At the adjournment I was discussing the three factors to be borne in mind in judging our railway system. I tried to explain that we ought to regard the system as a triangle of which the public interest, the railway interest, and the staff formed the three sides. I have already disposed of the first two factors, and I would now like to express a few thoughts about the staff employed in this Government service. Everyone will appreciate that where 100,000 persons are employed there are about 400,000 people dependent on those 100,000. We will appreciate that these 100,000 not only render a great service to the country, but that they are also entitled to claim consideration. They perform an important service for society, and it is therefore necessary for the successful working of our railways that the public should properly appreciate the work those men do. It is, as a matter of fact, one of the defects in the existing system that there is so little touch between the public and the staff, and consequently so little appreciation of the services they have rendered. The public do not sufficiently appreciate the work of the staff, and the staff do not always sufficiently appreciate what the interests and the difficulties of the public are. If there could be a larger amount of mutual appreciation there would be fewer complaints, and we should have to listen less in this House to the statement that there is seething discontent among the railway staff. We must also remember that between £15,000,000 and £16,000,000 is paid in salaries and wages, and that amount circulates in the country, of course to the great benefit of the country as a whole. I would like to say that hon. members take every opportunity of stating that the railway workers are dissatisfied in such a way as to encourage that dissatisfaction. I admit that there is some dissatisfaction, and I will say a few words about it in a moment. But if the people who refer to it had the courage to point out to the staff their duty to the public, then I am convinced that there would be much less dissatisfaction. I should like to point out to the staff that the working conditions of the railway staff compare favourably with those overseas, and particularly favourably with the conditions in other fields of employment in our own country. The service conditions of the railway staff are considerably better than those of officials in the public service. I mention this point because I think that it is not enough appreciated. It is not necessary for me to refer to what has already been done in connection with the reorganization of the working hours. I think that 67 per cent. of the staff already have the eight hours day. Nor do I want to refer to the fairly large salaries paid to a great section of the staff. I realize that there is a certain section of the staff who would like to have higher wages and we, as a House, would like to give it to that section if it were at all necessary. In that connection there has already been a motion before the House, and I may not, therefore, deal with the matter again. I, however, want to refer to another side of it, and that is the particularly favourable pension conditions which are granted by the railway administration and which have been considerably improved during the last few years, so that the railway workers get particularly favourable conditions when they have to retire. I do not think this is sufficiently appreciated. Nor do I want to enlarge now on the excellent medical services supplied to the railwaymen. I will read a quotation later about that from the report of the Auditor-General. I want, however, to say here what the railways have done for the training of the less educated section of the staff, although they were not obliged to do so. Special classes were started for those people, and, as a result of the action of the railways, the provinces also are giving more attention to the matter. It is not enough valued that the railways have gone out of their way to do something they were not obliged to do. I should like the staff to realize this. Before I go further I want to refer to an article by the Auditor-General under the heading “the widening of the breach.” In this article he shows that the distinction, or breach, between the service conditions of the railway staff, and the public service officials, is constantly becoming more and more in favour of the railway staff. I do not want to deal with the whole article here, and therefore I only select a few points from it. It would be a good thing if the railway staff got into closer touch with what the Auditor-General has to say about this matter. In the first place he refers to the question of grading, and it appears that there are grades in the railway service where the maxima of are higher than in the corresponding grades in the public service. He mentions three instances of this. Secondly, he points out the privileges with regard to the leave that the railway staff have, e.g., of accumulating leave which the public servants cannot do. Thirdly, he refers to travelling facilities and expresses the view that the railway staff, both during their time of service as well as thereafter have better facilities than the public servant. The fourth is provision in time of sickness. I here quote from the Auditor-General’s report—

Then he goes further—

In the fifth place he refers to the benefits of local allowances. I think the railwaymen compare particularly favourably with people in the public service. It was a pleasure to me a week or two ago to read a letter in one of our dailies in which a railwayman expressed his views about the whining of some members about dissatisfaction in the service. He writes that the people in the railway service are in a very favourable position compared with public servants and people in private employ. He says that it is a fact that some of their acquaintances in private employ possibly rise more quickly, but they must not forget the 99 per cent. in businesses who have no chance of ever earning more than £25, while some in the public service also rise very quickly and high. He says that if they are honest they must admit that they have fixed employment and are privileged. I quoted this because the man in the service points out that there are many employees who are satisfied, and that there are many reasons for satisfaction. Yet there undoubtedly is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the service, and I would like to tell the Minister of a few possible causes for it. I am convinced that a great deal of dissatisfaction is due to the way of promoting subordinate officials to the higher posts. Like him, I appreciate that where we have to do with a large service of 100,000 people a stage comes when promotion is very slow. I think he used the simile of a bottle; at the bottom of the bottle there is room, but when you reach the neck of it the space gets narrower and it is not possible for much to go through, there is considerable delay. We all appreciate that. I do not know whether the railway staff realize it, but we know that in the higher appointment promotion cannot be so rapid. I think, however, there are other causes which ought to be thoroughly investigated. Some members of the staff have the idea that in the promotion there is a certain amount of caprice or favouritism shown. I do not say that the suspicion is well founded, but it is worth looking into. We receive reports from time to time, and in conversations—I do not say that railway officials split—the view is expressed that preference is given, that in the case of two officials who both have a clean record, the younger is preferred in promotion and the other with longer service is left, and this only as a consequence of an unexplained preference. The suspicion exists that in some cases the superior officers exhibit partiality in favour of the one to the detriment of the other, and this gives great dissatisfaction. I should like to be convinced that there is no caprice or preference, and therefore I think that it is desirable to enquire whether there is any ground for the allegations.

Are you opposed to capacity being preferred to length of service?

My objection is not to capacity counting more than seniority, but my objection is that it is very often said that partiality is shown. I do not say that the Minister is responsible for it, but I should like a watchful eye to be kept on it. Some scales of salaries overlap each other, and dissatisfaction is also found in this respect. I understand that the Minister cannot meet every little complaint, but I just want to point out that the overlapping of salaries is just the result of an honest attempt by the Minister and the administration to promote men, and to give them a chance of rising in the service. I want to specially refer to the provision made two years ago to give the men in grade 3 a chance of promotion to the new grade 3 (a). This is coupled with an increase of salary, and dissatisfaction is now caused by the salary in some cases being higher than that of station-masters. The concession to one section causes dissatisfaction in another. I think that there is another cause, and it is in connection with housing. I think there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction because the staff do not realize what has already been done by the administration in building houses. I just want to mention what has been done since 1924—

I quote the figures to draw the attention of the staff in the country districts to the fact that the administration has not neglected its duty in the past of providing housing for the staff. The need for housing exists at various places, and the Minister has pointed out that the duty to provide housing also rests on the local bodies. I agree that the local bodies must share responsibility, but as they neglect their duty I want to suggest to the Minister whether it is not possible to make more provision for housing the railway servants. As I have now dealt with the three factors I want to discuss our policy just a little. The Minister has mentioned the possibility of extending our grain elevator system. I believe this to be a matter of so great importance that I want to express my opinion on it, and if hon. members differ from me I hope they will say so. There is, in fact, no one who objects to the tendency of the administration to push and encourage farming by means of better facilities. I also agree with the majority of hon. members that agriculture will continue for generations and for ever to be the backbone of our country, but as a prospect is now held forth of the grain elevator system being extended I want to draw the Minister’s attention to two aspects of the matter. The first is the financial side of the matter; we have, e.g., already spent millions on elevators, but they have never yet paid economically. I will admit that there are reasons for this, but the fact remains that the system does not pay. During the past year the administration has lost about £288,000 on them in all. As the railway administration is therefore placed in this position by the annual loss and it is proposed to extend the system, it is only reasonable to point out that this system only assists two sections of the farming population, viz., the grain and the maize farmers. With all the respect we have for the perseverance of that section of the farming industry we still want to point out that the other sections of the population also have a right to certain facilities. We must decide how far sheep farming and other branches are entitled to assistance. They experience just as many difficulties as other farmers, and when, e.g., the sheep farmers have a good year then the prices drop, while in other years they suffer loss through drought. In this connection I would like to read the recommendation which was made by the Drought Commission. [Extracts read.] My object in this connection is to bring it to the notice of the Government, and to point out the needs of the sheep farmers, who must get better storage for their product if they want to improve their market. I think that the demand of the sheep farmer for more cold storage can just as justly be represented as the demand of the grain farmer for the extension of the elevator system. I do not say that it can be expected of the Minister of Railways alone that he should assist the farmers, but as a section of the farmers receives special attention, I should like anyhow to draw attention to the fact that other sections also have a right to facilities. Then there are a few other questions I want to discuss. The first is the economic condition of our railways about which hon. members are so concerned. Hon. members opposite first condemn the Minister of Finance and then the Minister of Railways for being too optimistic, but I just want to point out that we have a large state undertaking here which has rendered many services gratis. I do not want to go into details, hon. members can find them in chapter 10 of the report of the Rates Commission. I only want to bring them to the notice of the Minister, and ask the question of him whether the time has not come for the rendering of free services by one department of the state ought not to be stopped. I am not prepared to suggest what ought to be done, but the time has come that an enquiry into that question ought to be made, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to it. The third point I want to deal with refers to the use of locomotives on our railways. We, who are privileged to be better acquainted with the working of our railways, know what a large number of different types of locomotives are used. The question is whether our experience has not now gone far enough to enable us to choose certain types which best answer to the particular need of our railways, and whether it is not advisable to order engines of that particular type in future, by which the costs can be reduced. I am glad to hear that the specifications of locomotives are now drawn in South Africa, but I think it is desirable for us to have more uniformity in our locomotives. A matter that often comes to my notice is that disappointment exists among the users of the railway system. They are dissatisfied that at times so much delay takes place before goods which are sent from one place reach their destination. I do not want to mention names, but I know of two cases where it was very convenient for people to make use of motor transport. They are, however, supporters of the railways, and made use of the railway. The delay in connection with the transport was, however, so great that the goods arrived after the psychological moment. I do not accuse the Railway Administration of undue delay, but yet I want to say that the service should be as quick as possible, and with as little delay as possible. I would like to refer to the supply of electrical power by the Electricity Commission, but I think I have already occupied enough time. I try, to the best of my ability, to take a general view of the administration of our railways, and my honest conviction is that our railways are in as favourable a position as we are entitled to expect in the circumstances. When we remember the policy of the Minister to restrict as much as possible the use of non-interest bearing capital, and the sound policy which is followed, then this House may be satisfied that things are quite right with our railways. As an ordinary citizen of the country I also want to express my thanks for the way in which our railways are run in the interests of the country.

We have now been listening for three days to the budget debate, and more particularly to the defence of the policy of the Government by hon. members opposite. I think that anyone who has impartially regarded what has been going on here have come to the conclusion that the whole defence amounted to this that hon. members opposite mentioned the sins of the S.A. party, which we have been hearing for the last fourteen years, and that there has, further, been a systematic suppressing of the acts of the Government, which, as people might expect, would be defended by them. A third point which struck me was how easy it is for hon. members opposite to change their policy according to circumstances, and as the catching of votes required. Let me point out a few instances. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) in order to defend his Government made a tremendous attack on the S.A. party which ceased to govern six years ago.

Did you cease to exist?

Yes, and you also, one of these days, will have to admit that you have ceased to exist as a Government. The attack was made in connection with a certain road which was built in the district of Waterberg by the provincial administration in the time when the S.A. party was in office. His great grievance was that the then government had the road constructed at too great a cost, because it was its policy to put white people on relief work, as happened there, instead of putting the people on their feet permanently. I want to point out to the hon. member that only a few months ago, therefore under the control of the present Government, another road was built in those parts at great expense, and also as a relief work for white people in that neighbourhood. Now take another argument. The hon. member has, with great trouble, collected a long series of figures to prove that this Government is par excellence a government that has reduced taxation, while the S.A.P. Government did nothing else but tax the people. After all he only told us that the present Government had in six years reduced taxation by an amount of £2,300,000. He again fails to mention the figures that the receipts from sources of taxation under the regime of this Government have gone up from £16,000,000 to £21,000,000. Therefore, if that £2,300,000 had not been taken off, then under the present Government there would have been £7,000,000 more got from the people in the form of taxes than when the present Government came into office, with a so-called programme of retrenchment and reduction of taxation.

What additional taxation has been imposed?

Yes, when they talk in this House then it is about taxation on motors and petrol. In practice we find, however, that it is a tax on ready-made clothes. One of the most striking defences of the Government is the one in connection with the appointment of plenipotentiary ministers overseas. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has pointed out the great expenditure connected with external affairs. Hon. members opposite want to defend the Government against the charge, and their defence is that the South African party do not acknowledge our higher status, and that the Government is, therefore, justified to incur any expense to advertise the higher status of South Africa abroad. In the first place, the fact is that the South African party already acknowledge the higher status of South Africa while hon. members opposite were still busy with their propaganda for separation from the British empire, but the difference is that the South African party never used the higher status of our country as a machine for putting burdens on the public. A few months ago the appointment of ambassadors was justified by speakers opposite on the grounds that they are being sent abroad to go and look for markets for the agricultural population. Has a single hon. member justified the appointments on that ground now? Now there is no longer any talk of markets. They are presumably convinced that the attempt to find markets has been a total failure. But now the appointments are defended on the grounds that our higher status must be advertised. I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that it will be very hard for them to lead the people any longer along that road. They are getting tired, and see that the promises of the past are not being fulfilled. Now all kinds of defences are raised which have no solid foundation. Notwithstanding all these defences, it remains a fact that the budget which we now have before the House, and the speech which the Minister of Finance made, and the speeches which followed him, will be of considerable benefit to the Union. It will be beneficial because this is the first time that the Government have been obliged to practise what they were elected for, and what they recommended with such keenness to the people, viz., economy. The Government is compelled to economize. The Government are always recommending it to the people, but do not themselves practise it, but now they will also have to practise what they preach. The second benefit, and it will perhaps be the best, will be that the people of this country will learn that the statement during the past six years that the Minister of Finance can make surpluses is fictitious, and that it is impossible for him to do such a thing unless the circumstances of the country permit it. I want, however, more particularly to say something about the condition of the agricultural population of the Transvaal. Let us examine the position as it was nine months ago. The people were then told by members on the Government side: “Look at the flourishing condition the country is in; you are all indebted for this to the Government, to no one else. Look, how it is a Government, who in the prosperous condition in which you are, are still prepared to give a rebate of taxation.” It is carefully added that if the Government does not come into office again the rebate in taxation will not be made permanent. Nine months later we have the opposite state of affairs, and the Government and all hon. members opposite acknowledge that South Africa is to-day in a state of almost unheard-of financial depression.

What is that due to?

To a weak Government, in my opinion. There was a time when the Government even made rain. What is the position, however, to-day? We are glad to see from the speech of the Minister of Finance that the wheat farmers, and fruit farmers, in the Western Province will, to a certain extent, be assisted and given help, but what is the position up there in the north, where the farmers are not able to sell their sheep, neither any animal, nor wool, nor other produce. They can find no market, and all we hear is that the 20 per cent. rebate on income tax, which was promised to the people as a permanent rebate, has been removed.

It was not promised permanently. You are now talking about the rich people.

Hon. members now say that it was not promised permanently, but it seems to me that they differ a little from each other. There were many of them who promised it. Besides the increase in taxation, mention is further made of the increase in the cost of living by higher customs duties. The customs duties will be increased on articles without which the poor people cannot do.

On flour?

The hon. member must not show his ignorance like that. The only comfort they have was mentioned by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) that we had better be satisfied in South Africa, because other countries paid still more taxes than we did. It seems to me that the policy of “South Africa first” has disappeared without leaving any traces since the depression, and since the deficit in the country’s finances.

Where is the deficit?

The £435,000 which had to be found during the year by economy. Hon. members may laugh, but they will discover next year that it has not been found, and that taxation must be imposed to find it. This is the Government which was to make our people happy and prosperous. I come from a constituency where the people are also asking for assistance. Now the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) says that if there is one section of the population that has no ground for complaint it is the farmers, inasmuch as the farmers have done so much for the farmers. We also know something about it. We know, e.g., about the sheep dipping which ended in the Indemnity Act. The tobacco farmers are left with their sheds full of tobacco, but without money. The cattle farmers are still waiting for the importation of cattle from Rhodesia to be stopped. What is being done to assist those people up there? They come and ask to be assisted over their difficulties. There is no market for wool, and none for maize. What are the farmers to do? I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is now having a meeting here of the Wood Board. I want to ask him to make use of this opportunity to state clearly for the benefit of the sheep farmers in South Africa what steps the Government are going to take to assist the farming population in our area over the depression before they are all ruined. The maize farmers cannot find any market either.

The German treaty !

Very likely. The only hope that is now held out to the people is that they have less maize this year in the Argentine, and that that will possibly give us a chance. Let the Government consider the figures. The Minister of Finance, himself, said that the sheep farmers received £2,300,000 less than the previous year, which is, therefore, not in circulation amongst them; with the maize farmers there is £1,800,000 less in circulation, and we can understand what this means to that section of the population to receive so much less and yet to fulfil all their obligations and to be still more heavily taxed. Then there is yet another thing I want to draw the attention of the Minister to. In the Transvaal, and I think also in the Free State, we have many potato farmers, but do hon. members know what their position is? I know that there are cases, I have seen them myself, where a man got £89 for 700 bags of potatoes. Another received a cheque for £67 for 600 bags, and that is the general price. We are entitled to ask the Government to assist us. They wish the Government to temporarily grant a reduction in the railway rates. We get 4s. 6d. to 6s. a bag for the potatoes we send from Bethal to Cape Town, and we have to pay 2s. 9d. railway charges on them. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) and another hon. member yesterday, and the day before, particularly emphasized the fact that the Railway Administration was in the fortunate position of having a nest egg of £500,000 to cover the deficit. That money has also been brought up by these people, and I ask the Minister now to assist them. If we get 4s. 6d. for a bag of potatoes, we, who possess nothing, have to pay 2s. 9d. to the Railway Administration for carriage to Cape Town. I ask the Minister with all respect to favourably consider the written request which was handed to the Government in writing, and to try to assist that section who are in such a pass that they do not know how to get out of the difficulty. I also want to say something more in connection with the poor white question. The people of the country have the right to regard the Prime Minister as the father of the country, because he is the highest authority. Is he aware that in parts of the Transvaal there is at present actually great distress, and that the people there do not know how to get food or clothing? Is it not a fact also that promises were made to those people during the election, and have they not the right of relying on them? I have before me here the programme of the Nationalist party in 1924, and one of the obligations which was incurred was to bring the poor white back to the countryside.

That is why they re-elected us in 1929.

No, you only got in again in 1929, because you said that you had not yet had the time to do so. When this question is debated the defence is put up as was done by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood), who thought he was at Vereeniging yesterday, and, consequently, made an election speech, that this Government had done more than any other Government to solve the poor white question. In support of that they say that this Government has put 13,000 poor whites on the railways. When we consider that the promise was to take the poor white back to the land, and we find to-day that they are being taken away from the countryside to the towns, then we can ask the question to which the poor whites in the country will know the answer as well. We acknowledge that the Government has temporarily given them a precarious living, but what they are anxious to know is what will happen when they have worn themselves out in the service of the Administration, and they are no longer able to do the work and can no longer make roads?

We will not shoot them.

There are many other ways of killing people. I want to point out to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) that it is much worse to allow a man to die of hunger than to shoot him. Their position is that they are poor and remain poor. They are not raised out of their poor white state. Our increased expenditure is not covered by taxation on the importation of luxuries like motor-cars, but by increasing taxation on goods that those people need. The people feel this, and would like to know how that can be defended, and how it can be reconciled with their promises in the past. The Minister of Railways has adopted a manner of bringing us young members on the back benches under a new organization, viz., the “irresponsibles.” Now I would like to ask him this question: Will he deny that in 1924 the present Government was elected by virtue of an undertaking that the railway workers would get better pay, and that the eight hours day would be introduced? Hon. members remain quiet, no one will admit or deny it.

Have you once more got hold of an electioneering pamphlet?

I thought that the hon. member for Christiana would learn better manners here. He is apparently the same as he is in the Transvaal. If the Government is not able to deny this quotation of mine, have we not the right then to ask it to fulfil its promises? I want to put another question. We have heard another word, viz., “smousing.” I want to ask the Minister whether the promises which were made in writing were not pure smousing, and whether he actually intended to fulfil those promises? I think that it was nothing but smousing; that it was only intended to bring the present Government into office, and that there was not the least shred of intention of ever fulfilling them. Take the position of the poor whites on the railways; the Minister can mention all the benefits and emoluments that those people get, but the fact remains that at the end of the month they only get £5 9s. cash, and nothing more. That is their position, and that is the fulfilment of the promises which were made to them. Here there is another election programme before me. We hear every day now that it is not wrong to increase the cost of living. Here I have before me, however, an election programme of the Nationalist party in the year 1924, when the Minister of Railways and Harbours was still secretary. One of the great grievances mentioned in that programme was the wasting of money by the South African party, money that was obtained by taxing the public indirectly. The pamphlet gives the figure that in the year 1911-’12 the receipts from customs duties were £4,800,000. In the year 1922-’23 they were £5,761,000. The great grievance then was that the customs duties had gone up by a million, and it was said that this indirect taxation would ruin the public. The same election programme makes a great point of the general taxation of the people having reached the amount of £17,000,000. Now, however, we find that under the present Government the customs duties have risen to £10,000,000 and the general taxation to £21,000,000. Now, however, it is not a grievance, because it is said that the Government was put here by the people, and that the people must, therefore, swallow everything the Government does. What the poor people want to know is why all those things have been taxed which they cannot do without. Let me refer to a few points in connection with the poor white on the railways. The Minister told us that that service was not a temporary one, but that it was permanent. That is his fixed policy, and I do not want to quarrel with him about it. But he will surely admit that one of the first requisites of that policy must be for the people to be satisfied, and can the Minister now say he is convinced that that general satisfaction does exist in that section of the railway service? I asked the Minister a question a few days ago about the information I had received that people who had not passed standard VI had to leave the service. He told me that he knew nothing about it. My information is not only to that effect, but also that people who have not passed standard VI will not be engaged in the future. I could understand this, and I have no fault to find with it if the Minister did not want to appoint people on his clerical and administrative staff who had not passed that standard, but what I cannot understand is why a person who is working on the roads cannot progress if he does not possess the standard VI certificate? The requirements surely are that he must be able to make a road, and if he can do so, then his advance must not be barred by the absence of standard VI certificate. Another point is why should there be dissatisfaction among the people about such a trifle? The Minister gives free housing to the people, but as soon as the worker goes on leave without pay he has to pay for his house. I hope the Government in office who were given the confidence of the people, and have to live up to it in order to retain it, will not, in the usual way, brush on one side the few points which J have respectfully brought to the notice of the House, but that they will receive the Minister’s attention. I hope that this section of the population, for whose interests I have pleaded, will receive the usual concessions. I hope that they will be given assistance to get rid of these difficulties and grievances.

I do not wish to attack my old friend the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) very hard. I will leave that to other members who have been in close touch with him recently. I said before that I deplored that my old friend had so little respect for political truth. I thought that in this respect he would have altered, but it looks as if he is just the same as before. Is the hon. member then such a complete stranger in Jerusalem that he does not know why we have appointed representatives abroad? He talks here about people who are in want of bread. Was there not the same hunger under the previous Government? What was the position of the country when the previous Government resigned? Did we not find thousands of unemployed, and was it not the duty of this Government to find a livelihood for thousands of unemployed? The present Government found work for them, and thousands have been saved from the miserable position to which the previous Government had brought them. The hon. member spoke about the independence question. What caused the Nationalist party to put Clause 4 in their constitution? Just the fact that the Saps would not acknowledge our independence. The Prime Minister has said since 1910 that we must be absolutely independent and could be, but hon. members on the other side were preventing it even up to to-day, and the hon. member has again not allowed the opportunity to slip to make an attack on the appointment of our ambassadors in various parts of the world. I do not want to go into it any further, but the hon. member spoke about the 20 per cent. rebate. I do not blame him because he was not in the House, otherwise he would have known that the Minister of Finance said year after year that it was not a permanent rebate. This year he was compelled to put it back again; I was at the time opposed to it being taken off, but in any case we are all glad that it was off for those years. Hon. members have already complained that the attack of the Opposition is so weak, they are unfair. How can a strong attack be expected when one has no foundation under one’s feet? On the other side they have no foundation, only loose sand which constantly disappears. I do not want to criticize the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) too much in view of his unfortunate condition which prevents him getting the right impression, but the hon. member has attacked the white labour policy on the railways. I want to ask him what is to become of the people who are working there now?

On the land.

The Government puts as many on the land as possible. Since it came into power it has put many people on the land, and the Minister of Lands has passed a Land Settlement Act which is the best in the world. If the South African party had passed it 15 or 16 years ago when ground was cheap, thousands, and tens of thousands of poor people who are to-day poor whites would have been land owners. Now, however, the land is expensive, and the Minister cannot provide sufficient funds for the purpose.

Land is cheap.

It is much more expensive than about thirteen years ago, and the Minister cannot find enough funds to buy land. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) must not be blamed too much because he cannot see himself and can only depend on what other people say, and he has probably only listened to the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). That hon. member was, I must say, much more careful this year than previous years. He did not speak so loosely, and did not get away from the point as in former years. Nevertheless, he said so many inaccurate things that I fear that if the Minister had answered, his ears would again have got as red as an angry turkey. The hon. member for Sea Point said, e.g., that the railway board costs £16,000. I do not know whether the hon. member intentionally, or accidentally, read the wrong line, because according to the official statement on the estimates the amount is £13,653. I do not want to accuse the hon. member of doing it intentionally; it is possible that he read it wrongly, and took the wrong line. Then the hon. member spoke about retrenchment on the railways. We agree with him. But as has already been shown repeatedly, the more responsible members opposite advocate economy, but the members behind them advocate all kinds of proposals which will cost a lot of money. The execution of two proposals in connection with railways made by the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) would only cost £1,500,000. I just want to point out the difference between the responsible members opposite and the other hon. members. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) particularly directed his attack against the two Labour Ministers, and he said that as a result of the provincial elections in the Transvaal they had no right to continue as Ministers inasmuch as at the provincial election no member of their party had been elected. It is partly to be deplored that they fared so badly, but let me tell the hon. member that it is not necessary for him to worry himself about the Labour party members of the Government. They have just as much right to remain as last year, before the renewing of the Pact. The provincial elections have nothing to do with the general election of 1929. There was not co-operation at the provincial election, and if in future it is desirable once more we shall enter into another pact in order to keep them on the other side out. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has talked for the last five years about “jobs for pals”, If my past were so bad as that of the Sap Government then I would not dare to say a single word. What did the Opposition do when it was in power? If an official merely joined the Nationalist party he was dismissed, or so many questions were asked in this House and it was made so warm for him that he had to resign. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) shakes his head. What about Col. Grimbeek of Potchefstroom, when he joined the Nationalist party, the question was then asked whether such a person could still be trusted. What about Comdt. de Haas at Volksrust, when he went over he was compelled to resign.

What about Ramsbottom?

The Saps went to such lengths that if it was found that a bank manager had joined the Nationalist party they reported the matter to the general manager. Fortunately the general manager had more commonsense and notified that he had nothing to do with the political convictions of his people. He stated that they were entitled to have their own views on the matter. Now the hon. member has made charges against Mr. van Zyl Ham, who was magistrate of Wakkerstroom in 1924; he made the charge that Mr. van Zyl Ham at that time acted dishonestly as magistrate, and abused his powers; this means nothing less than that Mr. van Zyl Ham abused his powers in order to work for the Nationalist party, but now I want to tell the hon. member something which he possibly does not yet know, viz., that the South African party at the by-election in 1924 urged Mr. van Zyl Ham to become the South African party candidate at the election; he refused, and as far as I know, he even voted for the South African party at the by-election, but at the subsequent general election he voted for the Nationalist party. His action was, however, so impartial that we could not find out where he stood. The Minister of Railways is often blamed because the trains are dirty. I do not know whether I have always been lucky, but I have never yet travelled in a dirty train. I must admit that there are sometimes passengers who would do better in a pigstye than in a train, but it is impossible for the staff always to run after those people. What, however, does happen is that a train that arrives at a station is first cleaned before other people board it again. We might almost think that it is impossible that a person from such a university as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) still goes about the country talking nonsense.

They do say that great learning leads to lunacy.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also said in the Transvaal that the German treaty was partly the cause of the depression, and of our getting such low prices for our wool and other products. I did not think that the Pact Government was so powerful that if they did anything in South Africa that it influenced the whole world, and to start with the greatest city in the world—New York. There it commenced with something which has nothing to do with wool, viz., the share market, and after the share market collapsed it quickly extended from New York to the continent of Europe, and throughout the whole world. But if it were true that the German treaty injured our wool trade then we ought to expect that the Australian wool producer would have had the benefit of the German treaty. We find, however, that Australia is suffering just as much in the depression as South Africa, and possibly even more. In connection with this I want to refer the hon. member to what the Farmers’ Advocate, which is published in Bloemfontein, say about what is happening in Australia, viz.—

This means to say, however, that unfortunately that good wool which fetches such a good price in Australia is not being bought in Bradford, but by other countries, like America, Japan and Russia, just as our best wool does not go to Bradford, but to France, Germany and other countries. The inferior wool is bought by the Bradford buyers. I want to leave it there, because I think I have clearly shown that the German treaty has nothing to do with the drop in the price of our wool. It is a depression throughout the whole world, and yet the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) goes round and says, just as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said the other day, that the German treaty was partly responsible for our poor prices. The Government is often accused of not having carried out the programme of economy. When we consider everything, such as old age pensions, more subsidies Tor the provincial councils, the payments into the sinking fund, and all the other contributions that I do not want to mention, because it has already been done by other members, it is clear that the Government has economized very thoroughly. Anybody with sound sense will see that the expenditure increases as the business extends, and if we deduct the amounts for those expenses that I have mentioned, and which amount to about £7,000,000, then we see that the Government have actually done what they promised, viz., to retrench. Then there is another point. I do not want to go too deeply into it because I understand that the provincial councils are considering it. What I mean is the tax on petrol instead of motors. It is a thing which I have advocated for the last ten years, viz., that the provincial councils should have the right to levy a tax on petrol instead of on motor cars, then everyone would pay in proportion to his use of the roads. Is it right that a man on a farm who possibly uses his car once or twice a week, and even the man in the town who uses his motor car infrequently, should pay the same as the man who drives about the whole day? If there was a tax of 3d. a gallon then the revenue from the tax would be £875,000. If the provincial councils get the right of taxing all petrol that is imported into their provinces, then they would receive more than they spend on the construction and maintenance of their roads. I am sorry to touch on a different point again, but it is always being thrown into our face, viz., the appointment of Gen. Manie Maritz. I say that I am sorry to have to discuss it again, because we do not want to touch on it, and we would rather forget such matters, but if hon. members opposite bring it up we are obliged to reply. The other day the matter was again mentioned here by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) in a question he asked about Gen. Maritz. They were annoyed with Gen. Maritz because he was a rebel. According to history rebels were always condemned if they were not rebels on behalf of England. In that case they demand glory. The Opposition is also tremendously annoyed about the word “smouse”. That word is used to strike root and it will never die; it will always be remembered in South Africa because it is so very appropriate to the South African party. It will be remembered in our history to distant generations to show them what the attitude and standpoint was of their distant ancestors, the South African party. We had another instance here last night of political smousing. The other day we had the examples of the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) with the amendment to it of the hon. member for Salt River, and also the notice of motion by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) I must admit that the hon. member for Ermelo was honest in his motion; he introduced it in view of the provincial election, but now that the Transvaal elections are over he immediately moved it down on the order paper because a debate is apparently no longer considered necessary. I am glad that the Minister of the Interior is here because I want to say something affecting his department. Last year Mr. Ballinger came to Volksrust, and I have already been accused of being the cause of why he was not able to address a meeting. I was seated in the meeting, and, while Mr. Ballinger was waiting, I suggested to the chairman that he ought first to take the feelings of the meeting whether they wanted to hear Mr. Ballinger. It is not only I who wanted to hear this, but all those present, Nationalists as well as Saps. An English-speaking farmer said to me that one of us might just as well go to Egypt to advise them there as to how they ought to treat their labourers. At that meeting, and at other meetings, resolutions were passed to ask the Minister of the Interior to deport Mr. Ballinger. I can assure the Minister that our people are civilized and moderate, but that feeling commenced to run high, and if we allow things to go on then we may subsequently have a lynch law here as they have in America, and not so much against the natives as against the Europeans who stir up the natives. If the Minister does not take steps to deport Ballinger then the position may subsequently arise that we can do nothing. I hear that he is here under a permit. Well, I think that the permit must be cancelled, because there are enough mischief-makers in the country. There is only one thing left that I will refer to. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) held himself out here as the champion of the farmers, and of the poorer farmers on the countryside, that is smousing, but his efforts are in vain if he thinks that he will catch the votes of the people. The hon. member hesitated when he delivered that part of his speech. He was apparently not at his ease. I see that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is not in the House. I want to say something here, but I do not know if he is the person concerned. I am told from a reliable source that a certain Joel Krige during the recent election at Caledon said to the coloured people that the old age pension was not money given by the Government to the old people, but that it was their money. Money that the Government still had left from the time of the slaves, and that it was now being paid out to them. I do not know whether that person and the hon. member are identical. If the Minister of Railways gets to the length of building railway crossings, subways or otherwise, then I hope that he will not forget Volksrust. Of course there will be conditions, and I hope the Minister will stick to his conditions. There I agree with him.

The Minister of Mines and Industries the other day accidentally wandered into the regions of truth and disclosed facts which otherwise would never have seen the light of day. The Minister of Mines admitted what we as a party have always contended, namely, that the Government is a Government of pretentions and not of intentions. We have always said that the Government was one of pretentions, so the Minister of Mines blundered into the truth. The Government started as a national party, pretending that they were in favour of a two-stream policy, but they never intended to give effect to it. They pretended that they would remain in the commonwealth of British nations, they pretended they were republicans, but they never intended to give effect to it. The Government pretend to make regulations, but they never intend to keep them. The Government pretended to enforce the colour bar on the Rand, but they never intended to carry out the regulations. The Government appoint commissions, but they never intend to give effect to any of the recommendations of the commission. I will not enumerate these. I can give numerous instances where the recommendations of commissions were not given effect to; they did not give effect to the Level Crossings Commission and others. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance pretend to preach economy to the country, but do they practise it and do they intend to give effect to it? The Prime Minister told the country, and farmers in particular, not to buy motor-cars when he saw there was a depression coming, yet he as head of the state bought a car to the extent of £1,050 according to the auditor-general’s report. Is that economy? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance caused a bureau of entertainments to be put up, and a director of entertainments appointed. The sum spent on entertainment here and abroad amounts to £5,404. I suppose this director is put up to keep a watchful eye on this growing expenditure. Dr. Frobenius must have been aware of this entertaining propensity on the part of the Union of South Africa. We find the Prime Minister entertained him lavishly at the state’s expense. The only thing we would like to know is whether Dr. Frobenius made his overtures before they commenced the meal, or whether the Prime Minister was moved to generosity after the sumptuous repast? We know that afterwards he was offered £5,000— the pretentious Prime Minister cannot act otherwise. Let us turn now to the question of trade. I will not enumerate the differences in the trade balances in 1924 and 1929 with regard to Great Britain. The fact remains that while the imports were £29,000,000, the exports were £47,000,000, leaving a credit balance in favour of South Africa of almost £18,000,000. As to the whole of the British empire the imports were £37,000,000 and the exports £63,000,000, leaving a credit balance of about £25,000,000 in favour of South Africa. This dwindled down, in case of Great Britain in 1928. The credit balance was only £12,000,000; and of British empire £6,000,000 in favour of South Africa. In 1928 we find we imported from Russia to the extent of £181,847, and we did not export one pound’s worth to Russia. From America we imported over £12,000,000 and exported an amount of £1,579,000, leaving a debit balance of over £11,000,000 to South Africa. With regard to our trade with Sweden, the balance is £1,131,000 in the disfavour of South Africa. I would like to have an answer from the Minister of Finance when he will put a stop to that sort of thing, and I would like to know from the Government when they intend to deal with this question. Have we to go on with it ad infinitum, and export more from than we import to these countries? Why do we not tell America that we will not buy her motor-cars unless she buys more of our wool and of our agricultural products? The Minister of Finance may argue he is trying to seek other markets for us, but I would like to ask him has he made provision for markets in which we can borrow if he is trying to do away with the British market? Will he be able to borrow in Berlin and spend the money in Boston? The Government is pretending economy, but look at the increase of our public debt, and the ever-growing burden of interest thereon. Is that practising economy? I hope we will have a clear statement from the Minister of Finance on these accounts. They have always pretended that South Africa should come first. With a warmth and magnanimity that was the personification of nobility they gave £1,000 to those poor unfortunate people who suffered in the disaster in Greece; yet how do they treat Weenen, and how have they treated it up to the present moment? The coldness and the iciness with which the Government has treated this matter is to be compared only with that of the waters that caused the disaster. They even demanded full rates on the articles which were sent to alleviate the sufferings of these poor people. That, of course, is “South Africa first”—£1,000 can go to Greece, but not a penny to Weenen—next door.

Why did you not make representations about it?

What a revelation! I was always under the apprehension, and I must admit now, that my conclusions were based on erroneous Biblical contentions, namely, that the proverbial beast of burden died with its master, but now I must admit the propagation of the species with this distinction only, that the braying is now more true. The Minister of Labour told us he started a work colony with the intention, or pretension that it was for “won’t works.” In reality, it was intended for exconvicts. Had the appointment of a Labour adviser anything to do with this failure? Did he consult the Cabinet in regard to this, and who does the Labour adviser advise—does he advise the Minister of Defence or the whole Cabinet? The Minister of Defence yesterday referred to the budding Minister of Finance on this side, but I would rather believe in the future of that budding Minister of Finance than in the future of a withering and waning Minister of Defence. The Government pretends also to assist local industries, yet by their high railway rates we find they are killing the coal industry of Natal. If you take the figures for 1923-’24 you find that bunker coal amounted to £1,843,216 in value, and in 1928 to £1,806,988, a decrease of £36,228 in bunker coal. There was a decrease in export coal of £221,246, and the total decrease amounted to £257,474. Of course the Government pretends to help local industries. The Minister of Railways and Harbours a couple of days ago referred to this particular corner from which I am speaking as being occupied by irresponsibles. He said we were youths who were still in our political swaddling clothes. The accusation of being young men we shall not attempt to deny nor to palliate, but we shall content ourselves with the hope that our follies will cease with our youth and that we shall not be counted among that number who remain ignorant in spite of their experience. The Minister of Railways and Harbours pretends to economize, and he has asked us where he can economize on the railway. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that if he buys his coal in Natal he can save £105,000 or more. Why does he not do it? If the Minister of Railways and Harbours does not accept this advice we shall say it is another case of pretension on his part. The Minister of Agriculture pretends to frame regulations for the farming community to keep, but does he intend to keep them himself? No. I want to draw the attention of the House again to the export of sour oranges. The Minister of Agriculture is the man who goes up and down the country preaching—

Sedition.

Not sedition. He preaches co-operation, and a board has been established which deals with the export of oranges. Yet the Minister breaks those regulations. I say with a full sense of responsibility, that there is not another person in South Africa to-day who does the cause of co-operation more harm than the Minister himself. We have built up a flourishing trade as far as our oranges are concerned, yet the Minister of Agriculture—I do not want to say it is a case of smousing for a few votes in the constituency of a brother Minister—is causing harm to the orange trade by allowing sour oranges to be exported against the advice of the board and contrary to regulations. Take the regulations with regard to scab. Take the case of a man in the Kenhardt district, the case of Mr. Howard. In April, 1929, scab broke out amongst this gentleman’s flocks They were placed under supervision by the department’s officials, and they were dipped. In September, 1929, scab broke out again, and again they were dipped by the department. The owner, not relying on the work done by the officials of the department, unfortunately dipped his own sheep after the second dipping. He was at once hauled before a court of law, and fined £5. It was never proved that the sheep had scab; he was fined simply because he dipped them without the instructions of the department. That was in October. In November scab broke out amongst his sheep. They were dipped twice, on the 18th and on the 30th of November, by the inspectors, and the quarantine was raised on the 27th of January, and we find that those very flocks were again infected on the 11th of March and placed once more under quarantine. The owner went to the Minister and asked permission to dip his own sheep, and the Minister consented. Another regulation broken. After twelve months the whole of the Department of Agriculture was not able to cleanse one farm of scab. This is the Minister who claimed to have cleared South Africa of scab? The Minister of Agriculture is one of those who pretend that South Africa must come first. But take our beef export. In 1910 and 1914 the average value of beef exported was £482. From 1920 to 1924 it grew to the extent of £63,545. In 1928 it had dwindled down to £9,990. This is the Minister who pretends that South Africa must come first. But that is not the worst. We find that the Minister allows canned beef and mutton to be dumped down in our ports duty-free as ships’ stores. Why does the Minister allow this canned beef to be imported into the Union and used as ships’ stores whereas he could easily impose a duty on it? If the ships did not have this canned beef they would have to buy beef in South Africa. I should like to refer to the question of economy for a moment as far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned. The Minister was responsible for the Director of Animal and Field Industry being sent to Brazil, Argentine, Portugal and England, in order to make investigations respecting the beef industry. While that gentleman was on the high seas his office disappeared. He came back, and was transferred to the Department of Native Affairs, and that little trip cost the country £483 and the value of his investigations lost. We find that two students were trained in cotton at a cost of £1,400 with the intention of taking up the cotton industry, but when they completed their studies, there was no room for them in the cotton industry and one secured employment as technical assistant at £200 per annum and the other was employed at 8s. 6d. a working day. I do not know in which Government department, but needless to say he resigned. It cost £1,400 to train them and their services have not been utilized since. Who is responsible for this state of affairs? Who is responsible for the depression? I unhesitatingly state that it is the Government, provided they were honest in their accusations in 1923—I hope the Prime Minister will listen to me after his worship at the shrine of Morpheus—if they were honest (they said the Government of the day was responsible for 75 percent. of the depression), they would admit that they are now responsible and that any farmer would rather see the conditions of 1923-’24 than those to-day. I will not say this has been a case of “smousing,” but now comes the worst case of pretension we have ever had in South Africa. The Government pretends to sit as a united Government on those benches, but only a couple of days ago members of the Cabinet were at each other’s throats in the provincial elections in the Transvaal. Subsequent events have proved that at least some of these very Ministers would hardly be able to retain their seats if an election were to be held. Can you imagine anything more conducive to undermining our political morals? Has ever greater political debauchery been practised in South Africa? We pretend to build up our people and our prestige on all possible grounds. We have sent Ministers Plenipotentiary abroad to sing our greatness, our political moral advancement. Can you conceive anything that will more undermine the political ethics of this country? What will the world think of our politics? I am raising this point with the firm belief that the Government will give the matter its attention and to reflect.

I am sorry to speak after the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend). I must say that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) in his speech last night showed great arrogance, but the speech of the hon. member for Dundee was much worse in that respect than that of the hon. member for Salt River. It is not my intention to say anything in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Dundee. I feel that it is not necessary, but it is quite superfluous to devote any attention to what he said. I only want to confine myself to a few remarks on what the hon. member for Salt River said last night, and the speech of the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) this afternoon. The hon. member for Bethal made me recollect the election in Bethal. He made me recollect a meeting which he addressed at Kinross. Then he also tried to quote figures, and the authority quoted by him was a pamphlet issued by a certain Mr. Neser of Klerksdorp. The hon. member has now been in Parliament for a few days but he has not yet learnt apparently that there are other authorities here that he can refer to besides Mr. Neser’s pamphlet. I am glad of one thing, and that is that the hon. member spoke of “our members of the South African party,” and I am surprised that he is still a member of the South African party because I recollect the days during the election at Bethal when he said, “I have nothing to do with the South African party, I am Piet Jooste, I go to Parliament not to vote for the South African party but as I want to.” This afternoon we had to learn here that the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) is once more a member of the South African party.

A very weak argument.

But an argument which the hon. member for Bethal used at Bethal. The hon. member has just told us what the Government ought to do to improve the position. It must assist the farmers and the poor whites, that is precisely the stories that we heard from the hustings. The hon. member said in Bethal that the German treaty was responsible for the prevailing depression. He said it when I was present. Now I want to ask my hon. friends opposite whether they believe that a world depression exists because South Africa made a trade treaty with Germany. Do they believe that all the nations of the world are suffering because South Africa entered into that trade treaty? What does the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) say about it? The hon. member for Bethal again made an attack this afternoon on the railways, and said that the railway labourers were getting too much. This is the same story as the hon. member told, shortly before the election, to the railway workers. He brought them under the wrong impression that if he went to Parliament he would use his influence with this Government—and his influence would then be so great—that they would get a minimum wage of 10s. Those are the stories that the hon. member told in public; 10s. minimum for white labourers on the railways. The hon. member has now been a little while in Parliament and thought that he must now say something about the railway workers getting such small pay. He did not make the speech for this House, but because the things he said at Bethal compelled him to talk that nonsense here which we have heard so that it could get into the papers and the people in Bethal should think that he was engaged in carrying out the promises which he had made. Now I just want to explain something, not to the hon. member because he would not understand it, but to the electors at Bethal. The hon. member spoke about unemployment. He said that the Nationalist party made the promise in 1924 that they would solve the poor white question, and he now accuses the Government of having done nothing, of having paid the people they engaged too little, and that unemployment had not diminished. Since the Nationalist party has been in office the Railway Department has employed 12,665 unemployed. The post office 114, public works 381, irrigation 948, a total of 14,208. These people were employed instead of natives. Then there are 574 families on irrigation work under the supervision of the Agricultural Department, who are being maintained there. There are 14,000 people who are working on the roads, and 650 on other irrigation works, while the town councils give work to 450 Europeans, in respect of which the central government pay the difference between the wages of the Europeans and what the natives would have received, that is a total number of 6,000. Since the Government assumed office work has been given to 20,000 unemployed who had no work under the previous Government. The hon. member for Bethal mentioned that we had said that we would bring the unemployed back to the countryside, but that we had put them on the roads, and he wants to know what we are going to do with them when we can no longer keep them on the roads. If the hon. member examines the figures he will find that of the 20,000 men who have been given work only 1,400 are working on the road. The Government will find means of helping them on. I want also to tell the hon. member that since the time we came into office 17,000 poor whites have practically come back to the land. Did he expect anything more than that? I believe the hon. member knows these things, but in his speeches at Bethal he prefers to mislead the public. Then the hon. member spoke about our policy on industries. In comparison with the time when the Nationalist Government came into office there are now 10,000 more Europeans in the factories. The hon. member for Bethal says it is better to shoot the people, inasmuch as it is a quicker death than starvation.

He did not say so.

He said that it was easier for the people to be shot than for them to die of starvation.

It is not so.

When the Nationalist party came into office there were 25,000 male unemployed in the country. If the Nationalists had not got into power then it was the intention of the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) to shoot those 25,000 unemployed because according to his argument that was the only solution of the unemployment problem. Since the government of the Nationalist party that 25,000 has decreased so that to-day there are only more or less 8,000 unemployed in the Union. The hon. member for Bethal says that his Government had already done something. That is true; first, they allowed the people to die of hunger, and those who were not yet dead they just shot down. I do not now want to waste any more time on the hon. member for Bethal and come to the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I just want to give him a little bit of advice. I do not want to speak of his Parliamentary experience as the hon. member, himself, did last night. About six years ago when I came to the House for the first time I was just as young, or possibly even younger than he is to-day, I then also imagined that if I wanted to make a great name I should immediately behave like a big man, but when the first session was over I was already standing on my head, and then I just decided to stand alongside of my friends here. The hon. member for Salt River is still young. He has managed by chance to win the Salt River seat, but we have seen before that that sort of representative disappears just as quickly as they appear. I believe the hon. member’s boots are a little large, and when I hear the hon. member I see in him a very strong opponent of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) for the post of Prime Minister in the future South African party cabinet. When the hon. member for Salt River speaks here he thinks that the Prime Minister ought to be in his place to hear what his lordship has to say about his parliamentary experience. I would like the hon. member for Salt River to calm himself a little. His boots are quite too big, and if he is not careful he will run himself to death in the House. I believe there is one thing the hon. member for Salt River said that is quite true, it was that the Nationalist party at the recent election, both on the countryside and in the town, had pointed out to the people that if the South African party got into power that there was a great danger of our country becoming a black South Africa. The hon. member so emphatically declared that the Nationalist party had published that everywhere, and it is true in the Transvaal, in the Free State, in Natal, and in the Cape Province, in the towns, villages, and on the countryside, we have already announced our policy in regard to the native in the same words. But what has the South African party done? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said at Herschel that the franchise could not be taken away from the natives.

We have already had this before.

Yes, and you will have to get it again. When however, I was at Bethal during the by-election, and asked the hon. member for Bethal whether he agreed with Gen. Smuts, he replied that he had nothing to do with Gen. Smuts, and that he was in favour of the native vote being abolished. That was not only said at Bethal, but everywhere in our constituencies, that the South African party candidates were in favour of the abolition of the native franchise in the Cape Province, but they were against its extension to the north. Those same members who are in favour of the abolition of the native franchise come to the Cape Province, and say that they are against the Bill, because they do not want to abolish the native franchise. The hon. member for Salt River proclaimed the truth here last night apparently without his knowing it. I am also glad that he said last night that if one were republican at heart that that did not mean that he was filled with race hatred. That is a very different standpoint to what many members opposite take up. The hon. member pointed out how there were republicans even in England, and they cannot be accused of race hatred. I shall, however, come back to that point later. Then I want to say something about the action of the hopeful future Prime Minister of the South African party, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. One of his chief points of attack was to question why the Government did not reduce taxation when times were good. The hon. member apparently now wants to deny it, but he clearly asks why we had not reduced taxation. I will, however, prove to him that we did so thoroughly. I will go further, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will probably be frightened when I tell him that according to my calculation the taxation during these five years has been reduced by over £5,000,000. I want to make it plain. What is so strange to me is that people take the standpoint that our income tax has been raised because the receipts from it are more, although we know that the tax has been reduced, but because the receipts are more they say that the tax has been raised. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke with a catch in his voice about the way in which he and others had fought against the tax on coffee and kaffir blankets. He announced that they would again start such a fight against the taxes that were proposed, and, which, according to him, would increase the cost of living. The hon. member apparently does not know what happened to that fight about the kaffir blankets. Mr. Jagger fought hard against it, and the hon. member with him. It was a brilliant battle on their part. The Minister of Finance was so affected by it that he decided to reduce the customs duty on kaffir blankets, but a year later, when the reduction had been in force a year, Mr. Jagger, who was the biggest importer of kaffir blankets, was still selling them at the same price to the retailer, and the natives still had to pay the same price for their blankets. The brilliant fight was to enable Mr. Jagger and a few other importers to make a few more thousands of pounds on the importation of kaffir blankets.

That is untrue and a scandalous charge.

No, it is true. I say that the customs duty was reduced, and yet the price of the kaffir blankets was not reduced. Mr. Jagger has the respect of every hon. member, and when I say something here about his business, then I do not attack him personally. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout came and told us that we must economize. He made a speech on economy. Does he not know what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) proposed here? He proposed to pay the railway workers an unheard of wage. Did he not support it? Did it not come from his party?

Am I obliged to support every motion that comes from this side of the House?

Why then did not the hon. member speak against it, warn his friends, and vote against the motion? In this time of depression, when he warns us, he supports by his silence the motion of the hon. member for Salt River, which shows that the criticism of hon. members opposite is idle talk which amounts to nothing. The hon. member for Salt River mentioned the matter and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was the only Transvaal member who touched upon it. He spoke about the results of the Transvaal provincial council elections. We might have expected such remarks from the hon. member for Salt River, because, although he assured us that he has had considerable experience of politics, he has only been a short time in them, and he knows nothing of the happenings of the Transvaal. I am, how-every, sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke on the matter, and has forgotten the history of it.

We are proud of the results.

We have heard that before. We heard it the previous provincial elections that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—and I do not know whether he is now the leader of the South African party, or whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is— said in a press interview that the result showed that a “great change” had come about in the country. To him it was an indication that public opinion had changed. He said that the South African party in the Transvaal had won five Nationalist seats and that this was an indication of the great change that had come, which would bring the South African party into power again at the next election. The great change was that the Nationalist party at the next general election won 34 instead of 28 seats. Let us now examine the history of the Transvaal provincial elections. In 1914 at the first election only one Nationalist was elected— I think it was the hon. member for Brits. In 1915, however, there were four Nationalists elected to the House of Assembly. In 1917 12 members were elected to the provincial council. In 1921 15 Nationalists were elected to the House of Assembly and 21 to the provincial council. In 1924 26 Nationalists were elected to the House of Assembly, and in 1925 21 to the provincial council. That was “the great change” of which Gen. Smuts spoke. Then, however, came the election of 1925, and the Transvaal sent 34 Nationalists to the House of Assembly. Now, however, comes the joke. In 1930 it happened for the first time in the history of the Transvaal that 28 Nationalists were sent to the provincial council. This is the first time that the Nationalist party have had on absolute majority in that council, and now we again hear talk of the “great change,” and the South African party is proud of themselves.

I spoke about the Creswellites.

I am coming to that. If we have wone 28 seats now, then hon. members can be certain that on the old basis we calculate the next general election to send at least 48 Nationalists to this House from the Transvaal. Now we come to the Creswellites. It looks as if the hon. member is more concerned about them than the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) formerly was. After we had heard the arguments of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) about the Creswellites, we might almost think that the hon. member for Troyeville had taken the hon. member for Bezuidenhout into a room beforehand and taught him his lesson well about the arguments he was to use here against the Creswellites. As a Transvaaler, I was not in the past such a particular friend of the Creswellites, but this election has shown us that if we love South Africa, and if we want to prevent the South African party getting into office again with all the pernicious consequences which that will mean to the country, then we must stand by the Creswellites and see that they become strong alongside us. What is the difference between the Creswellites and the South African party? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the Minister of Defence will remain known in the history of South Africa as the man who preferred to cling fast to his office, although he had led his party to destruction. We also hear from the hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and Troyeville that the Minister of Defence had destroyed the Labour party. Who did so in reality? The betrayers of the Labour cause is the national council group. The Pact was entered into in 1924 between the Nationalist party and the Labour party, an honourable agreement to support each other during the election and in Parliament. After the election the Creswell group faithfully observed everything right up to to-day. They stood by the principles of the Labour party and were true to the pact with the Nationalist party.

It can’t be both.

As the result of the influence and co-operation with the Nationalist party there was industrial peace in the country, and the working - class obtained more than they ever got before.

What did it cost the country?

That we governed six years without any industrial troubles; without bloodshed and strikes. The costs are far smaller than what the South African party Government cost the country when women and children were shot down on the Witwatersrand. I will tell you why the national council group made so much fuss. Of course, it was impossible for the Nationalist party to take the whole of the Labour party into the Cabinet, and all they could do was to use the best men of the Labour party. Then there was a section of the Labour party that thought they ought to be elected, and that was the section who deserted, and are to-day sitting over there. What surprises me is the attitude of the hon. member for Benoni. He used to be a friend of mine, and I liked him. This was shortly before he left the Cabinet that in my constituency he stood with me on the same platform, he told the people how the Nationalist Government in the four years had done everything in its power to help the workers, especially on the railways. The hon. member, it was shortly before the last election, made the impression that he thought that there was no Labour Government in the world that could do more for the working class than the National Government was. A month later I saw to my amazement that he was no longer in the Cabinet, and in the next speech of his I heard that he had said that the Labour members in the Cabinet were traitors, and has done nothing for the working classes. The hon. member discovered that too late. He ought to have discovered that while he was in the Cabinet. It was then his duty to show the great love for the working classes. The Prime Minister had a very difficult job in getting him out of the Cabinet. I think that the hon. member and this is so disappointing, now just wants to wreak vengeance out of spite, and condemn everything that this Government does. He, however, does it in a very conspicuous way, and in connection with every possible little thing he rises and reproaches the Government. So proving that is is merely disappointment and bitterness. As for the hon. member for Troyeville, I am not afraid that he will ever have many followers, that he will ever be any danger to any Government in South Africa. I see that as regards the national council group there is only one thing, viz., that the time has come to finally go against them. I am only a flunkey in my party, but I want to suggest to my leaders, at least to the leaders of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal, to put their foot down and do everything in their power to the Transvaal to eradicate root and branch all the evil in the form of the head national council group. I would go as far as to advise my friends in a constituency where a member of that group stood to vote for a Sap, and not for the councilite candidate. Not that I am personally afraid that they will get any influence, but I have already seen that a group can be a danger which, like a cancer, eats into and rots the whole body. It has already happened in the past that through a misunderstanding the members of our party were led on the way to division by all sorts of distorted facts. The provincial elections in the Transvaal have taught us that we must stick to our allies who have stood faithfully and loyally by us since the agreement of 1924. We must join up more closely with them, and give them more powers in the Transvaal. If they have not so much power we must give it to them, even if they can give us only a little power. I want to assure the hon. member for Troyeville that if the Nationalist party of the Transvaal supports the Creswellites on the Witwatersrand with all their force, and openly declares war on the councilites, then not a single councilite will be left, not even the hon. member for Benoni. Now I just want to quote for the benefit of the hon. members for Salt River and Bezuidenhout what the words of their leader were just before the last general election. We surely heard from them yesterday that the public are beginning to lose confidence in the Nationalist party. Exactly the same thing the leader of the hon. member for Salt River said before the last general election when he moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. If the hon. member for Salt River had then been in this House he would have known it, and would not yesterday have repeated the words in a slightly different form. The hon. member for Standerton said—

That is the same great “change,” that hon. members are now speaking about. The great “change” is that the Nationalist party is stronger than ever before. Let me tell hon. members that the great change at the next election will be that the Nationalist party will have a two-thirds majority to put the native Bill through, so long as—hon. members will perhaps kick again—the old Unionists’ spirit still prevails in the country, so long will there be no danger of a great change. Those who really love South Africa. Dutch-speaking and English-speaking, will take care of this. If it comes to the vote, then they know one thing, viz., that the enemy, the old Unionists, are out once more to oppress the Afrikaners in South Africa.

Nonsense.

I see hon. members get annoyed when I speak about Unionists’ principle. It is only necessary to read a little of the concise statement of parliamentary history by Kilpin to see how the parliamentary liberties in South African have been extended step by step, and if they go into it deeply they will find which section it was that has always tried to put on the brake when attempts were made to bring about freedom in the country. It was the old Unionism which now inspires the South African party. The policy which is now followed by the South African party. What does it consist of? In the first place out of imperialism. How far is that pushed? When the German treaty was entered into, who were the men who shouted the most? Why? They could not mention a single place where it would cause financial damage to us, but there was only this: that South Africa ought not to be friendly with any other nation. It is the old Unionist policy. How do they stand with regard to immigration? By that we can see how the hon. member for Standerton has turned. The old South African party was always against state-aided immigration; the old Unionists were strongly in favour of it, now the South African party is strongly in favour of it. Now we come to the status question: who are the people who have always fought our independent status, but now, after it has been obtaind, say that it is they who have obtained it?

We got it years ago.

We shall see in a moment. What was the native policy of the old Unionists? It has been the same for the last century. I think we find that policy described in the following statement—

That is the policy of the old Unionists, and those are the words used by Gen. Smuts at Herschel. We will now see what the Unionists themselves say, and also what they said of the South African party, and I must again remind the House that on the opposite side there is no longer a South African party to-day, but the old Unionists in the shape of the South African party. Sir Thomas Smartt said in this House—

The members, who, after this statement, joined the South African party, said that the programme of that party was “slippery.” That is why the Unionists joined them, and that is why they are to-day able to carry out the policy of the Unionists on every point. It is only the hon. member for Bethal who still thinks that there is a South African party left. But I want to revert to the decrease of taxation. I said that the Nationalist Government during its five years of office had received taxation to an amount of more than £5,000,000. In the year 1924-’25 the reduction was £135,000. If that reduction had not taken place, the public would have paid it every year for five years, so that the total amount of relief amounts to £675,000. In 1925-’26 the reduction was £600,000. which for four years brings the relief to £2,400,000.

Does that include the reduction in postage?

Yes, all the reductions of taxation and burdens on the public. In 1926-’27 the reduction was £220,000, or a relief of £660,000 for the three years. In 1927-’28 it was £215,000, or £430,000 for the two years, so that it amounts to a total relief to the taxpayer of £5,436,000. That is the minimum. As a result of the amendment of the Provincial Appropriation Act which this Government passed, the provincial council of the Transvaal was able to reduce taxation to an amount of £471,000. This brings the total to £6,000,000. Then we must remember that the railway rates during the past five years have been reduced by a sum of £1,182,000. A complaint is now made that we did not reduce taxation in good time. Hon. members see here that we have reduced the burden on the public during the good times by over £7,000,000 in five years. Will the hon. member for Bezuidenhout try to deduct these figures?

Has not the taxpayer paid £6,000,000 more?

There you have the old story of the South African party once more. A farmer wins in one year a 1,000 bags of maize, and he buys his bags at 1s. each, the next year he wins 10,000 bags and buys his bags at 9d., but because he has to pay more for the 10,000 he argues that the price of bags has risen. That is the argument of the South African party. Before I sit down I want to mention another thing. Various members have already said it here, and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) emphatically challenged the Prime Minister to say that it was he who obtained our independence status in 1926. I have not seen the Prime Minister about the matter, and it does not matter what his view on the subject is. I say that South Africa has no one else to thank for it but the Prime Minister, Gen. Hentzog. Even if he says something else it does not concern me what the hon. member for East London (North) says. I know what the policy of the Prime Minister has been ever since 1912 when he made his De Wildt speech and spoke of “South Africa first. The English press made out that he had been guilty of high treason, and there was not one member of the Unionists who did not agree with the English press. From that time he has been the champion of the independence of the Union of South Africa, and he so succeeded in his struggle that not even one Unionist ventures to-day to throw doubt on our independence, at any rate, not in public. The hon. member for East London (North) made the impression here, and the Cape Argus repeated it twice that it was the hon. member for Standerton, who, together with the late Gen. Botha, got our higher status on the signing of the peace treaty of Versailles. The hon. member for East London (North) also asked whether the Prime Minister would take it on himself to say that he had also got the independence of the other dominions in 1926. When the Prime Minister was in London in 1926 and said that he was going to ask for our independent status to be defined Gen. Smuts expressed himself as follows at Pietersburg, according to the report of the Rand Daily Mail—

He further said that he was sorry that the Prime Minister had ventured to ask such a thing of the imperial conference, and he added—

Was that assisting the Prime Minister to get our independent status? The Prime Minister had the courage at the imperial conference of 1926 to insist that our status should be acknowledged in writing. I say that the other dominions, or posterity in those dominions, will yet erect a monument to the Prime Minister for obtaining for them what he had got for us. When I say this I am expressing the opinion of the youth of South Africa, and we also will erect a monument in the future to the man who got our independence, and who since 1912 has fought for it inch by inch. That man will assuredly not be the hon. member for Standerton. What is the status which we got at the peace treaty of which the hon. member for East London (North) spoke? The fact that Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts were co-signatories to the peace treaty did not give us a higher status. Lloyd George said that we were just as free as any portion of the empire. Lloyd George was defeated and Baldwin came into power. Suppose that a conflict arose between us and Baldwin he would simply say: “What have I to do with Lloyd George?” The position to-day is that the Governor-General is appointed on the advice of our own Cabinet. In the second place the King or his representative in the Union can only veto our statutes on the advice of our own Cabinet. What was the status which the hon. member for Standerton spoke off? With regard to the statutes, and this was the only thing that united us, the Imperial Government had the right to give advice that an Act which had been passed by our Parliament should be vetoed by the King. I want to tell the hon. member for East London (North) that we are very much, and quite satisfied, and more than satisfied, with the work the Prime Minister has done since 1912 in the direction of the independence of South Africa, and that we quite agree with him when he says that we have obtained complete independence, and we see that we cannot show him sufficient gratitude during his lifetime for what he obtained. But if the hon. member for East London (North) now thinks that the republican feeling amongst the people of South Africa is dead, he is making a great mistake. The hon. member for Salt River spoke last night about our independence, and as for myself, personally, I am quite satisfied with what the Prime Minister has already obtained in that connection, and I abide by it, but, personally, I am in favour of a republican form of Government. That has nothing to do with our freedom. Under the present form of Government we can be free, but we can decide to adopt a different form of Government. Although I am not at all influenced by racial feeling, I am, in principle, in favour of a republican form of Government, and I am convinced that the day will come when the majority of the English-speaking section of the people will support that principle. My idea is without causing trouble, without raising smoke-screens, to get as many of our English friends to adopt that principle, and, as for myself, I shall never be satisfied until the day that we get the republican form of Government and break away from the King of England.

In 1922 when our revenue dropped by £2,000,000 in one year, when salaries and wages were cut, and when the diamond mines were closed down and unemployment was rife, the then Opposition went round the country blaming the Government of the day for all South Africa’s misfortunes. A new Government came into power and has been in office for six years. At the last general election the Nationalists went round the country saying, “See what we have done—alone we did it.” And the poor, simple, honest backveld believed them and once again sent them back to office.

Why call them the simple backveld?

Because the majority of the people in the backveld believed all the Nationalists told them. The present Government has now been six years in office. To-day there is a change; the price of wool has dropped by 40 per cent. and thousands of diamond diggers are starving; money is dear; wheat, lucerne, maize, barley, oats and potatoes are being sold below the cost of production. I do not blame the Government for this, but neither do I give the Government one iota of credit for the good that has accrued to this country during the previous five years. On the other hand, if the Government takes to its credit all the good that has accrued then it must be prepared to take the blame to-day for all that is happening. We are passing through a world slump, but South Africa is in rather a fortunate position. The adverse conditions we are passing through to-day have not yet been reflected in the budget. It is fortunate that we have certain counter-balancing influences. You have the Reserve Bank, for instance, which is a safeguard against any severe slump, and there will not be a recurrence of this depression, such as we experienced in 1921, while we have the Reserve Bank system, which exercises a definite sobering influence, and while it is there, we shall not see this extraordinary swing of the pendulum. It is one of the best safeguards against extreme depression. The Minister has £3,000,000 from Namaqualand diamonds. This is capital upon which no interest is due and neither has it like borrowed money to be repaid. He has other resources. He has about half a million by way of income tax (remission), which amount will go materially to counteract the drop in revenue from the customs duties.

Diamonds do not go into revenue.

No, but at any rate, the Minister saves the interest on that money, which he would otherwise have to pay if he borrowed it. Further, there are our mines which can always be counted upon to provide almost 40-50 per cent of our revenue. I contend the Minister is not in a serious difficulty to-day; what he will be in next year, I do not know. It is pleasing to note that the Minister has benefited the fruit and the wheat farmers, but it is a matter for great regret that he has given the mealie-growers and the stock farmers no consideration whatever, and I do not know why he has taken this action. These people too, are taxpayers and belong to the same country as we; they are ruled by the same Government; and why they should be treated like step-children I do not know. I would like the Minister to give an explanation why he has benefited one section and ignored another.

What do you want me to do to them?

It is not for me to say. There are other questions of national importance to which the Government is not giving attention. For instance, there is the question of the high cost of living. Last night we heard the argument of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). The cost of living is much higher than it should be. Then there is the question of low-grade mining and of mining generally—a serious question. There is the question of over-taxation. And then the absence of an irrigation policy, and finally I want to touch on the manner in which the digging community of this country has been treated, for which the Government has done nothing. The Minister has given no consideration to reducing the high cost of living. The farmer, in particular, has to pay heavily through the customs for machinery, clothing, tea, coffee, and in fact almost everything he buys, while his products are sold to the highest bidder in the open market. He gets no protection whatsoever.

He gets no protection whatsoever?

Let me quote what the Minister of Finance said in May, 1925—

I say that statement by the Minister in 1925 is correct, provided things are normal, that statement is quite in order, but things are abnormal to-day, and I say that the Minister of Finance has given the farmer no consideration. With regard to the statement made last night by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), that the cost of living has decreased in South Africa, this is what Geneva has said—

Who made this statement?

Mr. Walter Fowkes in the Commercial Bulletin. We take the figure of 1,000 as a basis in 1910. In 1924 South African goods stood at 1,339 points, and imported goods at 1,716 points. In January, 1929, South African goods stood at 1,272 and imported goods at 1,534 points. This shows that South African goods have declined by 69 points while imported goods declined by 182. This is the result of boosting of industries in South Africa. To-day bread is at least 50 per cent. higher in South Africa than it is in England. I say that this is a most important matter, the cost of living is too high, and requires investigating. Then there is the question of low-grade mines. This question has been discussed a great deal, but I would like to say that it is a national question and that it is the Government’s duty to give this matter serious consideration. We have to-day mines that are worked out, and mines that are being worked out, and in 15 or 20 years’ time we shall have another 10 or 12 mines worked out. The Government must realize the position, and I know they can ease the position; they can give lower railway rates. The Minister is charging £500 sterling on a train of coal 1,600 tons, which he takes to a certain mine not 80 miles distant from the pit head, which has paid only one small dividend in ten years. The Minister should give these mines consideration. The railage on mining machinery from Cape Town to Johannesburg is 9s. 2d. per 100 lbs. It is a most important industry; you have 250,000 Europeans dependent on the mines. Without them your farmer would suffer severely, and commerce and industry would suffer. Surely this is a situation worth consideration. Now there is the serious question of over taxation. I contend we Have been taxed unmercifully, the revenue from customs amounts to £9,000,000. I appreciate that this is a growing country, but the population has increased by only eight per cent. since 1924, whereas our expenditure has increased by 16 per cent. I contend that our increased expenditure is out of all proportion to our increased population. The interest on our public debt has increased from £3,400,000 to £4,067,000 since 1924. Our national debt has increased from £208,000,000 in 1924 to £250,000,000 in 1930. It is a serious matter. This Government came into power because they promised to reduce the national debt, yet it now stands at £250,000,000. All this taxation for 1,750,000 of population. Our total Union expenditure from revenue and loan accounts is about £80,000,000, including railways and provincial councils. Up to 1929 the revenue collected from taxation increased from £16,000,000 to £21,000,000 since 1924, an increase of 153.35 per cent. over 1913-’14. This, for a small population with a combined national income of £110,000,000. We are taxed to the extent of £13 per capita per annum. We would go far to find a country more heavily taxed than we are to-day. I contend that we are excessively taxed, and the country cannot stand it. Our excess in customs dues is over half a million more than last year, largely due to the curtailment of British preference. We have been over-taxed, and everybody is suffering to-day. Trade, commerce and industry are all suffering. The Minister has taken £3,000,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers in one year. There was no necessity for it. His budgets should have balanced, more or less. What could have been done with that £3,000,000 if it had been left in the pockets of the taxpayers? We could have borrowed an amount of something like £40,000,000, which would have been put into circulation in South Africa, and the country would have been all the more prosperous for it. Instead of that the duty on our foodstuffs since 1924-’27 has advanced by £3 per cent. There has been an advance of £3 per cent. also on textiles. Take building material. We have been talking about housing and about the slums. Your duty on building material is 20 per cent. Your duty on paints, asbestos sheeting, is also 20 per cent., and the poor people in our towns continue to live in slumdom, in filth, disease and poverty. Instead of bringing down these customs dues and allowing people to build cheaper houses we have these high duties and people continue to live as they are to-day. I wish to say a few words about irrigation. This Government has been in power for six years, and I do not know, neither does the Government know, what the Government’s policy is in regard to irrigation. The previous Government spent something like £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 on irrigation schemes. [Interjection by Minister of Finance.] Would the hon. the Minister of Finance rather have that money and no irrigation schemes? Our Government had a policy. We spent between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 on irrigation. This Government has no policy. During the last 5 or 6 years it has spent a paltry few hundred thousand pounds. Comparatively speaking, that is infinitesmal. What is the Government’s policy? Are we going to continue with the present scheme, or are we going to strike out and get on with new schemes? That is what I want to know. We must realize that irrigation is the salvation of South Africa. Our best land to-day is over-capitalized. The owners cannot farm and make a reasonable profit on their investments. It is better for them to put their money into the bank or into Government securities than into farming. There are other areas where men bought farms years ago for the small amount of 5s. per morgen, and they have appreciated in value to 30s. per morgen, and they have been able to make money in this way by speculation, but not by farming. Throughout the country our farmers are not making money as farmers. That is why I say we must get on to a policy of irrigation. In a hundred years’ time, the population of this country will have doubled and trebled itself, and I should like to ask where are we going to put that surplus population?

We want to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to irrigation. We have difficulties in the way of irrigation, I will admit, since we have not the high mountains and the soil that some European countries have. Our storage schemes are very much more costly than they are in countries better adapted for the construction of storage works, and furthermore we are unable to get people with capital and experience to settle on the land. There are about 2,000,000 acres of land available for irrigation.

Is that completed schemes?

Completed schemes and schemes that ought to be completed. Eventually: Our total irrigable area. Irrigation should be subsidised and the Lands and Irrigation Departments must work hand in hand. I have come to the conclusion that the irrigation rates Collected by water boards should be collected by such institutions as the Land Bank. I know of men who, at the date of the last general election, were three and four behind with their payments because political influences are so great in this country. Governments are afraid to press people for their rates for fear of their hostility at election times and on account of these political influences some of our irrigation schemes are not paying their way. The sooner we decide upon an irrigation subsidy the better. We hear of enormous irrigation schemes in America that are successful, but they are subsidised to the extent of 70 per cent., while Italy gives a subsidy of 60 per cent. India and Egypt require very small subsidies because the cost of living there is not so high, and the desire for luxuries is not so great, but in European countries a subsidy is required. The Hartebeestepoort scheme cost the Irrigation Department £80 per morgen, and the Lands Department £120 per morgen, making a total of £200 per morgen; but the South African farmer cannot farm profitably on land costing £200 per morgen, so that the value must be decreased by at least 50 per cent. There are two never failing rivers in South Africa—the Vaal and the Orange—where land and water are cheap. The finest scheme is the Kromellenboog or the Vaal River, where there are between 100,000 and 200,000 morgen of land to be irrigated. Promises have been made about this scheme. The Minister of Agriculture agreed to lead a deputation on the subject, but when the deputation arrived in Pretoria, the Minister was missing. On these two rivers, there are at least 500,000 morgen of irrigable land. I commend schemes on these two rivers for the earnest consideration of the Government. I want to say a few words about the diamond mining industry, and diamonds generally. We who represent diamond mining areas have always tried to impress on this Government the part which has been played by these areas. It is perhaps not generally known that the Kimberley mines have produced close upon £300,000,000 worth of diamonds. When the diamonds were discovered there the Cape Colonial Government was on the verge of bankruptcy, and it was this discovery which brought them round. Since then the country has relied on it. One of the first railways built to the Transvaal was built by the diamond mining interests, who also established the fruit industry in the Western Province, and that great industry at Somerset West. The influence of Kimberley is felt as far north as the equator. But now we have fallen on bad times. Diamonds are the only industry of Kimberley, and it is dependent only on diamonds. We are entitled to consideration. The diamonds of Griqualand West have poured into the coffers of this country close on a million pounds every year. If our quota is to be reduced, there will be distress in those areas, men will be thrown out of work, and will have to suffer. The Government should fall into line with the other producers, who are definitely tied down to a quota. The Government in effect says they are going to sell whatever they desire, irrespective of the quota. That is an unfair and an unreasonable attitude, and that is the reason why we in those areas are continually suffering. The diamond market may be compared with a very delicately poised instrument which is subject to the slightest disturbance; an earthquake in San Francisco or a disaster in Japan affects the diamond market. The diamond market is easily disturbed and once disturbed it remains so for lengthy periods and confidence, stability and sympathy are three very essential factors. With regard to the diamond-cutting factories, it gives me great concern that they are closing down. It has been said that the South African party was never in sympathy with that industry, and if hon. members opposite doubt that, I refer them to what Mr. Beyers, the late Minister of Mines and Industries, said on Monday, 31st October, 1927. We were always ready to open negotiations with people of capital, with regard to establishing a diamond-cutting industry. For we have always realized that this is an industry which requires men with capital and men who can stand the severe strain of adverse conditions, but this Government has encouraged diamond cutting at any price. It looks to-day as if it is leaving the diamond-cutting industry in the lurch, and if it does so it will be the end of diamond cutting in this country for all time. Many lads who are apprentices will be thrown on the streets and much money will have been wasted. There is just one other point upon which I want to touch, and that is the diamond diggings. We must remember there are tens of thousands of diggers in this country to-day, and the Precious Stones Act weighs heavily upon them, especially Clauses 50, 52, 59, 60 and 63. I think the efforts of the Minister will not go very far in the right direction and will not serve the purposes for which they are intended. I hope the Minister will give these people his serious consideration. He must remember that there are diggers in Griqualand West who were flourishing farmers at one time; they are not riff-raff, but upright, honourable men. They are an established and honourable community, they have existed for 40 years and will continue to exist. It should be the Minister’s aim to lighten these people’s burdens rather than to increase them and legislate them out of existence. The present Government is trying to close the alluvial diggings, and do away with the alluvial digger. The digger often sweats blood. There are times when he is in great distress, and requires the assistance of the Government. Under the Act, prospecting is prohibited and partnerships are illegal: the digger is restricted to only one claim, and his wife has to carry a “pass” or a certificate of good character. Who is going to be a judge of that? Claim licences have been raised from 1s. to 5s., which does not seem much, but if a man has not the money, the additional 4s. means a great deal. The Government should give these people a little more consideration. The community is a very large one, and the Government, by its action, has thrown thousands out of employment, and made things so difficult that they cannot make a living. Today we have 70,000 poor whites, and to-morrow we shall have another 70,000 indigent diggers and their families—another poor-white problem. The Government by its action is taking the bread out of the mouths of thousands of the diggers on the alluvial diggings. Let them have a little sympathy with and mercy upon these people, or it will be the cause of great anxiety, poverty and distress in future. With regard to what the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) said—

I want to take the opportunity this evening not to indulge in party politics, but to say a few words with reference to the future. Hon. members will agree that our people are to-day experiencing one of the most difficult times in our history as hon. members opposite have shown. I am sorry that from the manner in which they did so, and from their speeches it looks as if they are a little glad about our difficult position. I hope I got a wrong impression, but it is deplorable if hon. members rejoice at the fact that the Minister of Finance has to go through difficult times, because they hope to get a little bit of party capital out of it. Since the time that the Nationalist Government came into power we have had good times. I never said that it was due solely to the good administration that we have had although that of course contributed a great deal to it. The Minister of Finance has always done his best to stop excessive expenditure, and we know how he was flurried with requests for more expenditure, and that wild requests were made, not only from that side of the House, but also from this side. Hon. members opposite seem surprised at my saying this, but when I speak I do not stand here as a party man, but as one who has been sent here by the public to represent them, and it is not necessary for me to treat every matter in a party spirit. I am glad that I always sounded a warning against excessive expenditure, and that I am regarded as a brake. The Minister of Finance was strong enough to resist most of the requests, and he came victoriously out of the struggle. Now we have a time of difficulty, and I think that he will conquer again this time. I am certain that the public have the fullest confidence in the Minister’s financial policy, especially when we see that the public to-day pay less interest than in 1924. I do not say too much when I say that the people are right in trusting the Minister of Finance with regard to the finances of the country, even in this difficult time. What is the position to-day, and what has happened since we came into office? We see that the financial position has improved since then. Although our debt has increased we really pay less interest than in 1924, as hon. members have already shown. I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the careful policy he has pursued. I want to thank him to-day, and ask him to continue that careful policy, and I know he is going to do so. The public will thank him when we get to the end of this difficult financial period. What is the position of our farming to-day? We have progressed, although we are to-day experiencing a financial crisis which is one of the worst that we have ever had, farming to-day is not at all in so bad a position as it was from 1920 until 1922. I well remember how thousands of farmers went bankrupt between 1920 and 1922. It was so bad in my district that we appointed a vigilance committee to go and plead with the financial firms and capitalists not to allow our farmers to go bankrupt. We went to the Government and asked them to take measures to protect us. I remember quite well how wool was sold at 2d. and 3d. a lb., and in my district sheep were sold at 1s. 6d. each. Hon. members to-day point to the serious position, but it is not nearly so bad as it was in that time. Dozens and dozens of our best farmers in my district went insolvent. I do not wish to mention names, but the present Government assisted those farmers so that many of them are taxpayers to-day. I do not want to say at all that that Government would not have done it; I do not want to throw mud, because I consider it the duty of any Government to assist the public, but I am only showing what was done. When we listen to the speeches of hon. members opposite, and hear them saying that this Government has not done its duty to the public, they are not speaking the truth, and I do not think they are serious, but only trying to catch votes. Besides the Cape Provincial elections there is no election at hand, let us therefore review the facts and see what it is possible to do. Let us join hands to assist where we can. I am sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not here, but I have a telegram here which was sent by the South African party branch at Burghersdorp to him on his return. They congratulate him on his safe return, and express the hope that, together with the Government, he will devote his attention to the interests of the farmers. I agree with them. I also am glad that he returned safely, and I also wish him to give his attention along with the Government to the interests of the farmers because it is not only the duty of the Government, but of the Opposition just as much to give its attention to that. If they want to do their duty then I ask the hon. member for Standerton what he wishes to suggest. This branch of the South African party requests him to co-operate, and we now ask him for his views. The present Government, when it came into office, introduced the protection policy; notwithstanding the Opposition continually attacked this policy the Government went on with it, and I am here to-day to express the assurance of my electors that they unanimously support the Government in that policy. Although further attacks have been made by the Opposition my constituents, and the electors in general, are in favour of protection. We thank the Government for that policy. We are not only glad that more factories have arisen, that more industries have developed in the country, and that more value has been given, but we are glad and thankful that more money has been circulated in the country, so that there was a better market for the farmers’ produce. What would the position have been if all the people who have found work in the factories were still walking about the streets? Who then would have bought the farmers’ produce? The benefits on the protection policy have assisted us during the last six years, and I am convinced that it will also assist us very much in the future, and that the present hard times will not last very long. I want also to thank the Government for the civilized labour policy. Notwithstanding that repeated attack has been made on that policy, I can assure the Government that the voters in the country appreciate and are thankful for that policy which the Government has followed. I also want to thank the Government for its policy in connection with the Namaqualand diamonds. When diamonds were discovered there, proposals came from the other side of the House that the diamondiferous ground should be leased, or be worked in some other way. The Government, however, stood firm on its policy to mine the diamonds itself, and in that way they obtained millions for the people. Today we are reaping the fruits of that, and in these difficult times we have these millions, obtained from the diamonds, to the credit of the taxpayer, and to build irrigation dams as has already been announced. The people are thankful that the Government has followed this wise policy. Then I am also glad of one thing, and I think that everyone who means well by his country will rejoice at it, viz., that we have not only progressed in financial farming, and industrial matters, but that there has also been a marked improvement in the relations between the two races. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) agrees. I do not want to throw mud, but still I want to remind the Opposition of what its leader said. I do not think he meant it seriously, but I mention it to show the voters in the country that everything said at election times is not always seriously meant. The hon. member for Standerton said during the 1924 election that if the Nationalist party got into power capital would desert the country, and Gen. Kemp would become Minister of Defence. He would get control of the guns, and proclaim a republic, and blood and tears would follow. I do not believe that he really meant it. Therefore, it was only for the purpose of getting a little political support, to smouse a little, to alarm his friends so that they should not vote for the Nationalist party. I, however, think that those friends of his are not sorry that they put a Nationalist Government into power. We rejoice because the racial relations are much better than they have ever been. They are better because the Prime Minister and this Cabinet have seen that every section of the population got its full rights. They did not allow the rights of one section to be sacrificed to buy conciliation. I have always been in favour of conciliation. I agreed with the late Gen. Botha that we must bring the two races together, and I think that every responsible statesmen, who is worthy of representing the public in the House, must be in favour of bringing them together. If he is not, he is not a worthy representative of the people. I, however, differ from Gen. Botha in the method by which he wanted to reach it, viz., by sacrificing the rights of the Dutch speaking to buy the goodwil of the English speaking because we shall never bring the two races together in that way. My hon. friend just behind me says that there must be a little of the fifty-fifty idea.

Is it fifty-fifty now?

Yes. That hon. member who sits on the front bench of his party repeatedly makes an attack here to protest when anyone with a Dutch name gets an appointment. He must change that policy, because otherwise he is not worthy of sitting on the front bench of his party. I want to ask him to abandon that line of action of stirring up racial passions.

You know that what you say is an untruth.

It is very necessary that no statesman in our country should do anything to keep the two races apart. They must be brought together, but they must, at the same time, respect each other. The policy followed by this Government during the past six years was reckoned to build up joint patriotism in South Africa, which would be of great benefit to the country if danger came. If the two races are not united where shall we be if trouble comes? There will be times of difficulties, and in view thereof we must provide a joint patriotism. Some people call me “Uncle,” I am still young. Nevertheless, I have taken a small part in our history; I know what my feelings were after the second war of independence. I was bitter, I did not want to live here, I wanted to go to the Argentine, my friends however spoke to me and said that I ought not to be a coward, and run away. They said that we had lost the war, but that there was another fight in front, the constitutional struggle. I am glad that I stopped in the country, and together with the Prime Minister fought in the constitutional struggle, because now we have found the victory. It was crowned in 1926when our complete independence was acknowledged.

What about the baboon?

No, we are not talking about that now. The baboon is free, the chain was cut in 1926, and he is no longer tied to the pole. I do not to-night merely want to speak to the Opposition, but to my own party colleagues as well. Not only in this House, but also out of it. There is one thing about which I particularly want to say a few words, viz., the appointment of the Governor-General. A little while ago we heard that a new Governor-General was to be appointed, and there was a demand by a section of my party that he should be an Afrikaner. I said nothing. I am not a leader, but I now want to say that my leader acted correctly, and that I agree with him. Now I want to tell the Opposition, and particularly my English-speaking friends why I agree. I put myself in their place and said, “look, how did I feel in 1902”?

They have no grievances.

Yes, they have and I will mention them. I was accustomed to be free under the republic, but after 1902 my freedom was taken away and also my old ideal and I had to submit. I felt hurt, and pinpricks were given from time to time. When the Prime Minister introduced the education ordinance in the Free State the agitation started, and we felt pinpricks from time to time. We, however, got over them, but now there are English friends who were always accustomed to the idea of the Imperial Government, as lord of all, and they must now give up that idea. They always thought that we ought not to be our own master, that we could do nothing without approval from overseas, and they have always continued to live with their thoughts in the “home” 6,000 miles from here. I, therefore, ask myself what this feeling of the English-speaking friends must be of whom I would like to make good Afrikaners. I said we must give them no pinpricks, but must give them a chance. The declaration of the Imperial Conference was a great defeat to them. We know it, because they were told that they were quite wrong, and that they must submit to a new state of affairs. I know it takes a little time for a section of the people. They were obstinate just as I was, and therefore I sympathize with them, and I think that it was the step of a statesman to say that they must have time, and that we must not injure the co-operation and friendship of the two races by endangering the position by something that is not worth so much. That was a great man’s word, and although many of my party colleagues took it a little amiss in him they will, when a little more water has flown into the sea, realize that the Prime Minister was right. Now I want to ask whether the Opposition do not appreciate such acts. Was not that the act of a great man?

Yes.

I ask them now to give up as soon as possible the old views, that they will wean themselves from the old things, so that in five years possibly it may be possible to appoint an Afrikaner.

Am I not a good Afrikaner?

I do not know whether he is a good South African yet, but I hope that he will be in five years. Another thing that I would like to say a few words on is about the statues to Gen. Botha and Gen. de Wet. I am not much of financial expert, and I hope the House will give me the opportunity of saying something on this subject. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his decision in connection with the erection of the two statues. This is another thing for which the public will thank him. I know that there was a feeling on this side of the House against Gen. Botha. I said the other day, and I repeat, that I admired the late Gen. Botha from 1899 and took off my hat to him until 1912. After that I differed from him, but he is no more, and if the statutes of the two great Afrikaners are put next to each other and I visit them, then I shall not think of the wrong action but of the actions in the interests of the people of South Africa, and I will forgive him the other actions. I think the Prime Minister has there also done a great deed. I think that everyone appreciates that the statue of President Kruger is the first that one sees just outside Pretoria station. It comes as an inspiration, and we think of his religious sense and his firmness, and then we go to the Union Buildings and see the statutes of the two great Afrikaners then I will think it will be an inspiration to our people. I would like our people to build its future on that. I am sorry that the leader of the Opposition is not here. I want to appeal to him to sometimes forget a little that he is the leader of a political party, and to remember that he is a leader of the section of the Afrikaans people. I know that some of my party colleagues do not like it when I say that at some of my meetings during the last election the question was asked me by South African party supporters whether I did not think that Gen. Smuts was a great man. I said certainly he is a great man, and has done great deeds, but that I was not there to praise him, but to criticize his mistakes, and that he had made great mistakes. I do not want to go into it further, but I would like him as leader to take the hand of the Prime Minister and follow his example, so that the two leaders come together to solve the great problems. There are great problems which we must face, and which will not be solved unless the leaders of the parties come together. We know that the Prime Minister has great influence, but I never knew that it was so great as it turned out in connection with the women’s franchise. I am certain that a very large section of the women are opposed to it, but because the Prime Minister says that they are to get the franchise they think it a good thing, inasmuch as he can make no mistakes. When anyone enjoys such confidence a great responsibility rests on him, and the same applies to the leader of the Opposition. I admire the Dutch-speaking Saps for the confidence they put in him. A thing peculiar to them, and that we must praise, is the loyalty of the Dutch-speaking Afrikaners. By it they were enabled to resist for three years the greatest military power in the world. Let the two leaders join hands and work together in the best interests of the South African people. Then I want to say a few words more in connection with farmers’ interests, but I first want to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the financial relations in the provinces. The children in the Cape Province are in an unfavourable position as against those in the other provinces. The other provinces get more per child, and I want to assure the Prime Minister—

Hear, hear.

I hope that that is not party spirit showing itself again.

I want to point out to the hon. member that there was a motion on the order paper on the subject, and that he cannot debate it now.

Then I will abandon it, and say something as a Cape Province taxpayer about the competition of the motor buses with the railways. It is in connection with the motor lorries that compete with the trains, hon. members know the position. The lorries come from the Free State, they can carry a load of 9,000 lbs., and they pay a tax of £2 a year in the Free State. They load the wool in the Free State, and travel along the railway line to the Cape Province. They pass, inter alia, through Burghersdorp, and they destroy the roads there. In the Free State they are only taxed £2, and we, in the Cape, have to pay to repair the roads which they break up. This is not right, and I think the Government should give attention to it, and the sooner that uniformity comes in this matter of traffic taxation the better. I am sorry the Minister of Mines and Industries is not in his place because I want to discuss another thing which was passed in the provincial council when he was administrator. In the Cape roads are divided into two classes that are called A roads and B roads. The A roads are more or less the main roads, which usually run along the railways, or from one town to another, they are therefore mostly pleasure roads, which are used by travellers, but the district itself usually gets the benefit from A roads. The outside districts use the B roads. The subsidy for A roads is £70 a mile, but for B roads £3 per mile, that is wrong; we feel that it is unjust to the farmer, and the taxpayer to have to maintain those roads. I appeal to the Government when they once more allot a part of the £1,000,000 to the provincial councils for the roads to make the stipulation that much more of it should be devoted not for pleasure roads but for the roads along which the farmer has to take his produce to the railway. Further, I appeal to the Minister to allow the provincial councils to levy a tax on petrol. That equal tax on motors is not at all a just thing. I therefore ask the Minister to allow taxation to be imposed on petrol, because that is much fairer.

It is already taxed.

Yes, that is the tax which the Minister levied, but we want to repeal the land tax and the motor tax, and to put a tax on petrol in their place.

Will the provinces agree to a part of the subsidy being withdrawn if we give them the right of putting a tax on petrol?

I believe that the provinces will go very far if they are met in this respect. Then I want to express the view of all the farmers in the Albert district—and they are the most progressive farmers in the Union —when I thank the Minister, but there is one point on which I do not agree with him, that is the levy of 1s. on a bale of wool. Let me say that I do not oppose the principle of the levy, but the objects for which it is to be used. The Minister said that it would be used for propaganda, for advertising, for research work, and for inspectors at the ports. As for advertising, I do not know what the Minister wants to advertise, because the whole world knows that we produce nearly 1,000,000 bales of wool. In addition, the money is to be spent on propaganda. I do not know what propaganda may be made, but if the money is used to make propaganda in Europe that the people should wear more wool and less silks then it will be useful. Let all the countries, however, that produce wool contribute pro rata towards that propaganda, and let us co-operate with them. As for research work I do not know what research work will be done. In England they have a research institute of which Dr. Barker is the head. We made his acquaintance, and he made a very good impression. If then we want to spend money on research work let us give it as a subsidy to that institute in England, and let them try to find a product which has the advantages of silk, but to spend the money from that levy for research work here, even if they mean it well. I do not think will lead to satisfactory results. Because I am so much in favour of the levy I fear that if we have it for two years and see no results that we will then put the farmers against it.

You are putting them against it.

No, that is not so, and it would not be necessary, as the farmers think for themselves, and if I tried to do so they would quickly say that I was wrong. I have, however, been at meetings where the farmers unanimously disapproved of the use of that levy for those purposes. Then a portion is to be used for appointing inspectors at the ports. I do not agree with that, because every farmer knows what he packs in his bales, and if he puts his name on them then he is proud of them. Anyone can cut open the bale, and will find a good article. We know that there are a few farmers who pack their wool wrongly, and mark it wrongly, but is it right to tax ourselves on account of those few wrong-doers? Usually also it is not the farmers who fraudulently pack wool, but people who buy up wool like smousers, and who then mark it wrongly. I suggest that the Minister should introduce a Bill making it punishable to falsely mark and repack wool; because the man who buys it can cut open the bale, and if the contents do not agree with the marking, then it ought to be possible to punish such a seller. I do not complain about the half-penny, but I am against the principle. I am absolutely opposed to the farmers being taxed for the kind of service in inspecting wool bales at the coast. We might just as well propose to tax the farmers to pay the cost of the scab inspectors. We know that the old Unionists always said, “tax the farmer, and then he will very soon see that scab is eradicated.” I do not complain of the levy of 1s. on every bale of wool, but I am so frightened that the peculiar nature of this levy will stampede the farmers against the principle of levies. The farmers in my constituency met and decided that they would pay a levy of 2s. 6d. They are in favour of the principle of a levy, but they disapprove of the object for which this special levy which is proposed is to be used. They want to pay 2s. 6d. on every bale of wool, and when the farmer has paid a hundred half-crowns the Government must give him a certificate for that money, a certificate which will operate as proof that he has lent that sum to the Government, and the farmer will be proud of it. Let me repeat that I am proud of that class of farmer whom I represent and who have, of their own motion, proposed it. They further suggest that the farmers should pay a small levy on every wether, ox, or sack of grain he sells, and as soon as enough money has been collected a farmers’ bank must be established. Every farmer has his certificates for the levy he has paid, and then fully paid shares can be issued to him for the amount represented by his certificates. The farmers are tired of the commercial banks, and they want to collect capital in this way for their own bank. As the hon. member said here, the Boere Saamwerk are already charging 2s. 6d. on every bale of wool, and its shareholders have already collected £26,000 in that way. The intention is to eventually establish a bank. The farmer does not always want to go to the Government for assistance. They want, in this way, to help themselves. I should like the Minister of Agriculture to listen to me, and go carefully into this matter, because I can assure him that the farmers have unanimously resolved, and that they are in earnest about this matter. All they require is a person with initiative to tackle the matter, and they are convinced that the Minister of Agriculture is the man. I want to refer a little to what the yield of the levy will be if the Minister of Agriculture accepts this hint. We sell about 900,000 bales of wool a year, and if the levy is 2s. 6d. a bale it means £112,500. We sell about 20,000,000 bags of maize, and at 3d. a bag it means £250,000. We reap about 3,000,000 muids of wheat, on that the levy will amount to £75,000. About 2,400,000 sheep and goats are slaughtered at our abattoirs, and quite a lot more art the smaller places. I do not want to give all the details, but I made the calculation that the total receipts from a levy would be £625,000 every year. This amount the farmers collect every year, and I now want to ask farmer members in this House if it is too much for a farmer to pay 2s. 6d. on a bale of wool, 6d. on a muid of wheat, 3d. on a bag of mealies, etc., if he gets a voucher for it, and if the Government pays interest on the money to him which he lends them in this way until there is a total amount collected of £3,000,000, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, so that the farmers’ bank can be established?

The farmers will live then like kings.

No, we will not live like kings, but we will feel more independent. When bad times come the farmer will not be obliged to sell his produce for what he can get. This bank will be able to make him an advance until he can get what his produce really is worth. It will not be necessary for him to go hat in hand to the Government or to rely on the grace of the commercial banks. When we tackle this matter and the farmers see the benefit of it, then they will have no further objections. Then they will strongly support such an institution. The Minister is in favour of co-operation but opposed to compulsory cooperation. I want to tell him that we cannot make a success of co-operation unless it is compulsory. I am not in favour of the Government compelling every man to belong to a co-operative society, but when a co-operative society in a particular district controls 50 per cent. of the wheat, and fixes the price of 10s., then there should be a law to prevent the other 50 per cent. from selling at 8s. The first idea which arises amongst hon. members is, of course, that if the farmer gets that power he may possibly abuse it by allowing the price of foodstuffs to go up and to exploit the consumer. I am not afraid of that, but in view of that objection I suggest the prices should be fixed with the approval of the Government, and in that way steps can be taken to prevent the consumer being exploited. When we get to the stage of having this kind of legislation with the assistance of the Government, controlling the farm produce and the financial institution, then we can ourselves become able to fix the price of wool. The Minister knows that the conference of wool farmers in Cape Town suggested our getting into touch with Australia to mutually draw a scheme and co-operate and stabilize the price of wool. I am certain that if we negotiate with Australia and New Zealand, and we stand together and have financial institutions we can then fix the price we want. We cannot, of course, fix a ridiculously high price because we must always remember artificial silk and other imitations, but we can fix the price for the various classes of wool. I do not allow myself to be told that they can get on without our wool. The manufacturers have it and the public must wear it. I have a sample here of artificial wool and I can show it to hon. members. I do not for a moment think that it can take the place of wool. That is the way we ought to organize. I am speaking as a farmer, and I am glad that the Prime Minister is listening. We notice that the farmers are going to the towns and villages. What is the reason? It is said to be drought, locusts, hail, etc. Those are possibly additional causes, but the great cause is that the poor farmer, who produces in the sweat of his brow, never, or very seldom, gets full value for his produce. I can assure the Government that unless measures are taken so that our producers get full value for their labour, South African farming will never be a success. Now they are exploited by unscrupulous middlemen. I do not say my scheme is perfect. I only suggest it, and ask the Government to seriously consider it. The Government will hesitate to tax the farmers in a time like this. Let me assure them that if a farmer can sell his produce, and if all goes well, he does not want to see taxation in his own interests, but in a time like this all the farmers will be prepared to tax themselves if it is in their interests. If the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to say that he will accept the scheme if the farmers unanimously ask for it, then the farmers will be prepared to tax themselves. I know that other hon. members want to talk, and therefore I will not go into this matter further, and will leave the other point over to the committee stage. I again want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on this year’s surplus. We know that he is a man that is very careful, and although he expects a deficit next year, we believe that he will once more surprise us with a surplus.

I am going to take the liberty of congratulating the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) on an instructive and constructive speech. I appreciate it the more highly because the subject on which I wish to speak is irrigation, and I am glad to know that I have not to waste any of our irrigation water in putting out the fire of hon. members who have spoken. The present position is such that it demands the attention of the best brains on both sides of the House. Many of us realize, and I think the general public is beginning to realize, that a good many of our irrigation schemes rest on a foundation that is economically unsound, as unsound as the water they deliver, or in many cases which they are supposed to deliver and do not. The time has arrived when we should consider the whole policy of irrigation. The policy of drift, and of hoping against hope, has gone far enough. To-day we have to face facts and reconsider the whole thing. The danger is that unless we reconsider and re-cast our whole policy, the very word “irrigation” is going to frighten people, and very shortly we shall have a public protest against expenditure on the lines we have undertaken so far. Irrigation has suffered from a boom period, and now the time is more than opportune for us to reconsider the whole matter. The failure is perhaps more apparent than real. To judge an irrigation scheme solely from an economical point of view, whether it is paying interest on the capital expenditure and meeting redemption charges, is perhaps a mistake, if we neglect or fail to appreciate the indirect return, as we are often inclined to do. I will quote one instance, the scheme that cost the Government from £60,000 to £65,000. The actual expenditure on that scheme by the owners concerned amounts to over £250,000, and a large proportion of that money was derived from overseas. Many men sunk all their capital in that scheme, and war pensions derived from the Imperial Government. This is not a case of men drawing their pensions in this country and spending them overseas, but of men drawing pensions from overseas and spending them in South Africa. Our experience with regard to irrigation is not peculiar to this country. It is common to every country which has gone in for large schemes of irrigation. In America recently a conference of engineers was held at which irrigation engineers were largely represented. America is a country where we send many students to study efficiency amongst other things. At that congress it was seriously suggested that America should call a halt of ten years in the matter of irrigation development, and that the money for that period be used in putting existing schemes on a sound basis. For ten years no new work was to be undertaken. That suggestion was put forward by the men most competent to express an opinion as to what should be done. It is a question whether this House is prepared to face three very unpalatable facts. The first of those facts is that our past policy has been wrong. I am not going to deal with the matter of who initiated that policy. We are not called upon to institute enquiries as to who did this or who did that, to institute a heresy hunt or to apportion blame. I think the House will agree that our irrigation policy in the past was a wrong one. I am prepared to admit that I have myself been mistaken in some respects, and I am prepared to do my part towards rectifying the mistakes of the past, and ensuring the avoidance of those mistakes in the future. The second fact is that we have apparently no policy at all at present, and the third fact we have to face is that if irrigation development is even to survive, it has to be radically different from what it has been in the past. I want to quote the words of the Irrigation Commission on this point—

Now there is no question of laying the blame on one party or on any party—

This is the opinion of the Irrigation Commission, a body that must not be confused with the Irrigation Department, it is quite separate and distinct, and consists of one South African-trained engineer and two South African farmers—a very competent body indeed. What is the remedy? I am not here to damage what has been done in the past or what is being done at the present time. I have spent many years in this country as a constructive engineer, and my feeling is that any fool can destroy and break down, but it takes the best brains to build up and construct. The only remedy or palliative, which has been applied for the cure of irrigation is a system of applying write-offs. This method is unsatisfactory and demoralizing and encourages people to accept liability under the impression that when the day comes they will be able to evade, in part, some of these responsibilities. I say it is dishonest, because I feel that the system is deluding the taxpayer into a false sense of security that his money is invested on sound lines that the going to bring in interest at current rates, and that he will secure redemption in due course, when we know that there is very little chance indeed of some of these schemes redeeming half of the capital sunk in them. On that point of “write-off” finance I want to quote the Irrigation Commission—

We should be honest and tell them at the outset that the schemes require a subsidy. Do not let us come afterwards and propose these little write-offs. I think it is commercially dishonest. We have to face this question of subsidy. We must either expand steadily, consistent with the amount of money which the Government can devote to irrigation in the form of subsidy, or we must contract to the extremely narrow limits imposed by construction of schemes that can stand on their own legs, and such schemes, in my experience, are very few and far between. I would like to quote in connection with the subsidy and the indirect benefits of irrigation. This is the Irrigation Commission’s report, I may say, frankly, in regard to the Hartebeestpoort scheme—

I do not know if the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) is in the House, but I hope, if he is, he will pay attention to this as he owes his seat to the establishment of this scheme. What form should the subsidy take? The suggestion I am going to put to the House is not an original one. It is very widely held by people of authority on these matters that no large irrigation scheme should be undertaken unless the Government is able to provide, free of cost, for the development of land under that irrigation scheme, not the cost of construction of the scheme itself; to cultivate the ground into a going concern as a farming proposition. The day is past, not only in this country, but elsewhere wherever irrigation works have been in existence—when irrigation works attracted men with capital. Irrigation schemes to-day only attract the poor man and those people who have not the money to sink in development. It is the problem of the man who is poor which is the most important problem that we have to solve to-day. I know that hon. members of this House will appreciate the value of the men who came in with irrigation schemes in the past and contributed their capital, energy and enthusiasm. If it had not been for them, we should not have had any irrigation problem to-day, because we should not have any irrigation. Possibly in touching upon this I am covering the ground covered by the member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys). Irrigation to-day must certainly go hand in hand with land settlement. You cannot divorce one from the other. Hand in hand with irrigation you have the problem of land development. The hon. the Minister of Labour told us yesterday that 8,000 men had passed through the hands of the Hartebeestpoort training institution. These 8,000 men are as equally necessary to the success of irrigation as £80,000 or £800,000 spent on capital works for irrigation. I am going to suggest, and even demand in this House, that any irrigation schemo of any magnitude in which the expenditure of state money is involved shall be undertaken only after the closest investigation, not only by engineers, but by soil surveyors, and by the agricultural economist. Had we had proper soil surveys in the past, in this way, I am quite sure that many of the troubles from which we are suffering to-day would never have occurred. The basis of our trouble is that it has been thought that the be-all and end-all of irrigation was simply spilling water on the land. The opinions of those I have mentioned should be the decisive factor in deciding whether or not we should go in for any irrigation scheme. The moment that political pressure or political expediency becomes a factor in the consideration of irrigation schemes, then those schemes, before one stone has been laid upon another, are doomed to failure. I want to make a reference to the Irrigation Department. I want to express my opinion quite frankly on the Irrigation Department. You have an Irrigation Department which, I think, represents the ideal we are all looking forward to. It is composed of technical men who have been born and bred in this country. I think, with few exceptions, they are all South African-born. Those of us who come from overseas have played our part, and I think we have also played our part in the system to build the framework of young South Africa. I want to say that your irrigation department is presided over by one of the ablest and soundest engineers who ever looked along a level in connection with irrigation work in this country.

As a young member, I always understood that the Opposition attacked the budget and that thereafter it became the duty of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways and Harbours to reply to their criticism. I am convinced that those two Ministers will have a very easy task, as very little criticism has been delivered in the course of this debate. If we look at what the two members opposite have said, viz., those two members who aspire to become Minister of Finance in a future South African party Cabinet, and also if we look at what has been said by that hon. member who aims at becoming Minister of Railways and Harbours, we find in their speeches very little that can be regarded as criticism of the estimates that are before us. The hon. member for Salt River, (Mr. Lawrence) made the interesting suggestion here that there should be more elections. He states that the people, nine months ago, expressed their confidence in the present Government. He wishes, however, to have a sort of political appeal nine months after the elections in order to ascertain whether the Government still enjoys the confidence of the people. It really would appear as if the hon. member desires to have a general election every nine months, so that the South African party may once again try another programme if they find that the electorate do not want their programme. This reminds me of the man who suggested that all the money in the world should be placed into one pool and then be equally divided. He was told that in any case he would very quickly spend his share, and his reply was: “Very well, then we will share again.” I am afraid that if the hon. member’s suggestion should be carried into effect, it would mean that we would have an election every nine months, because his party will never come into power.

Yes, but if we come into power, we shall remain there.

We have often heard that kind of prophecy. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) attacked the budget, but it again struck us at once that members opposite do not speak with the same voice. We on this side of the House speak with one voice. We have one policy right throughout the country, from the north to the south. We have one policy in regard to our coloured population and one policy in regard to the native problem. On the other side of the House, however, such is not the case. The hon. member for Yeoville is not in favour of protection, but he is not quite opposed to it either. He is half and half. It would appear, however, that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is an out and out free trader. If we are out to protect the real interests of the country, then we must do something to promote our industries and to find work for our people. Not all the people can remain farmers and live in the country districts. It has been proved in all the countries of the world that the farming population is decreasing in numbers. And in our country, too, a portion of the people who are to-day on the land have to look for other work, and it is the duty of the Government to render employment available so that those people can find a living in our industries and in industrial activities. The Government’s policy with regard to our industries is well known. The Government aims at fostering our industries by giving them protection in the same way as other countries protect their industries. If we do not do that, our industries will never be developed. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a violent attack on the Government because ready-made clothes are protected. He states that this is a bastard industry. Whether it is a bastard industry or not, the fact remains that these clothes are made here and that work is provided for hundreds and thousands of our people.

But do not you realize that because of that all of us have to pay more for our clothes.

Yes, but we must have that protection, otherwise our factories will close down. It is because you would not accept that fact that the South African party was thrown out of office in 1924. An English-speaking person stated in the past that the Nationalist party at least had an industrial policy, something which the previous Government had never had. The hon. member for Yeoville stated here with a smile that the present Government was accustomed to surpluses, but that there was going to be a deficit now. When there were surpluses he attacked the Government year after year because there were surpluses, and now he rejoices because there may be a deficit. I do not say that there will be a deficit, because the prophets sit on the other side of the House, and I prefer to wait and see whether there is really a deficit at the end of the fianancial year. The hon. member for Yeoville further said that he protests against the increased expenditure for additional staff. Does he want us to believe that a developing country does not require more people, and does he expect that while the population is increasing, the expenditure will not be increasing? The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) made it clear the other day that the percentage increase in expenditure under the late Government was higher than under the administration of the present Government. The hon. member further complained that the price of wheat was lower, but that the price of bread remains the same. Whose fault is that? Does he want to blame the present Government for that? No, it is the result of the attitude of the millers, the bakers, and generally of the Chamber of Commerce. The Government does its best to get a better price for the farmer, but those interests see to it that the price of bread does not go down. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated that he had never made an attack on the Dutch-speaking section, but he told us here the other day that the Government had made an advance to the co-operative society at Oudtshoorn because Oudtshoorn was represented in Parliament by a Nationalist. His insinuation was that the advance would not have been made if Oudtshoorn had not been represented by a Nationalist. Is not he familiar with the Umfolozi mill in Natal?

Yes, but the Government did not buy the sugar.

No, but it made an advance to that co-operative society, and I am convinced that the Government will not get all that money back, although that constituency is not represented by a Nationalist. I repeat that the Government will not get all the money back.

Who says that?

I do, as you hear. The Government meant well with the ostrich farmers. Those people make their existence out of ostrich farming, and the Government intended helping them with this advance. Apparently the Government’s intentions in regard to the sugar mill in Natal were identical. The Government did not ask whether the people in Natal were Nationalists, but it tried there as well to keep them going. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also complained about the special income tax court. He insinuated that the Government had created that court in order to find a job for a pal. The hon. member should know that the courts in this country already have too much work, with the result that they often cannot give judgment at once, and their judgments have to be reserved. That is the reason why this court has been created. The intention was not what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wishes us to believe. The hon. member further spoke about the work which Gen. Maritz has done. The objections on the other side of the House are due to the fact that they had anticipated an explosion in Namaqualand, and as a result of this appointment there was no explosion. I do not know Gen. Maritz. I have only read of him, but if the Government ever did a wise thing, they did it when they sent him there. The hon. member stated here that Gen. Maritz had been appointed as welfare officer, but that he was not a welfare officer for the farmers, but only for himself. Is not that a base insinuation against Gen. Maritz? If that man was out to look after himself, he would not have remained in the service mererly for two months and, including his travelling expenses, have drawn only a little over £300. The Minister of Agriculture rendered a great service to the country by settling the discontent in Namaqualand in this manner and by solving the difficulty as well. The objections from the other side are not so much to what has been done, but because, according to the views of hon. members opposite, Gen. Maritz took a false step in the past.

I did not criticize Gen. Maritz, but I did criticize the attitude of the Public Service Commission.

I cannot understand in what respect the Public Service Commission is to be regarded as a rubber-stamp, because the appointment was necessary and wise, and the commission, therefore, had no cause to refuse it. Without rifles, without “head-shots,” without aeroplanes. This was done simply because it was the best thing to do. I believe that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the appointment of Mr. Grobler in connection with the Namaqualand state mine.

I spoke about his salary.

Yes, that is £3,500. I want to ask the hon. member how much the managers of the mines on the Rand are paid. I have been assured that their salaries range from £4,000 to £5,000, and possibly even more. If the Government requires a competent and thorough man for its business, must he be paid less? This is a very responsible position.

How much did Mr. Grobler earn before that?

What has that got to do with it? He was appointed. I do not wish to insinuate that the reason for the attack was that the person appointed was a “Grobler.” We recently heard the attack which was made on the Minister for Mines and Industries because of the appointment of Mr. Roos and Dr. de Kock to the Diamond Board, but not a single word about the appointment of Mr. Ross Frames. Let us be honest. Our friends on the other side are dissatisfied because they are no longer able to dictate who are to be appointed. Fortunately Ministers do not allow themselves to be dictated to and fortunately they appoint whom they think fit. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) said that the country should take a five minutes’ pause. The country had fourteen years in which to meditate when the Opposition was in power and it was quite natural when the Opposition in 1924 was thrown out of power. In 1929 prophesies were again blazoned throughout the country, but the Nationalist party came back stronger than ever. I do not propose for one moment to say that nothing has been done that was wrong. No Government in the world is perfect. Nobody is perfect. Let us, however, think of the position before 1924. Nobody less than Sir Frederic de Waal in 1923 stated that it was a black year. Subsidies to the provinces had been so curtailed by the previous Government that your child and my child and the child of our fellow-Afrikaner could not find room on the school benches. When this Government came into power, they realized at once that the provincial councils must be helped, so that at all events, all European children should receive an education. This was done. Now the hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper) comes with a proposal that the subsidy should be raised. I am also in favour of that, but he should at least have shown his gratitude.

Order! The hon. member cannot enter into that now; this matter has been dealt with by this House by way of motion.

We are grateful for what the Minister has done and we rejoice that he is prepared further to go into the matter. I now come to the poor-white problem. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort asked what is being done in regard to this matter. I want to point out that the Minister for Lands has so amended the Law that where in the past one-fifth had to be paid when a person applied for land, to-day only one-tenth has to be paid. Is not that something to help people on to the land? The Government is in touch with the people and does what it can. The other day a railway proposal was before the House and it was lost. The Government had followed the policy of placing Europeans on the railways at a commencing wage of, I think, 5s. 6d. per day. What did the late Government do? Mr. Jagger took as many whites off the railways as possible and placed natives in their stead. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) now states that the railway workers should get higher pay, but when his side was in power, as many whites as possible were put off the railways. The public will realize that they are not in earnest, for the public remembers their actions. There are however a few matters which the Government may well go into and may well consider. One of these matters is the rates for motor buses. I cannot conceive why the rate for wheat should be lower than the rate for wool. It may be argued that a bale of wool is worth more.

Certainly.

If that is the basis then sand and stone should be carried practically for nothing.

Who wants to carry sand and stone over the railways?

I shall be pleased if the Minister will carry it free of charge, because we shall avail ourselves of it. I trust that the Minister will look into the question why the rate on wool is higher and if he will see whether it can be changed. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) has spoken about the astounding figures in regard to the purchase of motor cars. We in the rural areas realize that this is an evil. I have often asked myself whether legislation should not be introduced to provide for the collection of debts on motor cars in the same way as for instance bills in connection with premiums for insurance which can also be repudiated later on. In many instances motor-cars are bought unnecessarily. A great deal has been said about the depression which is prevailing at present. Possibly it is greatly exaggerated, but throughout the world prices of products have gone down terribly and we cannot expect South Africa to be an exception. I am sorry that so few members of the South African party are present in the House, because I want to show how they try to make political capital out of everything, even out of the police force which they are trying to undermine. Some time ago the Argus in large letters directed attention to certain happenings at Wellington, where policemen were alleged to have cruelly ill-treated certain natives. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who should have known better, rose in his seat and in all seriousness introduced a proposal to direct the attention of the Government to this matter and he even wished to adjourn the House. I say that it is a disgrace that a man in his position should do such a thing. He should know that every question has two sides, but these policemen were Afrikaners with Afrikaner names, and the other side tried to make political capital out of this and they tried to condemn these policemen before they had been heard.

Did we do that because they had Afrikaner names?

Yes; what right have hon. members to condemn these people before they were tried? Hon. members may say that this is nonsense, but the finding of the court shows which side was in the wrong, they or we. One of the accused policemen by the name of le Roux was, according to the evidence of two prominent farmers in the Paarl district, on their farm during the nights when the assaults were alleged to have been committed. Mr. Justice Watermeyer stated that there was no case whatever against le Roux and that without doubt he was not there at all. A story has, however, been told to the South African party friends at Wellington and they have now secured an opportunity of making a new platform plank out of it for the elections.

It is clear that the Minister for Justice will have to make an investigation and I think he will make one.

The jury has found these men not guilty and the South African party condemned them before they were tried. I have read the reports in the Argus and there were great headings in regard to sensational evidence, but when one reads the reports, there is nothing in them. Counsel for the defence had to draw attention to the fact that the accused had been seriously prejudiced. The South African party papers in large letters drew the attention of the public to it and the Opposition aimed at undermining discipline in the police force. Some of the best men in the police force, who were on the point of going on pension, have stated that they had heard of nothing, but a great commotion has been made over this matter with a view to getting these policemen into difficulties. I hope that the Opposition and especially the hon. member for Caledon will withdraw what they have said and will admit that they only aimed at making political capital.

You should withdraw your words.

The court has given its decision. These are not my words, but that is the finding of the court which gave its decision to-day. Had they been guilty, the court would have found them guilty. The judge said that nothing could be brought against le Roux. The object of the Opposition is merely to undermine the police force in that manner. I consider that the South African party have had their opportunity; they have no arguments, they are absolutely bankrupt. They had an opportunity of ruling, but they brought the country into such a state that they had to give way. I can only say that they have always reminded me of a little social function which I once attended. One of our friends was getting married, and there was a man among the guests who had made rather a hash of his married life. When we were all wishing good luck to the bridegroom, he said: We wish you a long and happy future, and we only hope that you will not make such a mess of it as we have done. And that is all the South African party can say to us: We wish you a long and happy future, and we only hope that you will not make such a mess of it as we have done.

I want to say to this House and to the country that owing to the alteration of the standing orders it would be seen that, after the first speakers have been heard, members in this part of the House have to wait all day and all the next day before securing an opportunity of expressing the opinions of the thousands of people who support our party.

The hon. member must not reflect on the decision of the House.

It is not the fault of Mr. Speaker; it is the fault of the rules of this House. I know it is not quite a correct thing for me to discuss the matter at this stage, but I think it is quite proper that I should say that it is my intention to place before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders the question of alteration of the rules governing the budget debate. I think we should put forward this position to the committee. Before the rules were altered, there was no limitation of speeches, except in the budget debate where there was a 40-minute rule a “buzzer” went at the end of 40 minutes. I remember the Minister of Finance speaking for about two and a half hours, and Mr. F. W. Beyers speaking for three hours. I remember the Minister of Defence speaking for seven hours.

Oh, no, only five and three-quarters.

The Minister of Defence, after speaking for that length of time, went out of the House and took a tug boat and tried to catch the S.S. Umgeni and thus try to justify his speech. Since then we have had a 40 minutes limit to all our other debates, but in this debate, in which the whole policy of the Government for the forthcoming year is under review, there is no limit to speeches, but a limit of five days to the debate itself. Having curtailed speeches to 40 minutes in every other debate, surely it is unfair that five days should be set apart for this debate without any limitation of the speeches. Speaking on behalf of the thousands of people who believe that their point of view should be fully expressed in this debate, I submit that the time has now come when the five days’ guillotine should be excised from our rules, and that we should go back, in this debate, to 40 minutes’ speeches. Speeches of 40 minutes would not take so much time, probably, as we are taking up now. One has noticed since this debate began, an element of party tactics— nothing to do with Mr. Speaker—so many hours available to the Opposition and so many to the Government side. I express my thanks to the Speaker for looking after the rights of the minority in this House. Notwithstanding the difficulties he is faced with, he does recognize that this small minority that sits here, a minority that is excluded from all select committees, and from everything parliamentary, outside this chamber, has rights, and Mr. Speaker has shown that he is a real Speaker because he has defended the rights of the minority. I want to put that on record to show that we appreciate the treatment we have received. I hope that before the next budget debate comes along, we shall prevent members having to scramble over each other to get in. My hon. friend, the member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) got the ear of the House last night, and yet, during the delivery of his excellent speech, he was much concerned because of the fear that he was shutting out his colleagues. We were all sorry to see that the hon. member was speaking against time. It was not fair to him, it was not fair to his constituents and it was not fair to this House. I trust that when we have our next Budget debate the position will be entirely changed and everyone will have the opportunity to express the point of view he has been sent to this House to represent. I was particularly concerned to hear the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) say that the national council of the Labour party were the real wreckers of the Labour party. This war in the Labour party has gone on for some years, and the question has been summed up by those people who have a desire for Labour to progress. If the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) were to come and put up a case, I would listen to him, but why should I listen to the hon. member for Christiana, who does not give any consideration to the Labour party? For him to say that we are the wreckers of a party that he does not belong to, and, I take it, has very little time for—

How do you know that?

Well, if you have ideas in so far as the Labour party is concerned, you cannot belong to any other party. I myself once belonged to another political party many years ago, I took pride in the fact that I was a Unionist. I was elected to the Johannesburg town council, because I was classed as being a good supporter of the present hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) then the member for Fordsburg.

How you have come down in the world since then !

When I was elected to that position I was there exactly two months when the Unionist caucus would have nothing to do with me. I was elected on Wednesday, and on the following Friday week I was told I must vote for a certain mayor of Johannesburg. I told them I would see him in h— first. I took an active part in politics, and realized that there was only one thing for it, and that was to give up association with a party that I found myself out of sympathy with, my career in the Johannesburg town council proves that my principles were labour, which I ultimately joined. I have a lot to say about the budget. I have listened to extraordinary speeches and to the reading of cuttings from various papers. I have listened to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) saying all sorts of twaddle. On the other hand I heard an excellent speech by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). But none of these speeches seem to have any bearing on the budget. My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, has really nothing to answer yet, as far as his budget is concerned, and I am going to put to him a suggestion which may prove useful. When one is listening to all the speeches put over in this debate, it behoves us to put over the view of our party, and I also propose to contribute something which I think will be worthy of the Minister’s attention. The hon. member for Christiana asked this House whether they thought, when certain back benchers on the South African party side raised the question of 10s. minimum for railwaymen, they were sincere about this, but I would ask him whether he is sincere in his assumption that 10s. minimum is the least fair minimum for a white man to live on in this country. If he is not, we on these benches are out for this, that no white man should be offered a job at less than 10s. a day, and least of all by a Government department. If the hon. member for Christiana is prepared to stand for that view, I shall be very pleased to support him, just as we supported the Nationalist party, and would to-day support that party if they would go on right lines, for all these years we have recognized this weakness that is to-day involving the individual nationalist in the Transvaal. That is they will say to the unskilled whites “That because your position was so very much worse in 1923, but now that we have given you 5s. 6d. per day with the chance of going up to 7d. per day, plus other things which are told is really worth 9s. per day, in spite of that you have the cheek to say now ‘that we have a Government who, we think, are our friends and we want a little bit more,’ and they say to these poor people ‘if we should be turned out and the South African party return to power you will not get 5s. 6d. per day,’” and they remind them that Gen. Smuts gave them 3s. 6d. per day, and not only that but that a lot will get the sack and they will say that they will get kaffirs in their place. That is not a fair argument for individual members on the Government side to make to their own poor people in the Transvaal. It is not right. Let me say this. I know these people as well as my hon. friend who has spoken. I have lived 30 years amongst them. I say that they are not satisfied. They are not happy with regard to their position and they still have a lingering feeling that this Government will still see them right. When we hear speeches made such as have been made, then one realizes how hopeless these people feel their position is. I want to follow this up with regard to a speech made in a previous debate some days ago by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) who went so far as to say that this little group—I had better read exactly what he did say, and it must be right because I see that he has corrected it. The hon. member says this —

He is referring here to the Miners’ Phthisis Commission. He goes further and he says—

Somewhere he suggested that an hon. member had said that the Government is going to bluff the miners on the Witwatersrand. He says—

So that the only grievance the hon. member has is that whereas we have no right to come into this House and kick up a shindy and needless dust, he had seen the Minister of Mines and other Cabinet Ministers. Therefore, he must have been much more in possession of what was going on than we were. He must have been, otherwise how could he possibly have made a statement like that? He further states this to show that we were not fair, or, in other words, that we had abused his confidence—

that is, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and myself—

Well, the hon. member for Troyeville had already spoken. As the result of his speech the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) came and told us, and I give him full credit for it. He said he had seen the Ministers and the thing was going to be put right. We were desirous that it should be put right on the floor of this House, and the public were entitled to know, and the miners were entitled to know, what the ultimate position would be. Well, we go on further, and we find this extra ordinary outburst of the hon. member. He says this—

Well, things are changing. The hon. member for Vrededorp is the member with a 100 per cent. Nationalist seat in South Africa. How he can turn round and accuse us to-day of irritating the miners, who are 90 per cent. Afrikanders, I do not know. Hon. members in this House know that it is not to-day in our power, or even in the ordinary way of expectancy, that we in the Labour party can irritate Afrikander miners to-day. Election after election has shown the faith that they have in the Nationalist party. If he admits that they are irritated, then they are irritated without our assistance, and they are irritated because they are disappointed and feel that the promises made to them have not been fulfilled When he says “that the hon. members only tried to irritate the miners”, he suggests something that does not exist. He said an extraordinary thing which, if he is right, he must admit is very foolish for any member of the Nationalist party or any member in a public position to make. He said—

Here it is in Hansard. Here is a charge made by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) that because Labour members in this House have put up a justifiable demand with regard to the Miners’ Phthisis Commission, they are accused of getting the miners into a sullen mood so that we can stir them into revolution. Well, my hon. friend the member for Vrededorp knows perfectly well that the three members representing the Labour party on these benches to-day, served their apprenticeship in a very good and a very sound school, and the last thing we would ever do would be to stir the people into rebellion. But we shall stir the people into a state of rebellion, may I say, of rebellion against any Government that is not going to fulfil the promises they have made to these men. When I say rebellion I mean a constitutional rebellion against the Government of the day. When we asked the Minister of Mines and Industries to say to what extent he was making a change in the terms of reference, up to the time he actually told us across the floor of the House we did not know exactly what the position was. We had been assured that there could be no question but that the terms of reference could cover all points of view as far as the miners were concerned. In so far as the Government is concerned I am quite satisfied that the Minister of Mines and Industries was desirous that every aspect of the question affecting the mine workers should be enquired into. I wish to remind the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts)—I was temporarily out of the House at the time, I was where I ought to have been at that time—that about March, 1929, the late hon. member for Springs (Mr. Jack Allen) warned the late Minister of Mines and Industries (Mr. W. F. Beyers) that the proposed terms of reference were not sufficiently wide and did not embrace points that the miners wanted to be enquired into. People then shouted that Mr. Jack Allen was interfering with the Government’s desire to go into the question of miners’ phthisis. Mr. Allen sent a letter to the Minister withdrawing his objection to the appointment of a select committee, but at the same time pointing out what the difficulties would be. The committee was set up and after that a commission was appointed, and just as Mr. Allen foretold, so it happened, with the result that we have had a Miners’ Phthisis Commission sitting for many months, and as a result of having to extend the terms of reference, the commission is still sitting, and the Lord alone knows how much it is going to cost. The miners are asking if the commission will finish its labours in time for this House to consider its report so that before Parliament breaks up this session the miners will know exactly what the commission thinks.

That is not the intention.

I do not see how the commission can finish in time for its report to be discussed by Parliament this session, if the report published in the afternoon paper is correct that we are going to rise before the end of May. I will ask the Government two questions. Is it in favour of changing the method of compensation from that which exists to-day, namely, a lump sum payment in the first stages in phthisis and pensions in certain advanced stages of the disease, and is it prepared to sweep that aside and say that once a man has phthisis in any stage he will receive a pension? Secondly, is it prepared to say that it will support, and agree to, a scheme that, if a man has worked ten years in the mines, he will be compulsorily put out of them and awarded a lump sum of anything up to £1,000? Those are the two things the miners want to go to the commission about and are the principal grievances they have. Is the Government in favour of, or against those two things? If it says yes, or no, or qualify it by means of any other scheme it has, the miners will know where they are.

What about the commission’s report?

It seems that the commission will not report before the session ends. It is a simple thing; if the commission’s report is against those two things the Government will say, “that is the end of it,” but if the commission is in favour of them, will the Government accept them? Let hon. members who represent the Reef know, so that they can say to the men that the Government is not going to give them a pension as against a lump sum, and they will get a pension only when they have developed the secondary or tertiary stage of phthisis. Some men work 20 years and do not show signs, and they work until a medical examination assures them they have the first stage, and soon after that their end is rapid. I bring these points forward so that the Government can realize exactly what members for the Reef, and their own Nationalist members there, are faced with I do not want to give the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) and the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) a lesson. The latter says he has a hawk eye on the interests of the miners. It is not sufficient for him to say he has seen members of the Government and what he has told me in the lobby; otherwise I would not mention it, that he has seen these Ministers. I would like him to come and say, not only in this House, but in Vrededorp: “Yes, not only did I say that to the Ministers, but I came into the House, stood up against Caesar and said he must do justice to the miners.” In so far as the Labour party is concerned, we are not sitting on these benches for the purpose of embarrassing the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) or any other member who supports the Government. We are here for the purpose of seeing that justice is done to the people we represent, and of putting their point of view forward, and we are not only prepared to put forward that point of view to Ministers behind the scenes, but we also desire that the people should know what our intentions are. Parliament, after all, exists for the purpose of ventilation of the immediate grievances of the people, and in order that the Government may tell the people what they propose to do, what they can do, and what they are not prepared to do. As far as the mine workers are concerned, I want to put it on record that we expect, in the absence of this commission’s report, to be informed exactly what hope those men have from the Government. With regard to the budget—

Hear, hear !

I think my hon. friends do not realize that the policy of the Government with regard to miners’ phthisis has a big bearing on the budget. The Minister has budgeted for a deficit. The two things he has made outstanding in his budget speech are the taking away of the 20 per cent. rebate on income tax, and the imposition of an additional 5 per cent. duty on ready-made clothing. I have been studying the death duties of this country. Whenever a millionaire dies the Minister of Finance and the Government is interested in the question of how much the state is going to get. I even saw it remarked recently that a gentleman had been left £160 per year. Now I see that has been corrected, and that he has been left £160 per month. There was the case of a millionaire, Sir J. B. Robinson, who left about £3,000,000. The Minister ought to get £400,000 from that, and if that is so, then his troubles are at an end.

I told the House all about that.

I do not know what the Minister has told the House about that position, he has not—

Oh yes, I did.

Then I must withdraw that. Our party is protectionist, and the system we agreed to with the Nationalist party is that of protection by means of customs tariffs, but whereas the Government still agrees with protection by means of a tariff, we have arrived at the conclusion that the tariff is not giving that support to secondary industries that we expected, because of the tremendous increase in the customs revenue. You are receiving millions more than you ought to receive if your industries are justifying the protection they get. I do not know if it is right that one should suggest in this House that the German system of protection seems to have been the best which has been achieved up to now. There should be little or no importation of the article that is being protected. But my hon. friend would say where are you going to get the money to subsidize all these industries. You would have to take each industry on its merits. Take the boot and shoe industry in Port Elizabeth, they say: “You must give us more protection because Czecho-Slovakia is working at a lower economic rate to such an extent that we are not able to hold the South African market.”

That statement I say is wrong.

If it is wrong I cannot help it. I can only say that if the industry makes that statement, is it not time that we should turn round and manage that industry for them, because evidently they cannot manage themselves? If the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) desires to suggest it is wrong, and, therefore, for that reason you must leave it at that, I want to say, to build up my case, that I am prepared to say that because of that lack of efficiency, because of that squealing, without knowing what they are squealing about, it is high time the Minister should take into consideration that fact.

On the motion of Mr. Christie the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.