the interests of the country. They must insist that the expenditure should be reduced as much as possible, but then we on this side are fully entitled to expect hon. members to be consistent, and we, and the country, are entitled to their help in reducing expenditure. When we, however, observe the attitude of the Opposition this session we find that they are constantly introducing motions which would involve increased expenditure if the Government carried them out. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan; said, a few days ago, that hon. members on this side had the fullest right to table those motions. We agree with that, but when hon. members come and criticize the Government for increasing expenditure then surely we may expect an hon. member, like the hon. member for Sea Point, to express his views in connection with the motions which involve increased expenditure, and to criticize them. If he thinks that the motions, even if they came from hon. members on his own side, are not right, then he must be consistent in the attitude that he has taken up to-day, and then we are entitled to expect him to oppose such motions. In which way he will indicate that he is in earnest when he argues against increased expenditure. Has the hon. member, however, done so? We have had a few motions during the past few weeks which would involve increased expenditure, those of the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Me. Deane), Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), which have already been repeatedly debated, and two motions of the hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper), viz., one in connection with a railway crossing, and the other about the Cape grant for education. All these motions would mean more expenditure, but we have had the farce that hon. members on the front benches opposite did not raise their voices against them, and did not even vote for or against them, but, e.g., in the case of the first-mentioned motion left the House, so as to avoid voting. When the hon. member for Sea Point then speaks about retrenchment he cannot blame us if we do not really take him very seriously, because his action and that of his colleagues makes it impossible. The hon. member for Sea Point said a few weeks ago in this House that the position of the railway finances was very bad. He made bilious and sombre prophecies, and attacked the Minister because at that time he was unable to state what the position was. The hon. member did not, however, show us to-day how sad the position is now. This proves that his sad prophecy was not realized. It was noticeable how he entirely neglected to discuss the present position of the railways and the present financial position. He did not say a single word about it. As in previous years, he spoke about increased expenditure, but did not say a word about the actual present position. For my part I want to congratulate the Minister on the position. Personally I expected a much worse state of affairs than we see to-day. Possibly I allowed myself to be frightened by the hon. member for Sea Point, and expected a much larger deficit than £289,000. In view of the general state of the country, and the very serious competition of the motor buses, we can be satisfied and pleased that the deficit is so small. The hon. member for Sea Point remains silent about it, and once more mentioned the old trivialities about the statistics of the branch lines which he quotes year after year, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has clearly explained his point of view. The hon. member, however, said one very serious thing, viz., that the branch lines must be treated on the same basis as the Sea Point line, and must be scrapped if they do not pay.

Give everything I said and not the half.

That was the trend of his remarks. Why should the Sea Point line be scrapped because it did not pay and the same thing not he done with the countryside branch lines if they do not pay? That was apparently the object for which he wanted the statistics. I hope that hon. members are noting that serious statement. Then the hon. member says that the South African party Government reduced the rates, but he has forgotten how his party increased them. I would like to quote the figures from the report of the commission which really investigated the railway rates. The hon. member pointed out how, during the last few years of their government, the railway rates were reduced, but he forgets how they had been increased just before; between 1916 and 1920 the rates, according to that report, were increased by £9,320,000. That was the increase in five years under the South African party Government. After that Mr. Jagger assumed office, and felt that this was too bad, and in four years he effected reductions amounting to £3,428,348. It is easy, therefore, to talk of the reductions during the last four years of their administration, and to forget how much the rates were increased in the preceding five years. This Government has not in a single year, according to the report, increased the rates, but has effected reductions to an amount of £2,022,427. The column “increases” has remained empty under this Government. Then it is said that they reduced them by £3,000,000, and we by only £2,000,000. But it is impossible to continually go on reducing, as in the end there will be nothing left. I think this is a sufficient reply to the small talk of the hon. member in connection with rates. I do not think that he expects the Minister to further reduce the rates at the present juncture. It would be foolish to make a considerable reduction now. Criticism has recently been made on the railway administration merely in connection with insignificant points. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) made a long speech about a native woman who was pushed off the train, and the hon. member for Salt River spoke at length about the treatment of tearoom waitresses at De Aar Such points indicate two things: firstly, that hon. members opposite do not realize that this House is not intended for the discussion of such unimportant points, which can very easily be brought to the notice of the Administration, and it also shows that there is really nothing to criticize in connection with the policy. The hon. member for Sea Point, the leader in railway matters on the other side, did not attack the policy; he had nothing to refer to. We notice also that the Auditor-General’s report for 1928-’29 is conspicuous by the absence of criticism on the railway administration.

When we remember that a sum of from £30,000,000 to £31,000,000 per annum is involved, then the report of the Auditor-General is a great compliment to the Minister and his staff. In previous years we always had plenty of material for criticizing the railway policy of the South African party.

In connection with trivialities.

No, the Durban grain elevator was not a triviality, and all the observations about waste of money in connection with electrification were not minor matters. It is a noteworthy fact that nothing more is to be found in the report, but even during the first years of our administration we still found plenty of material for attacking the South African party. The lack of criticism shows how thorough and good the policy now is. When the present Minister came into office he found many things wrong, and many funds that were not in order. The Minister, however, used the fat years to provide for the lean years. The Rate Equalization Fund was again established, and the Minister has put £500,000 into it because the fund was low when he came into office. The Minister knew that at some time or other there would have to be deficits because the constitution laid down that the railways must be run so as to make no profit. The Minister, therefore, knew that there must be deficits, but although one has come this year, the rates have not been increased, because we have the funds available to meet it. When in previous years under the South African party Government there was a deficit the rates were put up every time.

One must first have a surplus to be able to make provision.

Precisely, but one must take steps to obtain a surplus. If there never is a surplus it means that the rates must be increased every year; we saw that under the previous Government. The present Government has seen to it according to the business principles which the constitution prescribes that the finances are in such a state that we can get through worst years. The pension funds were also fully provided for by the present Minister. He used no less than £1,518,000 to put those funds once more on their feet a little, and he paid it out of revenue. He put £1,721,000 into the betterment fund; £1,250,000 was employed to reduce interest bearing capital, and the dead assets were written down by £436,000. The total sum of over £5,000,000 came out of revenue. So other funds also were strengthened and built up, and I only mention this to show how the present Government put all these funds in order when times were good. In previous years when there were deficits they made use of these funds. Money was taken out of some and others left with very little money, but to-day we find that every fund is in a good condition, or, at least, in a much more satisfactory condition than when the Minister came into office. I congratulate, the Minister on the fact of having put the funds in order. In previous years we heard a good deal about the operating ratio; when the operating ratio rose it was said that the present Government was spending too much money in proportion to the revenue, but on page 2 of the Auditor-General’s report we find the following remarks—

Then the Auditor-General shows how the operating ratio went up and down. A few years ago it went up, and then it was said in the House, “just look at the unwise control. This year the Auditor-General announces a 2.03 per cent. reduction in the operating ratio, but we do not hear a single word now from the hon. member for Sea Point, or any other member, saying that that was wise supervision. No, they carefully leave that alone. A great deal has also been said in the House about the so-called business principles on which the railways must be run. Every time an attempt is made to criticize the railway policy it is pointed out that the constitution says that the railways system must be run on business principles, and every subject they discuss they say that it is not handled along business lines. The question is, however, not so simple as to be summed up in the word “business principles”. Various hon. members opposite attach great value to Dr. Frankel’s book, on our railway system, and it is often quoted. I pointed out last year that his book could not form a basis for sound criticism. I pointed out then what The Economist said about it, but since then there has been a review of the book in the Industrial and Commercial South Africa of October, 1929, where a strong attack is made on that book, It is the paper of the body which hon. members, like the hon. member for Turffontein, (Mr. Sturrock) belong to. It says the following about the writer of that book—

In this way the paper criticizes the judgment given in that book by Dr. Frankel on the business principles of the railways. I want to say a few words because hon. members opposite always hammer on the business principles prescribed in the constitution not being carried out. When one analyses what business principles are, then one comes, first of all, to the question: does it simply mean that the man who is to apply the business principles must make as much money as possible out of them and get rich? If we assume that then we at once get into conflict with the following provision in the constitution which says that the railways are not to make a profit, but that they exist for the use of the population, and for the development of our country. I say that when the constitution speaks of business principles, economic principles are actually intended, and that is quite a different thing. To take an example, to make the, distinction clear, I refer to what the wine farmers have done. When there was a plethora of wine they decided to let part of the wine run to waste. That was not economic but it was a business principle, and good business, too. We must distinguish between two ideas. Hon. members opposite, who talk all day about business principles, and say that the Government does not apply them, then quote a few examples mentioned by Dr. Frankel and others. They then refer to the carriage of stock from the drought-stricken districts and call that a conflict with business principles. But the handling of the railways is based on good economic principles. The railways, to a considerable extent, are dependent on the carriage of agricultural produce and stock. Is it in the interests of the railways to let the farmers be ruined, or is it in their interests to assist and keep the farmers on their feet? It is a pure economic principle, and in the end quite a good business principle to assist the farmers so that the railways in the future can continue making money from the carriage of agricultural produce. Then hon. members discuss the white labour policy, and say that it is not a good business policy, and if we follow that policy then the Central Government ought to pay. But the whole argument rests on the false premise that cheap labour is always the best labour. That is a principle which the greatest economists in the world no longer admit: on the contrary, they say that it is just the reverse. In connection with the white labour policy I want to point out that it is actually greatly in the interests of the railways to adopt it as a fixed policy. What is required by large employers of labour, and especially the railways, to make sure of success, is that they shall have permanent and reliable supplies of labour. What is the position with regard to natives in our country? There is constant fluctuation, after a few years they go back to their own territories, and the natives have hardly ever been permanent labour forces which could be relied upon. Hon. members have already often pointed out to the extra cost of the white labour policy, but, they have never yet referred to the cost of the constant fluctuation of the native labour which makes it necessary to constantly renew and train the labourers. Every business man will confirm that it does not pay to have a fresh labour supply which has to be trained every year. I think that it is absolutely in the interests of our railways to adopt the white labour policy, because in that way we have a fixed and permanent labour force, which is much better than the constant fluctuation of the natives. I must admit that I am a little handicapped in my speech this afternoon because I expected something I could reply to, but so little criticism has been made that I really do not know what we can reply to, especially as the Opposition leader in railway matters has given no indication of what the attack is to be. I am sorry that we did not hear the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence).

The soap-box speech will be coming shortly.

Oh, it is still coming. I just want to say in conclusion, in the absence of any criticism to reply to, that we often hear the distinction spoken of between private undertakings and State undertakings, and then those considerations are applied to OUT railways. It is said that if our railways were run by a private company conditions to-day would have been better, but hon. members will say that they would not be prepared to hand over our railways to a private undertaking. I do not think there is one hon. member who would hand over an undertaking which has been so useful to the agricultural population and for our industries to a private company such as they have in other countries. Well, then they must not say that a Government institution should exercise similar control to a private institution. The constitution in any case clearly lays down that certain exceptions must he made in respect of the agriculture and industries of our country. Exceptions to what are usually considered business principles. I recently read something interesting in connection with State railways. Prof. Splawn of America has investigated the system of state railways in the various countries of the world, and has come to the conclusion that he would prefer not to have that system. He speaks disapprovingly of the system in other countries, and says the following about the position in South Africa (page 215 of his Government Ownership and Operation of Railroads)—

Then he further deals with the financial control, and says on page 443—

I am, therefore, merely mentioning this to show what an independent enquirer says about our railways. Although he is opposed to state railways his conclusion is that they have been a success in South Africa. I also want to say that our railways daring the last five years or so have been a success under the present Minister. It was not necessary for him to discharge people, as his predecessor did, nor was it necessary for him to do things which are inconsistent with the good railway policy. The administration of the railways during the past five years has been such that in spite of the difficult times and the had conditions which existed generally in the country, we have had so little criticism here that the Minister has practically received nothing but compliments. All this is a feather in the hat of the present Minister.

The House always sympathises with a speaker who is handicapped in his speech by the fact that he has nothing to answer, but I will assure the hon. member who had just sat down that the measure of success which attends any State department is not to be measured by the amount of revenue it receives, but by the efficiency with which the service is run, and I am certain that if the hon. member had applied himself to a careful analysis, not of his notes, but of the notes of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), he would have found ample material for keeping himself busy for half-an-hour or so. I am sure had he touched upon the points which the Minister of Railways and Harbours left unanswered and unattended, the hon. member’s time would have been more fully occupied. The Minister contented himself with answering the criticism that was capable of being turned into the political channel. I do not say that there was anything in my remarks which merited attention, but the Minister might at least have given the House some answer to the questions I asked him on the former occasion, particularly in reference to the number of the catering department Officials; whose services have been terminated by death or otherwise through malaria caught when travelling with the British Association. I also directed a few remarks, which I thought of sufficient import to have warranted some reference by the Minister, to the proposed pollution of Table Bay. I noticed some reference in the paper two or three days after my observations that the Select Committee on Grown Lands had already been considering this, but I was unaware of it, and certain members of my constituency are seriously concerned. I hope the Minister, when he replies, will give us some assurance what his intentions are with regard to the extension of the sewerage system of Table Bay harbour. The Minister stated, in justification of certain increase of expenditure, that he had put the pension fund on a proper financial basis. He explained how many hundreds of thousands of pounds it cost, and suggested that the actuaries, having the same pension funds under consideration, held that these are not actuarially solvent, but they are still in an insolvent position to-day. An enormous amount of political capital was made about the insolvency of these funds, but I would not mind being “insolvent” if I had a capital of £13,000,000 standing to my credit. I do not think any political capital ought to be made out of a small trifling thing of that sort. It has nothing to do with the policy of the administration or that of the South African party. There is one particular point I would like to suggest to the Minister, and I speak from personal association with railway service. I was a clerk in the chief accountant’s department, and I think an efficient one. The Minister has told us that the pension fund is actuarially £200,000 on the wrong side. I feel that the large staff in the chief accountant’s department whose sole duty is concerned with pension matters, might be charged with the administration of that department. I know there is a large staff at the head office in Johannesburg, and they do nothing but concern themselves with the administration of pension matters. When he comes to the Widows’ Pension Fund the Minister may find himself on the right side, and it may be an opportune moment for him to consider that the administration of the pension fund might more rightly be debited, not to the running of the Railway Department at all, in which it has not a hand, but charged to the pension fund. There is another point the Minister made—the amount of money to provide for renewals. I am pleased the Minister is interested in such a provision, which is a matter which has been concerning large railways in other parts of the world. It has not been adopted universally because of the enormous amount of work which the assessment of the provision for renewals would entail. I do know the Minister has probably one of the best financial brains in South Africa at his right hand to-day in controlling, not the policy, but the administration. When I was a member of the railway service there was an arrangement whereby anyone who made a profitable suggestion to the administration received some kind of reward.

Very small.

When the electric light installation in Johannesburg was extended there was a shortage of electric light bulbs, and one of the officials suggested putting two little pieces of wood below the electric light globes in order that they might not be removed so easily. That saved the administration a large sum of money, and the person making this suggestion received an ample reward. That was an infinitesimal saving compared with the amount saved by the institution of the renewals fund. The interest saved because of expenditure being taken from this fund amounts to more than the salary of the official who, I presume, suggested the institution of the fund. My concern is mostly as to how particular policies react on the social condition of the individual, and looking at the railway service from that particular angle I must say it leaves quite a lot of room for improvement. The Railway Department is a large employer of labour. I think 85,000 is the number of the present staff, and the department spends something, like £31,000,000 per annum. I ask the Minister why his department does not pay the ordinary standard wage. It is a matter of serious concern to those members of his staff, casual or otherwise, who do not receive the wages paid in private employment for the same work. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) the other afternoon gave instances where the tally clerks employed by the administration made miscalculations. It is no wonder. The tally clerk employed by the Minister is a very underpaid type of individual. He is paid about half the wages paid by the Union-Castle Company, and he works longer hours. If the Minister were to pay higher wages it would mean an increase of expenditure, but the Minister has no right to sweat anybody. He has no right to employ anybody at anything less than an economic wage. I asked the Minister some little time ago how many instances there were where artizans in his department were receiving lower wages than those fixed by the Wage Board determinations. I know there are many, and it is a serious reflection upon us that we force commercial houses and other outside people to pay a standard rate of wage, which we say is justified by the economic conditions of to-day, and then we pay our men less. I wish to refer the Minister to the wages paid to the motor bus drivers who are dealing with tourist traffic. They are not paid the standard wage. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) justified the railway policy by saying that it follows business lines. The Minister of Railways and Harbours, however, has never sought to justify the employment of civilized labourers on economic principles. The Minister knows that it is neither an economic nor a business principle to employ these men at the wages they receive. This is a burden thrown upon a limited section of the community to maintain the policy of the Pact Government. All we know is that the Minister has told us in his reply to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) that an increase of 1s. per day for these men involved an expenditure of very nearly £250,000 per annum. He also stated that these white labourers receive 1s. 4d. per day in excess of the ordinary wages paid to them at the end of every month. If the Minister says that it is 1s. 4d. extra which those men receive then I think this House has a right to know how he makes up that amount. It is no small amount. It amounts to very nearly £400,000.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot refer to that.

I am suggesting to the Minister that he has told this House that his civilized labour policy on his own figures, as far as the 1s. 4d. extra per man is concerned, represents an expenditure of very nearly £400,000. I am asking the Minister if he will give this House information as to how he arrived at that amount. I want to suggest to the Minister that part of that 1s. 4d. is represented by the loss incurred by the provision of certain houses to these employees at sub-economic prices. I approve of the Minister providing decent houses, even at a sub-economic rent, but I disapprove of his suggestion that every white labourer in the railway is receiving 1s. 4d. additional to his wages, because he is not. I challenge the Minister to give this House an estimation of how he arrives at that 1s. 4d.

You do not understand the position. They get a free house, but if that is not available, they get the allowance.

Yes, I am aware of that, but married men only.

It depends upon the area.

But married men only—

And single men, but they get a smaller amount.

In these centres where the Minister has provided houses, these houses are not returning an economic rental, and I say that those civilized labourers, who are fortunate enough to be living in houses provided by the administration, are getting something additional to their pay.

The hon. member cannot continue along that line. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) introduced a motion to which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence)—

The subject of this motion cannot be discussed over again.

I have an alternative proposition to make which, I think, not only the Minister of Railways, but the Government may wish to hear.

On a point of order, there are various phases in connection with the subject of white labour. The hon. member can, I believe, discuss the question of these workers apart from their pay. The hon. member now wants to submit an alternative scheme in connection with civilized labour.

My intervention in political affairs is largely concerned with social conditions. I do not care whether these people are getting a particular sum per diem, and I am not wanting the Minister to increase wages at all, but only to abandon his policy. I do not want the hon. Minister to think that I am unsympathetic with his endeavour to provide employment for the European unskilled labourer. There is no man in South Africa to whom I would hold myself second in the desire that the type of man working for the Railway Administration should be rehabilitated; but the employment of them on a special branch of the Railway Administration is not in their own interests. For the last eight years, I have been closely identified with the social conditions of these men. The railway uses something like £500,000 per annum, the capitalization of which even after making provision for interest and redemption, would amount to the sum of £10,000,000. What could not the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Lands or the Minister of Agriculture do with a sum like that to rehabilitate this type of man in order to keep them in rural areas. Some £10,000,000 is an under-estimate of what we are spending to-day on one service only. There is, throughout the country a definite desire to deal with the poor white population. South African feels that the dealing with this question by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, rather than by the Government, is not the best way to bring about good results. Irrigation, land and labour are clamouring for the money which the Minister is extracting from the people who use the railways and there are certainly better ways in which it could be used. The Minister has been credited in the past with a policy that, in the event of any depression in this country, causing it to be necessary to reduce the cost of railway administration, that he would never embark on a policy of retrenchment. Last year there were nearly 900 less employees in the administration than the previous year. I wonder why. The Minister has told us that while he is not pursuing a policy of retrenchment, he is not making good any wastage. I do not know what that means, but I think it can be interpreted as a definite policy of retrenchment. If the Minister stands pledged to the fact that he is not going to retrench, I am prepared to support him. There are ways and means of bringing about a reduction of expenditure. But to suggest that a widespread policy of retrenchment which we know undermines the efficiency of the service over which he presides, is not the most practical, if it is the most effective, is wrong. The hon. the Minister also entered into a diplomatic arrangement in the Mozambique convention. The convention which the hon. the Minister has entered into has one very grave social reaction. The hon. the Minister has entered into a provision whereby Portuguese East African natives must be repatriated within the next six months. I wonder if the hon. the Minister is aware of the grave social consequences and problems of that policy. I have received numbers of letters from people resident more or less on the border of Portuguese East Africa, and whilst in the service of the administration, I myself came into contact with a number of natives who have been in the Railway Department’s employ for a number of years. I do not know whether they have been replaced or not, but I feel sure that they have not, and I feel that, under this repatriation scheme, they will be repatriated to Portuguese East Africa, and not be allowed to return to the Union, unless through some recognized recruiting agency which presumably is the W.N.L.A., and that is limited to some 80,000. We know of instances where these natives have been in the Union for a period of from 12 to 20 years, and, in isolated instances, running into hundreds. They have worked on the farms in and around the area of the constituency represented by the hon. the member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) who perhaps knows some of these instances. The Portuguese tax has been paid regularly ever since those natives took up their residence in South Africa. They have taken wives in the Union, and have brought up their families, and are to-day earning respectable incomes, and are performing very useful service on those farms. Under this proposition it is proposed to return those natives back to Portuguese East Africa, and they will not be allowed to return unless through a recognized medium which, in effect, means that the breadwinner of perhaps hundreds of families will be taken away holes bolus, and repatriated; over the border. His family is not to go, and his wife is not to go. Those natives will be returned to the mines in Johannesburg, a type of occupation with which, for the past 20 years, they have had nothing to do. The native proposed to remain a citizen, as it were, in the best sense of the word, of the Union of South Africa. I say that the conditions which the enforcement of this particular principle in the convention is likely to bring about, is one which ought to distress any friend of the Union Government of South Africa. It has been suggested that the conditions are similar to those conditions which prevailed in the early years of the previous century, before the abolition of slavery, when men were taken from their families, and this convention is likely to bring about a similar result. I have heard it stated in this House by hon. members, when criticizing the limitation of the number of natives in Portuguese East Africa, that there were possibly between 8,000 and 10,000 working on the farms in the Transvaal, or, rather, on farms in the Union of South Africa. Does that mean that the whole of these 8,000 natives will be repatriated under this convention, taken from the farms, and sent hack to Portuguese East Africa, and not allowed to return to the Union unless through some recognized medium? If that is so, we know what the recognized medium will be. The mines can absorb the whole 80,000, and when members from this House have got up and waxed eloquent on the economic terms or the application of that convention, which has meant and spelt death to a number of industries which have been built up on the number of natives who have come in from Portuguese East Africa, I say it is time that the Minister of Railways and Harbours and his colleagues directed their attention to the application of this particular policy. It should be condemned. Where instances have been brought home to the Minister, as they probably have been during the past six weeks or two months, I am sure that he should seriously consider the question of putting into force that particular provision. When the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) was talking about the Railway Department administration, the hon. the Minister turned the point and suggested that it was a criticism of the officials working in his department. Such has never been the intention. It has always been the intention of hon. members on this side of the House to pin the Minister in charge of the administration with the failings and shortcomings of his department, and I know of no precedent where the hon. the Minister has sheltered himself behind the fact that “you are making an attack upon my officials.” We are not making an attack upon his officials. We hold the Minister responsible in every way for the application of the administration of his department, and the hon. the Minister should be the first to admit if his officials have been failing in their duty. The hon. the Minister is the only person on the floor of this House who is capable of dealing with that. If he does not do that he cannot say to the House as a consequence of their criticism, or as the result of instances calling for that criticism, that he has dispensed with the services of an official. If he does not do that, he has no right to suggest that it is criticism of any official, either high or low, and I am sure the country will not thank the Minister for bringing out on the floor of this House the names of any particular officials in the administration. He knows, as well as we do that no particular official ran reply to any criticism directed from hon. members to any official or to the functions over which he presides. Such an official looks to the Minister to defend his acts. I hope in future such an official will also receive the defence of the Minister. Surely the Minister can support the application of his own policy. These officials are entitled to something more in the way of defence than the suggestion that hon. members on this side of the House are attacking them personally.

It often happens when one employs somebody and that he exceeds your highest expectation in connection with the work you engage him to do, but that in consequence thereof the good services he renders are involuntarily not appreciated. When such a person, nevertheless, renders good services in difficult times, perhaps even greater and better services than before, then the tendency involuntarily arises to no longer appreciate them properly. I think that to a certain extent, is the case with hon. members opposite. They have got accustomed to this side of the House rendering services to the country that exceed their highest expectations. We remember that during the 1924 election one of the slogans of the Opposition actually was that if the Nationalist party got into office they would not have qualified persons to govern. The Opposition, the Government at that time, according to their own opinion, had a monopoly of Ministers. They had a monopoly, e.g., as far as a Burton was concerned. Now they are, themselves, more than pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised at the services this Government has rendered the country, and especially at the services of the Minister of Finance. The Government, however, are now having a bad time—we are in an economic depression—and instead of appreciating the carefulness and sounder policy of the Government, they, as experienced business people, see a chance of doing a little trading with votes; they try to catch votes in the troubled water of economic depression. The Minister of Mines and Industries says, “smousing.” I know that hon. members opposite do not like the word, but when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was speaking on the condition of our country he could not even omit to create the impression that he was pleased about the position. When, too, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockley) spoke and from time to time referred to the general position, and especially when he referred to the hard times that the farmers are experiencing, hon. members opposite cheered him as if they were pleased that bad times had come for the farmers. We ought not to rejoice at our difficulties, but it will be a good thing if hon. members stop for a moment, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said, and will take time to compare the position with that which prevailed when the South African party were still in office. There was also a depression in 1920-’21, especially in farming matters. What did we then get from the previous Government? More taxation. They did not at that time introduce all sorts of motions to assist the farmers, but imposed the tobacco tax, the tax on patent medicines, and the estate duties. That happens in times of economic depression, and the farmers especially were selected and taxed. When the hon. member for Yeoville now advocates the interest of the farmers, then he possibly does so because he is aware that the Government wants to protect the interests of the farmers. Everyone appreciates that the Government is doing its duty to the farmers. There was a motion on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to assist the farmers in a special way. Probably he has now come to the conclusion that the Government is doing the very things that he proposed, because the motion has not been put by him. It almost looks as if it were only the intention to get it discussed before the provincial council elections in the Transvaal, but that after the elections the hon. member has become sober, and seen that the Government is doing the things he asks for. Let us enquire what the Government has done. The cattle farmers are protected. While in 1924 64,000 cattle were imported from Rhodesia, in 1927, in consequence of protection, only 24,000 were imported, to the great benefit of the cattle farmers. The dairy industry has been protected in every way. While in 1924 there were only about 300 milch cows being tested, the number is to-day 7,500, and this session the Minister of Agriculture has introduced a special Bill to confirm and push that industry. As for the sheep farmers, we remember the opposition when the Minister wanted to act drastically against scab. Who does not think with satisfaction to-day of the success of that action owing to which the wool farmers can to-day sell their wool overseas as clean wool? The wheat farmers have been given an experimental farm at Malmesbury for the instruction of the farmers. The Minister of Finance has increased the protection, and when it became necessary introduced a Bill to prohibit the importation of Australian Wheat. Now he is prepared to grant still further protection. The tobacco farmers are particularly indebted to the Government, because the tax imposed by the previous Government has been removed, all possible attempts have been made to push the industry, the co-operative movement has been assisted, and the farmers are now protected against the constantly increasing importation from Rhodesia, with the result that the tobacco farmers are already reaping the fruits of that to-day, and we find that the cooperative societies are already commencing to sell their tobacco who were unable to do so before. The local factories are finding it necessary to buy their tobacco, The fruit farmers have also been assisted. The freight facilities have been improved as a result of the agreement which the Minister of Railways and Harbours has made with the shipping companies. The cold storage accommodation has been increased. Who does not remember the action of the Minister of Agriculture to eradicate locusts? When we go into it we find that legislation on all points has been passed in order to assist the farmers. There was a defect in the agricultural credit system, and the Minister passed the Agricultural Credits Act. When the drought was at its worst the Government immediately introduced drought emergency relief legislation. From 1924 until now no less than £1,000,000 has been spent under the Drought Emergency Relief Act. Consequently we find to-day thousands and thousands of farmers, especially in the dry parts, who would have disappeared if they had not been assisted. The Minister of Agriculture is now considering a warehouse Bill. We assume that that also will supply a need, but personally I only hope that it will be so drafted as not to injure our existing co-operative societies. When the farmers are having a bad time, especially the wool farmers, then hon. members want to persuade the farmers that the depression is not due to world conditions, but that it is the result of certain specific acts of the present Government that the price of wool has dropped. We heard, e.g., that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) had said that it was due to the trade treaty with Germany that our wool farmers were doing so badly. May I just remind him that Australia is also entering into a treaty with Germany, because Australia wants Germany to buy its apples. I do not know how far they have got with that treaty, but they are negotiating. What then becomes of the argument that the price of wool is low because we made an agreement with Germany. If the treaty with Germany handicaps our trade in England, why then does it not also handicap Australian trade? Why does not the Australian agreement with Japan handicap its trade in England?

What about the preferent duties?

We can get the same preference in England as Australia. Does the hon. member suggest that a distinction will be made in this respect between us and Australia in England? Those Australian treaties gave no offence to the British Government, just as little as our treaty offended the British Government. It is only the small-mindedness of hon. members opposite and their efforts to catch votes that have induced them to make such a fuss about this matter.

Where is the trade agreement?

That hon. member who is so noisy probably uses an American motor-car with a Union Jack in front that was made in Germany. That is what the Government has done for the farmer in particular. We also find what the Minister of Lands has done by way of taking or keeping people on the land. We find that the Minister of Lands during the past five years has settled no less than 5,000 persons on the land. That was more than what the previous Government did in its twelve years. Writings-off amount to about £1,000,000, and we further find that under Section 11 of the Act £2,175,000 has already been used under the present Government, while under the previous Government only £1,308,000 was used for that purpose. We, therefore, see that the present Government has made every possible attempt to support the agricultural part of the population in every possible way, with the result that we, to-day, have a large number of inhabitants on the countryside more than under the previous Government. If we further want to draw a distinction between the two Governments we cannot do better than compare the financial position of the country under the two Governments, and also the results which were respectively obtained by the two Governments. We take the last four years of the previous Government’s régime, and compare it with the last four years of the present Government. In 1920-’21 the deficit was stated at £400,000, but we must increase it by a further amount of £460,000 which was brought forward from the previous year, so that the actual deficit was £860,000. In 1921-’22 the deficit was £1,207,000 to which, however, we must add the amounts which were voted for loan funds and used for current expenditure, viz., £725,000 from gold mining leases, £96,000 from the Bewaarplase, and £114,000 from Crown lands, so that the total deficit for that year was £2,141,000. In 1922-’23 the deficit was stated at £998,000, to which again we must add £120,000 from the Bewaarplase, £101,000 from Crown lands, and £605,000 from mining leases, so that the deficit was £1,824,000. In 1923-’24 there was, according to the announcement of the then Minister of Finance, a surplus of £226,000. If, however, we deduct £525,000, which was obtained from gold mining leases, there was actually a deficit of £300,000. We, therefore, see that during the last four years of the previous Government there was a total deficit of £5,125,000. When we come to the present Government we find the following surpluses: in 1926-’27, £1,215,000; 1927-’28, £1,790,000; 1928-’29, £1,832,000; and this year, £400,000, or in all for the four years a surplus of £5,237,000. If we examine the difference between the two Governments, therefore, we find that it amounts to a sum of £10,362,000 in favour of the present Government. To this can further be added the taxes that the previous Government levied, some of which I have already named. In 1921-’22 the total additional levy was £2,882,000; 1922-’23, £1,121,000 from which we must deduct £385,000 which was surrendered, so that there remains £636,000; 1923-’24, £785,000. For these five years the additional taxation amounts to £4,304,000, and if we add this to the other figures then we get £14,500,000 in favour of the present Government, and as a result of the state the former Government brought the country to, they of course neglected important and necessary services. They, inter alia, so neglected the pension fund that the Minister had to provide no less than £250,000 for the Transvaal Administrative and Clerical Pension Fund, and had to pay £128,000 into the Cape Pension Fund, to put it once more on a sound basis.

Was not the world war the cause of the increase in expenditure?

The hon. member asks whether the war was not to blame for the increase in expenditure, but this money was not used to wage war; the war was carried on from loan funds, while this expenditure was paid out of ordinary revenue. The hon. member also forgets that this Government has also declared war, viz., against unemployment and other social evils, which necessitates big expenditure. As for the sinking fund, the previous Government never made provision for it. The only contributions they made were those which they were compelled to make under the Act of 1911, viz., 1 per cent. writing-off the old debt of the Transvaal and the Free State. That was £700,000 a year, but this Government immediately made those amounts £650,000 a year, and the Government paid still further contributions into that fund. When we point out this state of affairs to hon. members opposite, then they make all sorts of evasions in order to defend themselves. They then point, as the hon. member has done, to the state of war, or they point out that the national debt has increased under the present Government, that we, therefore, expend more than they did, and that there is a greater burden of taxation owing to the increased customs duties. It will be a good thing to examine those arguments one for one when we shall find that the picture is not as they paint it. Take, e.g., the national debt; in a country like South Africa where the Government has undertaken certain development works, such as the development of our railway and harbour transport, land settlement, irrigation, posts and telegraphs, agricultural credit, electricity supply and housing, we must expect the national debt constantly to increase. Nor did we find any fault with the previous Government for increasing the national debt, but rather for having created dead liabilities. A government must not worry so much about the national debt rising, but that the dead, the unreproductive debt shall not be too great. As I have already indicated, the previous Government allowed the dead liability to increase too fast. The national debt increased under the previous Government by about £8,500,000 a year, under the present Government it has increased by £35,000,000, i.e., about £7,000,000 a year, so that the comparison is favourable to our Government. We should, however, not have so much objection to their increased debt if the money was spent in the real interests of South Africa. But when hon. members opposite see that that argument about the national debt no longer helps them, then they use the further argument that the annual expenditure now shows a greater increase than during their administration. Let us examine this a moment, and see whether this Government does not possibly compare favourably with that Government.

At the adjournment I had just come to another charge we usually get from the Opposition, that this Government has annually increased the expenditure from revenue by about £1,000,000. This charge is just as groundless as the one in connection with our national debt, which I have just dealt with. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) has already quoted figures to show that the percentage increase of expenditure under the South African party was higher than under the administration of the present Government. Let us take the percentage increase, i.e., of the one year on the previous one—for a period during the South African party Government. We find percentages like the following: 12.58 per cent., 6.51 per cent. for the following year, thereafter 15 per cent., 16 per cent. and even 26 per cent. If now we take the present Government’s period we find that the percentage increases in the year 1924-’25 were 2.08 per cent., then 7.63 per cent., 2.09 per cent., 3.3 per cent. in 1929 1.26 per cent., 1930 5.7 per cent., and this year it was 1.6 per cent. We therefore see that the percentage increases under the present Government were much smaller than under the previous Government, but if hon. members opposite make out that the present Government is spending more than they ought then it is their duty to show which expenditure should not take place. Instead of doing so they always advocate more expenditure. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) pleaded this afternoon for more expenditure on agriculture. Yet they find fault when the annual expenditure rises. Let us now mention a few of the points on which additional money is spent. Provincial subsidies account for £1,366,000 more. Are hon. members opposed to those subsidies being paid? On the contrary, only the other day we had a motion by them that those subsidies should be increased. Let me mention another point. We spent £1,768,000 more in pensions, and of this old age pensions are responsible for £1,300,000. Now I should also like to know whether hon. members opposite object to this expenditure? Again we find that they said that the Government do not pay large enough pensions. Let us now come to the expenditure on higher education. Are the Opposition opposed to the taking over by the central government of technical education, and that the expenditure has in consequence gone up? What expenditure do they challenge? Take the interest on the public debt, the increase of £716,000 is unavoidable, but let us mention it here, although the present Government pays £716,000 more in interest, it gets back much more interest on the investments and works for which the new money was borrowed. On public health the increase was £216,000; is there any hon. member who wants to see it reduced? In the Department of Mines and Industries the amount was £273,000 more, and of that increase the expenditure on the state diggings in Namaqualand is responsible for £210,000. Are hon. members opposed to that? Yes, they were opposed to it, and if we had taken notice of them those diggings would have been leased, with the result that the state would get a small amount in rent, but owing to having followed the sound policy of the Government we have at an expense of £210,000 saved millions of pounds to the state Under the Postal and Telegraphs vote the increase is £495,000; are hon. members opposed to better telephone provision being made for the countryside? Only this afternoon an hon. member said that the provision ought to be improved. Take agriculture, we find that it is £21,000 more for the agricultural research at Onderstepoort. Do hon. members object to it, or are they opposed to our spending £20,000 for the administration of the Emergency Relief Act? We spent £50,000 more on agricultural education, is that challenged? Let hon. members examine each of the votes, and point out where we have spent money unnecessarily. Take just one more department, that of Lands, which showed an increase of £134,000. There £55,000 more was spent on the Hartebeestpoort Dam, £5,000 on the Olifants River scheme, £11,000 on the Sundays River, and £16,000 on the Karroo and Boegoeberg scheme. Altogether this is an increase of £87,000, and is there any objection to that being paid for land settlement? If not, why then do they make the objection that we have spent too much money? If they enquire hon. members Will find that all those amounts make out approximately about £6,000,000 increase about which hon. members talk so much. Now they want to persuade the country that that additional £6,000,000 1s spent on the administration of the country. It is not so, but it was spent on necessary services, for which, in my opinion, the public are grateful to the Government. A payment about which we had to listen to a good deal was in respect of our overseas embassies. When We look into it we find that the embassy in Italy costs £9,832, in the United States £13,340, in the Hague £10,623, and in Portuguese East Africa £3,259. In all, this comes to about £37,000, which we spend on those embassies. That is the only amount in the £6,000,000 about which hon. members opposite said that the money was unnecessarily spent. We admit that we spend that money, and we do not want to run away from it. We have enough to pay that amount for the acknowledgement and maintenance of our freedom abroad. We have heard how a nation is prepared to sacrifice its life for its freedom, but hon. members opposite do not want to spend £37,000 for their freedom. The hon. member who was most opposed to it was the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) who calls our ambassadors flunkeys. During the second war of independence that hon. member was prepared to surrender his life for the freedom of our country, but to-day he does not want to uphold the freedom. I want to point out to hon. members how the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) When he was in New York away from party politics and away from his own flunkeys, also personally recommended our representatives and praised them The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) did the same. Let me now come to another charge which we hear every day, that as a result of the increase of customs dues the pressure of taxation on the people has been increased. The Minister of Labour has already given the correct answer to that, viz., that no increased customs duties have been imposed, but that the productivity of our customs duties has become greater, which in its turn points to the properous condition our country was in. When we examine the customs duties we find that instead of the protective duties which the Minister imposed he surrendered at least as much on other goods. When we came into office the Minister of Finance considered it necessary to obtain a certain amount to cover the increased grants to the provincial councils, and he accordingly instructed the Board of Trade and Industries to examine the tariffs at once and to make recommendations. I just want to say in passing that that Board has rendered good services, and that even hon. members opposite, who at first wanted to depreciate the board, and spoke about a kindergarten, are now the first to defend it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) even said that the board ought to be increased so that they can make more enquiries. As a result of their enquiry the Minister has taken three steps. In the first place he has created a new basis for preference. Where England formerly got 3 per cent. preference on all goods, that has been taken away, and England has selected 22 articles on which additional and special preference is granted, but for the rest the preference has been taken away. As a result the revenue from customs dirties has increased by about £600,000. Will hon. members say that this has come out of the pockets of the taxpayers? No, it came out of the pockets of the English manufacturers, and the wholesale merchants in South Africa. The country has paid very little for the alteration, although the wholesale friends opposite automatically objected to the change. The difference of 3 per cent., moreover, does not push England out of the market. Further, the Minister has increased the duties on luxuries, and so got in £150,000 more. What are the articles? Expensive motorcars, jewelry, films and playing cards. Do hon. members object to rich users of Rolls Royces paying more, or those who wear articles of luxury, or persons who want to sit in the bioscopes all day, or the card players, paying more? Then the Minister also immediately decided to protect certain industries, because the Government was going to follow a protection policy at once. But if we take the increase in the customs revenue, and deduct from it the amounts which the Government has got in from customs on articles of luxury, and by removing the 3 per cent. preference we see that the protection policy has cost the country on the whole nothing or very little, and the statement that the cost of living has gone up owing to the increase of customs duties is not true. The industries must first thoroughly prove that, in so far as quantity and quality are concerned, they can more or less provide for the requirements of the country before protection is granted them. The Minister, however, also made immediate reductions in certain items of the customs tariff as against the increased protection. He immediately repealed the tariff, or reduced them in the case of machinery, agricultural machinery, fencing material, dips, water bores, and certain requirements of the mines, as also on things like wool and cotton piece goods and sewing machines, which are used in houses, and which are required in factories. Then the hon. member for Yeoville wants to persuade us that it is the farmer who has to pay for the sake of protecting our industries. As I have shown, the Government has gone out of its way to grant protection to our primary industries. What is actually the result of the protection? We find that more factories have started in our country, and that far more avenues of employment have been found. According to the report of the director of census, the number of Europeans working in the tailoring trade increased by 38 per cent. in 1927, in the sweet industry by 30 per cent., in furniture making by 19 per cent., in shoemaking by 14 per cent., and in the factories for writing materials 12 per cent. I think that this is an entire justification for the protection policy. In 1927 102 new factories arose in the country, and in three years under the protection policy of this Government 14,666 more white people were employed in our factories, and the value of factory production increased by £18,000,000 in the three years. £2,000,000 more per annum was paid in wages, that is a clear proof that the Government acted very wisely when it adopted the protection policy. The whole country, and especially the farmers are reaping great benefit if £2,000,000 more is brought into circulation per annum. It was further said that the cost of living had risen in consequence of the protection policy. I want to quote the figures to show that the cost of living has not gone up, hut dropped. If we take 1914 to start with, and take 1,000 as the basis of the comparison, then we find that the cost of living in 1927 in our country stood at 1,313. In Canada it was 1,520; Australia, 1,510; New Zealand. 1,690; Great Britain, 1,640; and America, 1,620. That is a clear proof that in so far as the cost of living is concerned South Africa is in a very favourable position in, comparison with other countries. It is the result of our not having pursued a wild protection policy here.

What is the figure for England?

1,640.

No, it is 1,700.

So much the better for my argument. It shows that we are following a moderate protection policy in South Africa. This point also clearly appeared if we compare the protection given in South Africa with that in other countries. Hon. members have complained about the increase of 5 per cent. on ready-made goods. We find that ready-made goods are protected in South Africa by 20 to 25 per cent., in Australia 40 to 55 per cent., Canada 274 to 30 per cent., New Zealand 25 to 40 per cent., in the U.S.A. 35 to 55 per cent. When we come to shoes we find South Africa 30 per cent., Australia 35 to 45 percent., Canada 17 to 30 per cent., New Zealand 25 to 45 per cent., and the U.S.A. 30 to 35 per cent. Take furniture, we find in South Africa 25 to 30 per cent., Australia 35 to 50 per cent., Canada 20 to 30 per cent., New Zealand 25 to 40 per cent., and the U.S.A. 33⅓ to 60 per cent. In comparison with the protection existing in other countries, the protection in South Africa is very moderate, and there is, therefore, no reason for the hon. member for Yeoville, the new convert to protection, to come and warn us that we must follow a moderate protection policy. It is also therefore no wonder that the whole outside world feels that South Africa’s industries are in a sound position. A well known industrialist could say recently: “The satisfactory advance is to a great extent caused by the great amount of security in consequence of the Government’s policy of encouraging industrial development.”

I now want, as I have mentioned that the protection policy has not resulted in raising the cost of living, just also to mention this that the general burden of taxation in South Africa compares particularly favourably with that of other countries. When we look upon that burden on our people we must not only consider the white population. It will, of course, be wrong to treat the non-European population on the same basis as the European. I think, however, that it is the acknowledged economic view that we must reckon four non-Europeans to one European in South Africa. If we do that then the Union has a population of 3,100,000 for the purposes of our comparison. If we go to work on this basis and take the taxation which is levied by legislative bodies, not by local authorities, then we find that taxation per head is as follows: the Union £7 11s., England £15 14s., Australia £12 10s., New Zealand £12 3s., America £8 10s., Germany £8 3s. and Canada £8 2s. Again we find that South Africa is in a favourable position, and what becomes of the accusations of hon. members opposite that the burden of taaxtion in South Africa is so extraordinarily heavy? We, however, get a better comparison if we also include the taxation which is raised by local authorities. The tax per head is then as follows; Great Britain £19 10s., Australia £13 10s., America £11 5s., Canada £10 5s. and the Union £8 13s. We, therefore, see that South Africa still compares very favourably with other countries. The best comparison will, however, be to calculate the taxation as a percentage of the national revenue, and then to compare the percentages of the various countries with each other. These percentages are as follows: Great Britain 22. Australia 18.4. U.S.A. 10.5. Canada 19.2, the Union 14.5, and Italy 19.2. We find again that the position of the Union is very favourable, and that there is only one country where the burden is lower, and that is the extraordinarily rich America. I therefore think that if we bear these figures in mind the burden of taxation in South Africa is not so heavy as in the rest of the world, and as hon. members opposite make out. I therefore think that I have succeeded in showing that the financial position of our country is sound as a result of the wise policy of the Minister of Finance. He has abandoned the wrong practices of his predecessor of taking money out of loan funds for current expenditure, he has protected our industries with the result that they are developing as they have never vet done, and that thousands of our sons and daughters can earn a living; he has seen to it that the protective measures do not press heavily on the primary industries. He has assisted agriculture in every possible way by compromises in connection with taxation and other support. Our country compares favourably with the rest of the world, and we can congratulate ourselves on the present Government being in power in the last six years, and that it is still in office to help the country through this period of depression.

Hon. members opposite are making all kinds of statements about the Government’s policy, but I want to show them that their party has no national policy, no policy in connection with any national matter. There is division in their party on practically any national questions, and not only that, but when many of them speak they try to stir up racial feeling in the country in all kinds of ways. I want to deal with the attitude of the South African party in regard to the poor white question, although in their eyes it possibly is a very unimportant matter. We know that in the time that Mr. Jagger was Minister of Railways he discharged Europeans and appointed no less than 15,000 natives in their stead. What did the present Government do when it came into office? The Government at once realized the pernicious character of the South African party policy and immediately introduced the civilized labour policy on the railways. Did the Opposition support us in that? Did they when the Government introduced it not oppose it for weeks? Notwithstanding that the Government stood firm, as it always stands firm in great national matters, and carried through the policy. I do not want to go further into details about the policy, and the success of it. I just want to point out in passing that the South African party Government under the Mines and Industries Act of 1911, as is generally admitted, for 12 years issued regulations which established a colour bar, but when the court decided that the regulations were ultra vires, and the present Government introduced a Bill to legalize the regulations, what was then the attitude of the Opposition? They opposed it to such an extent in this House that it was actually necessary to have a joint sitting of both Houses to put the Bill through. What is their policy in this connection? Let us look at Hansard and see what the leaders on the opposite side said about it. The leader of the Opposition prophesied that the colour bar would be a great danger. As, indeed, he prophesied about many matters the Government tackled, but nothing came of it. Mr. Jagger attacked the Bill as strongly as he could. Our Government has tackled the poor white question and given our poor people a chance. I wish, however, the poor people will take note of how the leader of the Opposition (Gen Smuts) said that they are a danger to the country. I know that it possibly costs the country a little more to use civilized labour, but as long as we can save a portion of our people who would otherwise be ruined, the people will be prepared to pay a little more. We are not afraid, our Government was never afraid, on any big national question, and the people of South Africa know that the national party has a fixed policy, and does not retreat. But what is the policy of the Opposition with regard to the poor whites? When I said that I stood by my party as the party which looked after the poor man in South Africa a little South African party newspaper attacked me, and I just want to quote what was said—

Every country, however prosperous, has its poor whites, and will always have them, because the poor whites in general are incompetent people. It is not their fault that they are incompetent, but it is due to their inferior brain power, their bodily weakness, their lack of initiative, and weak character in general.

That is what the Opposition thinks of the poor man. It surprises me that there is still a poor man who supports the South African party. What does the little paper add—

That is the policy of the South African party, according to that South African party paper. But let us look at what the policy of the South African party is. We find in the Daily Mail that Gen. Smuts said at Lady Grey in April, 1929—

We, therefore, see that it is the Opposition policy to stop strikes in the spartan manner of 1922. They claim the honour that they stopped the strike in that way. I hope the poor people in the country will not forget it. Well, the South African party can have all the honour of it, but the country must remember that this is the party which thinks that it can claim the right to get back into power again. Then we shall apparently get back to the policy of 1922, of which they are now so proud, according to their leader. I now want to point out how like a chameleon that uarty is following a volte face policy. We have quoted statements, but let us also quote a few actions. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) moved that the 8s. minimum should be introduced on the railways. How did they stand in this connection in the past? They had 14 years in which to introduce the 8s. minimum, did they ever think of it? No, but they now want to blindfold the people. The old proverb: “However quick the lie may run, truth will always overtake it.” will, however, also here be verified. That has appeared from the elections of 1924 and 1929, and will also be seen in future. Let us examine their attitude in connection with the Quota Bill. Their absence of policy in that connection. We know that when the Bill was debated on Thursday everyone voted for it. Three-quarters of the speeches merely consisted of telling the Jewish population what good friends they were of the Jews, although we have never done or been anything else, but only 11 voted against it, and almost the whole South African party voted in favour of the Bill. That was Thursday, but what happened on Monday? The same party voted against the same Bill, what is their policy about it? What is their policy in connection with the immigration? No one can say because they never think of the national interests in the first place, but how they can obtain party advantage, and of what will injure the party. If that is so with the party, then it is high time it disappeared. I know that they moved an amendment to the Bill referred to, but it was so unpractical that they, themselves, had to admit it. I only hope that our Jewish friends will see that the party was not honest in its attitude, that the party voted for and against, just to catch votes. The Government party, however, voted straightforwardly, and the Jews will certainly realize that it is better to stand behind a party that is honest, than behind a party of which no one can say where it stands. Let me just read here what Gen. Botha’s opinion was about state-aided immigration. He said at Morgenzon in 1916—

Then the following year he said at Ermelo—

Then again in 1917, according to Ons Land, he said at Victoria West—

And now I come to what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said in 1920 at Bethal on immigration. According to the Volkstem he spoke as follows—

What I have quoted is all from South African party newspapers, so that hon. members can hardly contradict it. What does the hon. member for Standerton say on the 30th April, 1929? If he had said it on the 1st of April I could understand it, but he says on the 30th April, according to Die Volkstem—

We are in favour of an agreement with the British Government under the immigration scheme by which its co-operation will be obtained financially and otherwise.

Here then we have statements at various places by Gen. Botha against state-aided immigration, and the hon. member for Standerton also declared himself against it at Bethal in 1920, and yet the hon. member later said that state-aided immigration had been the policy of the South African party since 1911. If there is anyone who ought to have known the policy of the South African party then surely it was Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts. Now they come and say in this House that it was always the policy of the South African party, and in 1929 the hon. member for Standerton also stated at Aliwal North, according to the Star—

Here in this House he stated, according to Hansard, on the 19th April, 1926—

That was a clear statement, but what is happening now? This is the very point to which I wish to call attention. It was, therefore, the policy of the South African party to support state-aided immigration, but now, according to the Daily Mail, the hon. member for Standerton says, at a meeting at Standerton on the 11th May of last year, in answer to the direct question put to him by the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels)—

Why has he now denied it here? Surely when I say that he is ashamed or afraid of the policy he stands for, then I am right. The hon. member for Standerton said something in one part of the country which he dare not say in another part. But I challenge the South African party to mention one point of policy where the Nationalist party have been afraid of saying in any part of the country what their policy was. I am, therefore, entitled to say that they are trying to keep the truth from the public. I must admit that they have succeeded in it, because if the hon. member for Standerton were honestly to acknowledge everywhere that he was in favour of spending £1,000,000 on immigration then he would probably never have kept his seat in Standerton. Hon. members will, perhaps, ask what our policy is with regard to immigration. We are not opposed to immigration, but the Opposition say so here and in their press to stir up the English-speaking section of the population against us. We are not able to explain the untruth of those statements to our English friends, because, unfortunately, we have not the money to submit our policy tb them through the English newspapers, and to controvert the statements. The Opposition know that they have the English press behind them, and, therefore, they have sometimes succeeded in agitating our English friends by means of their press. We can only deny it here, but I can assure hon. members that if the English section of the population commenced to realize what the Nationalist Government is doing for the people, then they will join the Nationalist party in thousands. We are protecting our industries, and building them up, and in that way we shall also encourage people to come here from other countries, because there will be work for skilled labourers in the industries, as a result of our protection policy we shall get a good kind of immigrant, and not the kind which will merely increases the number of our poor whites. I accused hon. members opposite of wanting to stir up the English people against us, and I will give an illustration of such actions. I only hope that we may one day have an English press by which we shall be enabled to lay the honest truth before our English friends. What I am reading there is on page 870 of the National Review of February, 1950—

That is the way in which they are frightened—

This is not even true, and now our English friends read it without the English press contradicting it—

Just listen to this language which is used to stir up the feelings of the English against us. In the first place it is not true, and in the second place it is unworthy language to use against us. The article proceeds—

This paper circulates throughout the world, and thousands of English read it, and we have no opportunity of contradicting it in the English press. I hope that time will soon come. Now I come to another point. I am sorry to have to mention it, but I think it is necessary to draw the attention of the Opposition to it. It is in connection with the flag question. I do not want to go into whether the flag is right or wrong, but I want to say something about their attitude in connection with the flag. The hon. member for Standerton said at the South African party congress in Paarl in 1920 that South Africa was entitled to its own flag. In 1919 he had said at Rustenburg that the Union Jack had no pleasant recollections for us, and subsequently again he said that he was working for our own flag in South Africa. Someone then asked him whether it would be a flag with the Union Jack, but his answer was: “No, a clean flag.”

Why go back to 1919?

I know I am offending hon. members opposite, but when the Unionist party joined up with them the leader of the Opposition no longer spoke about that thing. He again adopted his chameleon tactics, turned about and said that the Union Jack was the only flag which belonged to the Union. I am not here discussing whether it is right or wrong. I only want to show how hon. members opposite have no fixed policy. What, however, pained me, as a son of South Africa, was that the leader of the Opposition went to Herschel to discuss the flag question with natives. He even went and stirred up the feeling of the native in connection with the flag question by telling them that the Union Jack was the only flag they knew, and that they knew no other flag. In one sense I do not mind his having done that, but why, first of all, say that we had every right to our own flag, and then go and tell the natives a different thing? Is that the action of a man with a fixed policy? Now I come to another matter. I want to quote here what the late Gen. Botha said in Parliament when the segregation Bill was debated in 1917. He said—

That is what Gen. Botha said, and the same year Gen. Smuts made a speech in the Savoy Hotel, London, where he expressed himself in practically the same way.

Why go to London?

I shall show in a moment how the leader of the Opposition also said various things in the different provinces of South Africa. Alongside of these speeches of the late Gen. Botha and the present leader of the Opposition we must now put what other persons say who were in the Cabinet of the South African party. We find in Hansard of 6th April, 1925, that Mr. Fourie put the following question to Mr. Jagger—

The report proceeds—

They already enjoy them in the Cape Province.

Is the hon. member in favour of allowing them to come into Parliament?

Yes.

That is in Hansard, and I should like it to be known far and wide throughout the country. We now come to the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen, Byron). What did he say on the 30th March, 1927? Is the native never to have a vote, must he always be prevented from, exercising the natural right of a man, the franchise? Why should we not allow the natives to sit in Parliament? No one surely would object if a clean, intelligent black man sat next to him in Parliament. But we find that Gen. Smuts has also turned round in the meantime, and no longer holds the view that Gen. Botha expressed. We find that at a meeting of the A.P.O. in Cape Town he said—

When did he say that?

On Thursday, 12th April, 1928, and the words I have quoted I have taken from the Volkstem report of, his speech. Take also the appeal which, has been made in favour of equal rights for the natives, and to give him full citizenship, signed by Mr. Jagger and Mr. Henry Burton, and a number of friends of hon. members opposite. Messrs. Jagger and Burton are ex-Ministers of the South African party, and they are making an appeal for full rights for the natives. We now come to the Bill which was originally introduced by the late Mr. Brown at the time member for Three Rivers. After him the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) took it upon himself to introduce a Bill in 1928 to give the franchise to women. It appears from the debate that the supporters of the present Government criticized the Bill because the native women would also get the vote under that Bill. For that reason the late Mr. van Heerden moved an amendment that the franchise should only be given to white women, and not to native women as well. After debate, and after pleas by the hon. member for Standerton and members opposite, that the native women should also have the vote, there was a division on the amendment. When we examine the names of those who voted we find the name of Gen. Smuts as one of the hon. members opposite who voted against the amendment, i.e., who voted in favour of the native women getting the vote. There you have the South African party’s leader and all of them in favour of native women having the vote. I challenge any one in the Opposition to show that that is not the case, because it is clearly stated in the Hansard report. The position, unfortunately, is that the followers of the South African party on the countryside are so much under the power of their leaders that they no longer believe you when you quote from Hansard what the South African party did in this House. I have clearly shown that the Opposition voted in favour of the native franchise and the vote for native women, but when we say it on the public platform they get angry. I, accuse them, to-night of it, and I challenge any one of them to disprove my charge. In the Cape Province the South African party preach one thing and quite a different thing in the Transvaal Why? It is because they do not aim at the welfare of the people. All that counts with them is to get the vote of the native in the Cape Province by one method or another. The sooner the public see this the better, and I shall do my best to enlighten the public about this game the South African party are, playing. I now want to quote something which appeared in another South African party newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail. According to this paper, Gen. Smuts said at Ermelo—

Here, the leader of the Opposition calls himself, his followers, and men like Messrs. Jagger and Burton, who sat with him in the Cabinet, irresponsible men. The sooner they leave their party and their leader the better. But they appreciate, of course, that it is part of the game in the Transvaal, because there also votes have to be got. I now want to read something else from the Rand Daily Mail. That paper says that the following question was put to the leader of the Opposition at a meeting—

The paper adds that Gen. Smuts answered “no ", I have quoted Hansard that he voted in favour of it; both cannot be true, one of the two must be untrue. I asked the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) whether he was in favour of native women. He is honest and said that he had never yet made a distinction between white and black. That is the honest opinion of that hon. member, but why does not the South African party frankly come out in favour of giving the franchise to native and native women? The party knows that if it does so no decent man will remain a member of it.

What about the budget?

I would rather deal with the budget in the absence of the natives than with the natives in this House. I now want to come to the German treaty which has been mentioned. It is true that every nation has the fullest right to conclude trade treaties. I do not want to treat the subject from that side, but I want to ask who commenced the policy of trading with foreign countries and negotiating trade relations? Was it not the South African party who sent Mr. Spilhaus to the continent? England entered into a trade agreement with Germany in 1924. Nobody found fault with that; it is the duty of every country to try to find markets for its produce. When, however, the Nationalist party does it, it is said that it is merely to oppose the interests of the empire. I refer hon. members to the English meat contract for the army. Did they only ask for tenders in the dominions? No, they asked for tenders from the whole world, and a dominion did not get the contract, but South America did. If England has the right to buy in the cheapest market, may we not do the same? As hon. members know, we went to England and said, “Look, England, you have not a sufficient market for our produce, we must have business connections with other countries as well. Of course they understood this in England, and England got a preference of a whole series of articles which she selected. She got a very big preference. Then we went to Germany and said that England could not buy all our produce and that we wanted to enter into agreement. That was done, but what were the conditions? We said that we must exclude all the articles over which England had a preference. We further stipulated that if Germany got a preference on some article or other England should also get it automatically. What is wrong with that? Even the statesmen in England did not find fault with it, and I think the Opposition can safely leave matters in the hands of the English statesmen. The former Secretary for Dominions, Mr. Amery, was asked his opinion and he replied that they could not find any fault, and that South Africa was quite within its rights. They were perfectly satisfied, but the Opposition, of course, must go about the country and preach the opposite in the hope of stirring up English feeling by means of the German trade treaty. And what did Sir Henry Barwell, ex-Prime Minister of South Australia say?—

That is not what the Nationalist party says, but when they say so it is of no avail. During the provincial council elections they preached the yarn in the country that the farmers were suffering because England would not buy the produce in consequence of the German treaty. They said that everywhere in England large posters were exhibited telling the people not to buy in the Union, to refer the people to the German trade treaty. Let me just quote what Lord Selborne said at a lunch in his honour at Cape Town. Then we can test the truth of the allegation. He said—

Why do the Opposition not tell that to the South African people? Why do they not say that England is doing its best to buy our produce? No, they want to mislead the people during the election, and to get votes. They are not, however, succeeding in that. The eyes of the people are opened. I want to accuse the Opposition in being divided in regard to the native question, the protection policy, the quota Bill, the Riotous Assemblies Bill, immigration, white civilization, the language, the flag, equal status, the wages Act, agricultural matters, the taxation system, etc. That party is divided on all those points, how can they expect the people to put them into power again? The people to-day have confidence in the Nationalist party for the sole reason that that party does what ought to be done. Our Government does not bother about votes, but acts honestly, and justly in the interests of the people. I do not want to give my own opinion any further, but quote what someone else has said about the South African party and its divisions. In view of what Gen. Smuts said at the congress of the South African party, that person said—

I quote that from the Rand Daily Mail in Johannesburg. I end by expressing the simple wish that the Opposition press will publish what I have summed up here, and will say in what respect I have wrongly accused the Opposition. I wish that practically the whole of South Africa could be here to hear my charges against the South African party, and how they are unable to deny them because what I have said is the truth. All I want the public to think about is that if the South African party should come into power with their policy of equal rights for natives, £1,000,000 for State-aided immigration, native women franchise, then the sun of civilized South Africa will set for ever.

One of the hon. members on this side of the House suggested this afternoon that it would be desirable to pause for five minutes to consider the disastrous position in which the country finds itself as an outcome of the Pact Government. I consider that he was unduly optimistic in thinking that five minutes would suffice. Even the patience, Mr. Speaker, which you have shown in the last 60 minutes in listening to these revelations of the past would not survive such an ordeal. I would not like to emulate the last speaker, who has treated this House for an hour to a most interesting dissertation, but has lamentably failed to be obedient to the maxim “Don’t resurrect stale squabbles.” [Haal geen oue koeie uit die sloot.] One would have thought that in this debate hon. members would have confined themselves to the present budget, but this evening, amongst the back benchers—I will not say the irresponsible back benchers opposite—it is apparently necessary to draw a certain number of racial red herrings across the trail. We have heard what Gen. Smuts said in 1920, what Sir Henry Barnard said about the German treaty, and what the Prime Minister said on some other occasion in the dim and distant past. On this side we are here to discuss the policy of the Government in the last five years. We have been on our trial—

And found wanting.

We may have been found wanting, but when we cast our record into the scale it will go up on our side and down with the Pact. I am prepared to admit that these hon. gentlemen may have sown their political wild oats in the past, but what is of importance is the position in which the country finds itself to-day, and the manner in which the Government intends to deal with it. We have heard about the flag question and the appointment of Mr. Spilhaus as trade commissioner, but I fail to see what relevance these questions have to the position to-day. I had occasion recently to point out that when the Prime Minister made his speech in May last at Smithfield he told his constituents that they had had five years of prosperous and able government. Never before had the farmers been as happy and prosperous; the railwaymen were satisfied, the industrialists were satisfied—

And the country gave a verdict on that.

Yes. But if there were a court of appeal in political matters at the present time the country would order a retrial, and they would find the Pact guilty. In May of last year the prosperity of the country was attributed to the sound administration of a Pact Government, and the Prime Minister only omitted to take credit for the fact that during the Pact regime the drought had broken! Everything else was due to the fact that the Pact Government was in power. That was the one fact—prosperity—which was emphasized before the last election. What the electors were told in effect was that, if they put a Pact Government back into power, the country would go forward to greater heights of prosperity. It was said, in effect, that there would be another period of five years of prosperity. That was the one main point stressed before the election.

Who stressed it?

The Prime Minister himself stressed it at Smithfield in May, 1929, and many other speakers stressed it in the course of the election. I do not wish to quote again. I quoted the other night, at a late hour, when the House was somewhat somnolent, extracts from the Prime Minister’s speech, and hon. members can refer to Hansard to see those extracts. The country was led to believe before the last election, that if they put the Pact Government back into power, the country would go forward by leaps and bounds to prosperity. There was one other issue. In view of the remarks of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood)—perhaps I am justified in referring to one other issue that was brought into great prominence before the country at the last election. We were told on public platforms throughout the country that if the electors voted for the South African party, they were handing over their birth-right of a white South Africa to the natives. They were told that if they put the South African party back into power it would damn the white civilization of South Africa for good. Nationalist speakers said that if the South African party touched the native question with a forty-foot pole, it was doomed to failure. It was repeated on every public platform, both in the towns and in the country. It was not only repeated in verbal form on platforms, but there were cartoons depicting Gen. Smuts holding a black baby, and a black judge trying white men, and we had all these elements of “smousery” arrayed in excelsis before the electors, in order to get them to vote for the Pact for another five years. That was the position nine months ago. It is seldom that the electors of this country have an opportunity so soon after giving a verdict, of reversing their verdict. It is seldom that they have the opportunity, when they have made a grievous fault, of so soon rectifying it. But only within the last few days we have had the provincial council elections in the Transvaal.

The Nationalists are still in the majority.

They may be in a majority of one. But they have got just sufficient rope with which to hang themselves. What the provincial council election in the Transvaal has shown is that the electors of the country, whom we were told were staunch for the Nationalist party, have come to their political senses and have had an opportunity of showing whether they consider that the Pact promises have been put into effect. They have had the opportunity of testing the genuineness of these stories we heard nine months ago, and whether or not there was a straight deal for a white South Africa, and they gave their verdict the other day. Five constituencies that were Nationalist at the last general election have turned South African party. The electors of South Africa have come to their political senses. That is only the Transvaal. We still have the provincial council election of the Cape ahead of us, and I make bold to say that that will give us another indication of the way public opinion in South Africa is waking up to the fact that it was completely duped, misled and “smoused” at the last election in regard to prosperity. When my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House talk about “smousery” it is indeed elevating to listen to them. It is always interesting to listen to the words of an expert. My friends opposite are exponents of “smousery” in its best form. We need not turn our attention to happenings 15 or 25 years ago. We are not like the hon. member for Vereeniging, who delves into the gloomy past. Only during the last five years—in fact, during the last five weeks—we have seen these delightful examples of “smousery.” While I am on this interesting subject of “smousery,” may I be allowed to refer to one or two interesting matters in connection with which this delightful pastime has been reduced to a fine art by hon. members opposite? I refer to the manner in which they “smoused” an unfortunate people by deluding them into believing that if they voted for the South African party they were voting for a black South Africa. That is the very party which is now working hand in hand with them in select committee to endeavour to find a solution of the native question. They said at the last election that the white civilization was doomed if the South African party touched this question. Now the Prime Minister says that it is a national question on which the two parties must combine, and he has allowed this question to go forth to a select committee. I only wish to draw attention to this change of attitude and this change of spirit on the part of hon. members opposite. They have always said that this matter must be kept away from the South African party. They are now prepared to admit that the only true way of finding a solution is by both sides working together and treating it as a national matter and co-operating in an endeavour to find a common solution. That is just what the South African party advocated before the election, when they said that this question must not be a party matter, that white men must be unanimous in dealing with the native question. That—the Nationalist behaviour before the election—is an example of “smousery” for you. We have had another example, when the electors of this country were led into believing that they had only to vote for the Pact Government and once again prosperity would rule in the land. That was “smousing” with the sentiment of the country, when the Prime Minister must have known, or should have known, that this country was on the verge of depression. What is the use of having Ministers plenipotentiary, and trade commissioners, with their big staffs on which we are spending considerable sums of money, if they cannot warn South Africa through official channels that we are going to have a depression. The Prime Minister must have known. He will remember how he criticized the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), in his Smithfield speech in 1924, for not warning the people about the depression which came in 1921. I hope the Prime Minister, if he intervenes in this debate, will think it is a sufficiently serious matter to tell the country why it was that he did not warn the people of this country, before the last election, that we were approaching a period of depression. Despite the fact that he must have known of this depression, he preached prosperity, and told the people to vote for the Pact so as to have increased prosperity. I say that that was another example of “smousery” in excelsis. We have seen how these experts in “smousery” have “smoused" with the people in regard to the native question and prosperity, and how they have “smoused” with the sentiments of our people in another direction. The latter is a matter of recent happening. We have only to go back to those days or weeks of the recent Bethal bye-election, when certain Ministers went to the Bethal constituency and said, in effect, that the Nationalist party was still working for the old Republican ideals. I think I am right in saying that two hon. Ministers of the Crown said that in effect, when they told the electors of Bethal that it was still the ideal of the Nationalist party to bring about a republican South Africa. That led certain of the electors of Bethal to believe that if they voted for the Nationalists they would be casting their votes in favour of a party pledged to work to the best of their ability to bring about the ideal of a republican South Africa. That was the attitude of the Nationalist party and two Ministers a fortnight or so ago. Was that not smousery with people who have republican sentiments, as indeed, they are perfectly entitled to have? There are people in England who have republican sentiments. I have never blamed those South Africans who desire a republic, provided they work for it in a constitutional manner, although I cannot agree with their views. But the allegation I make against the Ministers is that of smousing with the sentiments of these people in order to induce them to vote for nationalists. On the one hand they have been smousing the people who have leanings towards a republican ideal; on the other hand, in Natal, they have been smousing with people whose ideals are quite the reverse. The other day the Minister of Railways and Harbours in reply to the debate on the Railway Part Appropriation Bill remarked that on this side of the House there had not been that manifestation of imperialism which had been shown in the past. He was then replying to criticism concerning certain German locomotives, and he said that hon. members on this side had learned their lesson and were no longer devotees of imperialism. Well, we now have the new Imperialists. Not so long ago, there was a by election on the Natal South Coast, and I have here a poster which was issued by the Nationalists in that constituency. It is printed in red, white and blue, and it reads—

The candidate knew his Natalians very well.

Of course he did, and that is why I say you Nationalists have been smousing. And may I point out that the poster was not issued by the candidate himself, hut by “The Natal Nationalist Party, Head Office, 36 Scott Street, Newcastle.” I hope in future that after all these Nationalist efforts of smousery in excelsis—this paramount effort in smousery, this blatant hypocrisy—we shall hear no more allegations of smousery against this side of the House. That allegation was levelled against us because certain South African party members criticized certain features of Ministerial extravagance, and mentioned that the Government had indulged in excessive expenditure overseas. They never said, however, that the Union had no right to send ministers plenipotentiary overseas, hut merely that it was extravagant to do so at the present time. The matter was put very succinctly, from the Nationalist point of view, in the Government local daily organ, Die Burger, which [translated] said—

Well, if that is the difference between the Nationalist and the South African parties, I am proud to have the spirit of a smous, for I think it better to look first of all to the needs and welfare of your own nationals, before looking overseas. When many of our farmers are on the road to ruin, and poverty and unemployment stalk the land, it is the duty of each member to bring forward these matters and to criticize the Government for its extravagance, and to suggest ways in which the poor can be uplifted. At the present time, when the South African party is regardful of the needs of the working people who go about cold and hungry in our land, when it looks to the needs of the farmers, the distress of the unemployed, the demand for more housing and other serious problems which confront us, what reply do we get from a Government which has, as Minister of Labour, an avowed defender of the principle of equal rights for all persons? We are told that in our efforts to criticize we have exhibited the spirit of the smouse, and that we have calculated the cost of the overseas representation of the Union in pounds, shillings and pence. However, it is for the country and the poor people to judge; it is for our own flesh and blood and our own Afrikander people to say whether our attitude is right, or whether the attitude of the Prime Minister is right. Surely in a national crisis like the present parliamentary representatives should do their utmost—in the words of the present Prime Minister in 1923, it is their “sacred duty”—to secure the adoption of measures to relieve unemployment, and they should criticize the Government in order to induce in it a sense of responsibility when the national expenditure is running wild. When faced with such candid criticism, however, all the Prime Minister can do is to make a reckless statement in which he uses the bogey of the smous. One of these days, and not long ahead, sir, people will realize that the spirit of the smous has spread, and that it is the spirit which animates the real fairy godmother of South Africa—the South African party. I say that the political chickens of the Pact are coming home to roost. I wish I had the time to speak to-night on the question of unemployment, but perhaps I shall have an opportunity later. Closely allied with the question of the reckless extravagance on the part of the Government, and a necessary corollary, is the question of unemployment which the country suffers from at the present time. You cannot have reckless expenditure and see unemployment solved. I do not think the Minister of Labour has tackled the problem of unemployment in a scientific way, and if the Minister would apply scientific methods to his department he would stand a better chance of coming to a solution. There is no co-ordination between the central labour bureau and those of the country, and there is no intelligence department. I was not referring to mental attributes, but to a special department which ought to be formed in that department If the Minister divided his department into three departments, the work would be very much improved and its value enhanced. There ought to be an industrial department, an employment department, and an intelligence department—if that is possible in these days. I merely mentioned this point because I do feel that, when the Pact formed a special labour department, they did a very good thing—it is one of the few things to which we can give a word of tribute. But all the good work has been nullified by that appalling bungling and mismanagement which has since taken place. The people were led nine months ago to believe that another epoch of prosperity lay before them. They are now faced with depression on all sides; even the sanguine Minister of Finance cannot face the House with that equanimity he has displayed on other occasions. In the course of other debates it has been made clear that in the railway service there are innumerable grievances in administration, which I am not going to elaborate now, but will merely touch on briefly. There is the question of Appeal Boards. We have innumerable cases where the Appeal Board has come to a certain decision, and the Minister and the Railway Board have flouted it. Only the other day I came across a case where a man with splendid service was found guilty before a disciplinary board and punished, but the board said that his offence was not such as to merit dismissal. The Railway Board, however, said he must go. The Appeal Board consists of a member of the administration and one of the men’s representatives. I ask what possible confidence can the railwaymen have in it if they know that its decisions are subject to review by the Minister? The Minister will say the Act is on his side. But as a matter of policy, it is derogatory to good feeling if the men cannot have confidence in their Appeal Board. There are innumerable other instances where decisions of the Appeal Board have been flouted. Then there was the instance of a man who was found not guilty of culpable homicide and acquitted by the jury because the case against him was so weak. He was a driver of special grade, yet he was dismissed. Another driver on the Port Elizabeth line, with 27 years’ service, made one small mistake, and out he goes. If ever there was a systematic attempt to create wastage, and have retrenchment by camouflaged means, it is what is taking place at present. This sort of thing is disheartening to the men, undermining their confidence, and it breaks down their sense of responsibility in the administration. That is one of the matters which has to be attended to. There are other grievances. The Minister says if a man has ordinary grievances and he follows the ordinary channels, he can get them dealt with. A man goes to his immediate superior; if the result is unsatisfactory, he goes to the next man. Suppose the immediate superior at the very bottom has a grievance against the applicant: he puts in an adverse report; the Minister later says he has read the papers and he concurs. One can make out an unassailable case for a thorough investigation into the grievances of the railwaymen at the present time. Hon. members opposite representing railway constituencies must know that is true, and that the men are wanting an independent enquiry: they look to the Minister to give them one. At Ceres, at the Nationalist congress, according to a press report—

The latter is rather amusing, after what has happened in the last few days in the Nationalist party caucus. The hon. member for Prieska’s (Mr. Geldenhuys) fate seems to be to be ruled out of order—not only in the party congress hut in the party caucus! The report goes on to state—

How reminiscent of the Nationalist party caucus—

Now the other day when we criticized the appointment of bonus inspectors on the railway, what was the Minister’s reply? He said, in effect: “I do not know anything about the workshops. I admit it. I am in the hands of my technical advisers.” The Minister of Railways and Harbours saw fit to criticize certain hon. members on this side of the House, particularly mentioning those whom he said were serving under the leadership of the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards), as irresponsible. I venture to think that never in my Parliamentary experience have I seen a grosser example of ministerial impotence than that displayed by the Minister of Railways when he confessed to be in the hands of his administrative officials. In other words the Minister’s motto is “My administration, right or wrong.” Surely, when a question of policy arises, it is for the Minister to decide. If there is a grosser case of irresponsibility than this, then we shall have to wait a long time in this House to see it. The railway workers are looking to the Minister. It is not enough for him to praise the railwaymen in this House as he did the other day. He has accused me of being a soap-box orator, but let me tell him that soft soap does not go down with the railway workers. I would like to tell him that Ons Vaderland, a Nationalist organ, in a leading article recently stated that prominent railwaymen, among them several self-confessed Nationalists, alleged that the old Jagger regime was preferable to the present one. On March 12th the same journal said that all was not well on the railway, and that there was dissatisfaction which might be termed “seething”. The paper stated that the famous channels to the Minister did not seem to function. Resignations from the service had increased enormously, and the channels had become useless. In the circumstances, the Minister was urged to take into serious consideration the establishment of a railway grievances commission. I appeal to the Minister to consider whether he should not do that. Let it be a thoroughly independent commission. If he appoints such a commission, he will do a lot to regain the confidence of the railwaymen, which he has lost during the last few years. I see the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) in his seat, and I appeal to him to support us. The Minister may say that this is criticism coming from a back-bencher. But on this side of the House at least we are not muzzled. We may be back-benchers, we may be irresponsible back-benchers, but, unlike some of my friends on the back benches opposite, we are not sycophantic back-scratchers. We are independent. I would give this advice to the back-benchers opposite, advice which came from the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) in a speech in this House on April 3rd, 1923. He then said that one could not continue to mislead all the people all the time, and that the time of misleading the public was past. He further remarked that hon. members were so hard-pressed to defend their hero that they were even sacrificing their honesty and manliness. And he added—

I appeal to hon. members opposite to follow that advice, and to say to the Minister of Railways and Harbours—“Appoint an independent commission to investigate railway grievances, or out you go !”

I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I don’t know what aspect of the speech deserves most attention. It seems to me that we must pay most to that part in which he was so much cheered by members of the Opposition. The speech, however, gave the impression of acting. We, however, expected something different from the hon. member. We expected to hear criticism on railway matters from him. We expected from him as a member of the Railway Select Committee to go properly into the railway policy, into the financial matters of the railways and on the control of the railways. We expected from him, as the representative of Salt River, an important railway constituency, that he would give his views on the finances of the railways, on the interests of the railwaymen, and such matters. On the contrary, from beginning to end he made a jovial and frivolous speech which astonished me, coming from such an educated man as the hon. member for Salt River. A little while ago he questioned my capacity to represent a certain constituency. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he has been a railway worker, and what right he has to represent railway workers. The hon. member apparently has not got the interests of railwaymen at heart, and therefore I am not surprised that he can make such a light-hearted and frivolous speech. I want to confine myself chiefly to railway matters, but I must first take notice of certain charges which have been made against us on this side of the House. The hon. member often used the word “smouse”. He was apparently much affected by it, and he therefore wanted to relieve his own feelings by also trying to give this side of the House a few blows. He admits that his party did certain things for which he disclaimed responsibility, but he adds that we on this side of the House have also been guilty of smousing. He is wrong, because there is a great difference, which I would like to point out to him. The Nationalist party advocated certain things, and made certain promises, but not for the purpose of smousing. Take the important and difficult problems like the freedom and independence of South Africa and the native question. That was the policy of the party, and it has already carried out a large part of these promises. In opposition to this we find that his party makes promises and statements with the object of getting an immediate advantage. I want again to refer to the motion for increasing the wages of railway workers on which that hon. member moved an amendment. Did the responsible members of his party stop here to vote for that motion? No, they disappeared. That we call smousing. When the motion about provincial grants was debated the responsible members of the party were again absent. I do not want to go into the merits of the case. I only want to point out the policy which that party follows, and why we say they are guilty of smousing. Yesterday we had the question of level railway crossings which, of course, are connected with the approaching provincial election. Even the chief organs of the party said that this was an unfavourable time to advocate a thing of that kind. I do not wish to mention any further matters. The hon. member can safely enquire what this party promised to the country, and what we have not already done to consistently carry out those promises. I could not help smiling a little at the despondent way the hon. member spoke of the poor farmers who were dying of starvation, and for whom the South African party had to step into the breach. He speaks of hungry and depressed farmers. Must I remind him of the hundreds and thousands of farmers who were put on relief works by this Government.? Must I remind him of the taxes, such as the tobacco tax, which were imposed on the farmers by his party, and which drove many of them from the land into the town? Ask representatives of districts, like Rustenburg and Oudtshoorn, and he will see how many of them there are. The South African party, which was the protector of the big capitalists in the country, now wants to act as the representative of the farmers. It is a little comic. In connection with the financial position and the so-called depression, I want to remind the hon. member of what men like Mr. Mushet, Mr. Haarburger, and business men in Durban and elsewhere have said. Men who are more competent to speak on such matters than he or I. They think that the depression is more imaginary than real. Now we come to the railway budget. The hon. member emphasises two arguments, viz., about the discharge of certain officials, and the grievances which, according to him, exist in the service. The hon. member for Salt River complains of the discharge of certain officials from the railway service. If what he said here was true it would be a particularly serious matter, viz., that a man entered the railway service with the prospect of getting certain compensations on his discharge, and that the Minister allows that man to be discharged for some trivial cause or other. If it is true the position would really be serious. The hon. member made the statement and mentioned two cases. I will give no names, but the hon. member knows that the individual in Port Elizabeth he refers to was discharged for a breach of discipline. The hon. member also knows that he was properly convicted by a court of a serious breach of discipline, and that only thereafter was he discharged. Before the hon. member made his appearance here the hon. member for Standerton and other hon. members opposite repeatedly accused the Government of the fact that the discipline on the railways under their administration has become very slack, and now the hon. member says the discipline is too strict. Hon. members opposite have every year pointed out that there is such a slackness of discipline on the railways. The hon. member will agree that if the railway administration were to allow slackness of discipline it would be a very serious matter. We all sympathise with the discharged man, but the railway men have too much responsibility for us to permit any serious breach of discipline to take place. As for discharge, there are two classes of railway workers who are periodically discharged. The first class is the people temporarily employed. When the work is finished, the hon. member surely does not expect the administration to keep them all in the service. The hon. member and the country will appreciate that the railway administration is not a charitable organisation, who can go on employing people without work for them. The second class is the people who are discharged for breach of discipline, but however sorry we may feel for them we cannot permit them to bring the service into danger. That is about all the hon. member said. And as for the commission of enquiry into the grievances, I will not go into it, because I expect the Minister, himself, will reply on that point. I just want to call the attention of the House to the fact that with the exception of half an hour there have not been more than eleven members of the Opposition in the House to-night. That shows their interest in the affairs of the railway administration, and undertakings in which the country has invested £150,000,000. If we want to judge our railway system then we must form a definite opinion about the place and object of a railway system in society. If we do not proceed on definite lines we cannot properly criticise. I think the only sound point of view for judging the railway system is that given by C. E. Sherrington in his book “Economics of Rail Transport in Great Britain.” It amounts to this, that we must consider three factors. The first factor he mentions is the question how the public are served by the railway system. The second factor is whether the functions are done effectively and economically, and the third factor is whether the employees get proper payment for their services. The writer considers this as the three sides of an equilateral triangle, viz., the railways, the public and the railway staff. I should also like to criticize railway matters from that point of view. It is very easy for us to act as ’m Bongos of the Minister, or by removing facts from their context try to destroy his whole policy. I want, however, to criticize properly. I should like to point out the services the railways have rendered to the public. I cannot go into details, but just want to mention a few points. The railways have during the past year carried quite 80,000,000 people at a cheap rate. The carriage of goods has increased from 26,000,000 to 27,000,000 tons. Of that coal is responsible for more than 13,000,000, and agricultural produce for 5,000,000 tons. If the public were to see what great services are rendered by the railway system they will better understand the interests of the railways. I want to refer to another important part of the service, viz., the road motor services which render it possible to carry the produce from the farm to the great arteries of traffic. Another service of the railways is to provide by means of elevators, cold storage, and control of export for the better export of our agricultural produce. One of the favourite subjects of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is to refer year after year to the increase of expenditure. But the hon. member, and another hon. member opposite, only mentioned the increased expenditure, and not how it arose. It is therefore our duty to point out to the House what the cause of the increase was. The staff of the railways has been increased since 1924 by 18,130. The additional expenditure involved is £3,301,000: interest on capital has increased by more than £1,347,676. On special objects £440,000 more was spent. The expenditure has, indeed, increased by £8,200,000, but the mileage has increased in the meantime by 1,666 miles of railway, i.e., about 15 per cent. of the whole railway system; the road motor services to-day cover an actual road area of more than 11,000 miles, while provision has been made for a further extension of 1,000 miles. If there is one department where much is done for the small farmer, the poultry farmer, the dairy farmer, then it is by the road motor service which has been much extended of recent years and much used by the country. Although I am a little disappointed at the support of the road motor service in many places and also in a part of my constituency, I feel that as representatives of the countryside we must do everything in our power to encourage the public to use the services. I now want to give a short summary of the increased expenditure since 1924, 183,301,000 in salaries for extra staff; £1,517,000 in additional interest on capital; £1,000,000 in increased maintenance of rolling stock; £450,000 a year in additional expenditure on the permanent way; £477,906 a year on increased expenditure for the renewal fund; £440,000 on increased special appropriation; £500,000 in road motor services, and more or less £250,000 a year on elevators. This makes the total of £7,935,906 a year. When the supporters of the Opposition referred to the great increase in the expenditure of £8,000,000 a year, I think they are very unfair in view of all the amounts I have mentioned. The services for the public have tremendously increased, and I think they are dishonest towards the public— I do not say wilfully—by the representations they have made in connection with the increased expenditure. The great question is whether the railways are being economically run to-day, whether they can be more cheaply run, especially in the interests of greater development of the countryside. After careful consideration, I do not think that the Minister can work more cheaply in any way. On the contrary, the Tariff Commission state in their report that the Minister will probably have to revise the rates if he does not want to have losses. I have here a few important figures. In 1919-’20 the railways carried 60,732,000 passengers, and the amount was £5,350,809, or 27.9 per cent. of the total revenue of the railways. In 1928-’29 81,995,000 passengers were carried with a revenue of £5,546,514 from passenger traffic, or 21.2 per cent. of the total revenue. In 1928-’29 there were 21,262,417 passengers more than in 1919-’20, but the revenue from the passenger traffic only rose by £195,700. Thus everyone will feel that no reduction can be made in passenger tickets. But let us take another aspect of the matter, the goods traffic. I quote from the report, page 13, paragraph 48. There we find that in 1911 the average revenue of the South African Railways from goods, coal and livestock jointly was 1.107d. per ton mile, while for the year ending 31st March, 1929, the corresponding figure was 0.897d., which represents a decrease of 0.210d. per ton mile, which is equivalent to a reduction of 19 per cent. The purchasing power of a £1 is 25 per cent. less than in 1911, so that the existing average revenue per ton mile must be reduced by 25 per cent., viz., from 0.897d. to 0.673d., or a reduction of 39 per cent. in comparison with 1911. The revenue per ton mile of the South African Railways compares still more favourably with a number of countries overseas. We find in other countries, during the same period there was a tremendous increase. In France there was 204 per cent., Holland 138 per cent., South Australia 75.5 per cent., India 55.1 per cent., U.S.A. 48.9 per cent., Canada 38.6 per cent., Switzerland 35.6 per cent., Germany 37.9 per cent., Great Britain 22.4 per cent., while there was a reduction in South Africa of about 39 per cent. in comparison with 1911. Another comparison brings us practically to the same result. Here possibly factors come in which cannot be compared in every respect, but any how it appears once more that the figures show approximately the same relation. I am now speaking of the revenue per ton mile. In Canada it was 0.515d., in Belgium 0.80d., in South Africa 0.897d., but in all the following countries it is less favourable: Germany 0.945d., United Kingdom 1.42d., South Australia 1.615d., Holland 1.62d., Switzerland 1.79d., France 1.978d., and Brazil 5.865d. If the other side say that our rates are frightfully high then we cannot give them any better comparisons than these. From them it appears that we ought to boast about our railway policy, and there is another respect that the railway policy should be praised, and that is with regard to the transport of produce from the countryside. It is done so cheaply that it would be quite impossible if the railways did not have a large volume of other traffic. While the average cost per ton mile in South Africa is 0.897d. it is in respect of agricultural produce slightly over 0.4d., therefore the rate for agricultural produce is about half of the average on our railways. In this connection, however, I should like to know what the policy of the South African party is. At the Bloemfontein congress of the party at the commencement of last year a whole series of resolutions were passed, inter alia, the following—

What does this mean? I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has already spoken, because he is the only man from whom we could expect an honest reply to the question. Not that the other hon. members are dishonest—I do not want to say that—but they will not take the trouble to go into this. Now I ask what the grievance of the South African party is? In what respect ought the railway policy to be altered? In what respect would they alter it if they came into power? In what respect can it be altered? How can the rates be revised? I say that there is only one way, and it is—and the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) has tabled a motion in this direction—to reduce the rates to Johannesburg and other towns in the interior whereby the rates on agricultural produce will, of course, be increased. The rates commission has just referred to this. Agricultural produce forms the major portion of the traffic, but on that proportionately very little comes in. If the agricultural produce rate, however, is increased, their cost of production will increase, but to the producer production will in many respects get a set-back if not be ruined. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) spoke very carefully. I state after thorough investigation that the railways of our country are as economically run as in any other country in the world. I should just like to know if it is not premature what measures the Minister is going to take to protect the railways against unfair competition. I should also like to know what his attitude is about the revision of rates. We all realize the importance of these questions. I have now dealt with two factors of the triangle, viz., the public and the railways themselves. I now come to the third factor, the staff. Before I go further I first want to ask whether the adjournment of the debate will be accepted. I move the adjournment.

On the motion of Dr. Stals, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.