When we adjourned last night I was referring to the position taken up by the Port Elizabeth boot and shoe industry and I suggested that the Minister should reconsider the whole position of our protectionist policy. That is to say, from the point of view of the Labour party we are protectionists, but we find to-day that the method of protection by means of a customs tariff is breaking down and is pressing unduly severely on many of the poorer people. We think that the Minister ought to give consideration to the abandonment of the customs tariff as a means of protecting industries, and simply stick to it for such revenue purposes as he requires, and that he should adopt a policy of bounties and subsidies. We would secure this double advantage—he would have each industry directly under his eye, and it would have to justify itself in so far as it can do so. The boot and shoe industry would indicate the necessity of changing our policy in that direction. If the Minister would subsidize it, he would be in a position to say to those people, “You say you are not able to compete against Czecho-Slovakia because of certain things,” and he would be able to examine their methods of manufacture, the efficiency of the workers and the managers of that institution, and he would be in a position to indicate that they had got to make a better article, or produce it in a better way, to meet the demands of the people of this country, and when he had done that, he could increase their subsidy and protect them against countries like Czecho-Slovakia. Conditions of labour are laid down in Clause 4 of the Customs Tariff Act, which has not been given effect to in the way we would have liked to see, but by adopting bounties and subsidies we could see that this is also given effect to. We feel that the complaint of Port Elizabeth is nothing out of the way and unusual, because some years ago when the Government took away the 3 per cent. advantage given to Great Britain, with regard to imports from there, we said then that we supported that 3 per cent., but from a different point of view from others. Our point of view was the view which the Port Elizabeth boot and shoe industry puts forward to-day. We said on these benches that we wanted that benefit given to Great Britain, because it is little enough when you consider the lower economic standard under which other countries are working. We have recognized all along that we must protect our industries and workers, against countries whose people live on a lower economic level than our people. We have to protect industries against that, but we have also to see that an industry justifies itself. We do not want the Port Elizabeth boot and shoe industry to become just an assembling institution, like some other industries, or import this piece or that piece. They import uppers, I am told, and we want to see whether that cannot be done away with. We want to see that the only thing to be imported would be the raw material itself—not one portion to be simply sewn on to another portion. We want to see our industries built up on a basis of stability, so that there can be no question about that. We can remember that in our younger days in Great Britain there was one American shoe company here and one there, and how that American shoes became popular in England and Scotland. We cannot hope here for what the American companies do, but we can hope that our South African boot and shoe industry will make a fashionable appeal to the people of this country. To-day it does not do so, and we still have the distinction between the South African-made and the imported article, unfortunately to the detriment of the South African article. If the Minister will give consideration to that position, and go in for bounties and subsidies, he will secure the building up of industries that deserve to be built up, and the abandonment of industries that have no hope of success. During recent months we have had this unfortunate feeling of depression. Wherever you go in business and in the street people ask you, “Do you really think there is a slump?” My reply is, “Do you feel there is a slump?” The answer to that is, “No; business is quiet, and there is a sort of depression,” but they cannot actually say there is a slump. You find amongst business people in Cape Town and Johannesburg that they cannot honestly and justly say there is. I spoke to a business man in Cape Town a few days ago who said that the month just closed was one of the best they had had. I asked him why he said that things were not so good. He said, “I am not sure what the other fellows think.” We are building up a Couéism against ourselves. “In every way we are getting worse and worse.” Business men are prepared to lie about their position, and say that things are not so good, although when you get them down to figures, they will tell you in confidence that they have done better. We have no complaint to make. You know, nothing succeeds like success, and nothing breaks a business down more than saying, things are getting worse. When the Prime Minister made his speech he created an infectious or a contagious feeling, and everyone felt that the Prime Minister having said so, it must be true, and everyone keeps on preaching it. Actually, as far as I can see, we have nothing to fear with regard to our commercial and industrial progress.

What about the farmers?

We know the farmers are not in a favourable position and never have been. It is not peculiar to South Africa. They are hit the first thing, and they are the last to gain when there is prosperity. That is because they are between two mill stones and cannot advance. We have co-operation, to some extent, but that is not sufficient. The only thing that is going to secure them a fair reward for their labour, and their products, is government buying and government selling. Only by that means will you be able to do justice to the farmers. In view of the fact that this idea of depression is spreading among many people, this is the time for the Government to give a good lead. I suggest that they should go in for a scheme of public building. For instance, there are the Johannesburg magistrate’s courts. The scheme for the building of those courts will probably mean an expenditure of from £60,000 to £70,000. My hon. friend on my left tells me that the full scheme will involve an expenditure of £250,000. That job has got to be done, and is it not better to do it during a time of so-called depression than to delay the work? The Government should announce that during the next two years they will spend £250,000, and that they will offer an inducement to contractors to employ as many of the unemployed as possible. I notice that it has been announced that there are 600 or 700 unemployed in Pretoria, and if that is correct we can take it that there are probably between 5,000 and 6,000 persons unemployed in Johannesburg. I say that with all due respect to the official figures the labour bureau may have in its possession. There are hundreds of men who do not avail themselves of the labour bureau, because of the hopeless position they find themselves in when they go there. Now is the time to get your public buildings erected, and not only your new buildings which have to be constructed, but any rebuilding and extensions of buildings considered necessary. I submit to the Minister of Finance that he should decide to be generous in this direction, because it would create confidence in the country and help to solve unemployment. The Minister of the Interior could also help enormously, with the consent, of course, of the Minister of Finance. Now is the time to say with regard to housing, that we will spend, not £100,000, but, in view of all that is going on, £500,000 this year, instead of spreading it over three years. That is a better way than letting things drift, and allowing the feeling of depression to spread, and allowing the unemployed to remain in a hopeless condition. There is another way the Government can help, and here I have to address myself to the Minister of Justice. In answer to a question from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) the Minister of Justice gave a figure of natives employed, excluding the native convicts in De Beers, natives let out by the Government.

Bethal.

I am not concerned whether they go to Bethal, or where they go. What I am concerned with is the principle. Excluding the number De Beers have got there were 1,500 native convicts let out for road work to the various provincial administrations, and the bulk were let out to the Transvaal provincial administration.

How about the Labour party club?

I don’t go there, but I will say, in justice to the people concerned, that no native labour was used on that building on skilled work. Natives were employed, but not on white work. We have never stood for that. I would not like an injustice done, even to those people I do not agree with. Well, there are 700 odd natives used by the Transvaal administration. I think the Minister should say “We will not let out convict labour for making roads and doing other public work while there is unemployment.” The Government should then continue a certain amount of subsidy to the provincial administrations to encourage the employment of white labour. It is not right that you should allow your native convicts to be used in such a manner that they displace free labour, or compete with it. If you have to take a man and punish him for a crime he has committed, see that his punishment does not interfere with free labour outside: do not use your convicts for that purpose. I hope the Minister of Justice will give this his consideration and that we shall not only be spared the spectacle of convicts working on the roads, but also in private gardens. When his predecessor, Mr. de Wet, was Minister of Justice, we used to see beautiful gardens of houses worth perhaps £10,000 in which 20 or 30 convicts were working who were let out at a low rate. In surroundings of such a character you should at least employ free labour. I am pleased to say that when Mr. Tielman Roos became Minister of Justice he stopped that sort of thing, and I hope the present Minister will stop the employment of convicts on the roads so far as he is able to. I recognize that those methods of combating unemployment are only temporary; I hope before long our unemployment problem will be a small one. Unemployment should be the smallest problem that this country has to face, though unfortunately it is not so to-day. There is another question I want to touch on and that is the derating of State property. I do not think this is the time when the Minister should take steps to free the Government from paying local authorities the rates on public buildings. While Government property may enhance the beauty of some towns, and is also a convenience to the people, it is nevertheless a greater convenience to the Government itself, and when the claim is put forward that the Government has built so many buildings and employed officials to work there as an excuse for being freed from rates, I think that claim is as absurb as if the boot and shoe industry at Port Elizabeth, who have also put up fine buildings, claimed the right to be let off assessment rates on that account. I understand that in Pretoria, Government buildings are free from assessment rates but that the Government pays the municipality an agreed lump sum. Well, just watch the Minister of Finance—he is going to take that agreed lump sum away.

We are watching him.

By taking away those assessment rates the Minister will only meet with opposition and hostility, and he will not get that support he has had hitherto. I say to the Minister, do not annoy them by taking away that few thousand pounds from the various towns. I have mentioned the minimum wage to unskilled whites on the railways. I am sorry the Minister is not here. I feel that we ought to give further consideration to the fact that a 10s. minimum wage is the lowest that should be offered and paid to a white man in this country. In some of the big centres, in Johannesburg and Durban, there are a number of poor whites brought into the railway service who are now living side by side with people who are better off and consequently are able to do better for their children. That is not a position that tends towards satisfaction and the feeling that these people are having a fair deal. I do not think it is a fair thing to put it up to these white workers that they must be content with their 5s. 6d. per day because if they are not satisfied they will lose even that. We heard in this House some time ago a statement that bonus work inspectors were creating a feeling of uneasiness and resentment against the administration; that men are feeling that there are those with a stop watch looking over them all the time. I have made enquiries about these bonus work inspectors and have been informed that in one particular case, a bonus inspector, after two months’ work, succeeded in saving only what might have been a waste of £5. Well, I think the Minister should go into that question. We were told the other day that the amount of cost in regard to the bonus inspectors was in the neighbourhood of £70,000. I think we can save that £70,000, and, on top of it, secure a more contented staff. I will tell the Minister this, that in trying to study the position as I do, that I live, when I follow my vocation, near the Braamfontein shops. I find that these men come to me, and I feel that from what they say that your administration are endeavouring to make what I call a mass application. Now, mass application in an industry is a very successful thing in the United States, successful to the extent that you can work on lines laid down by your trade journals that you get from America. Whether it is the steel industry, the railway industry, or any other big industry, you can work in this country according to rule of thumb from what you see written by these captains of industry in the United States and in Europe, but particularly in the United States. What I see in your whole method of applying yourselves to your employees is that you are endeavouring in this country to apply that mass application which exists in the big industries in the United States. That cannot be done here, but you are attempting to do it and you are creating a feeling amongst your employees because of the fact that they are treated as cyphers and numbers, and not as individuals who should have confidence in the staff right through to the head of the administration. Your position should be this. A man in the humblest position should feel that he is a partner in the industry, and that he is anxious to look ahead and see the industry thrive and prosper. You have not got that position to-day. I think the Minister should go into the matter from that point of view. The methods you are adopting in the railway service are not the methods adopted by a more efficient organization, namely, the Chamber of Mines. The mining companies have personal touch and contact with the humblest miner to the manager of a mine. Take the Crown mines. They have a white complement of 2,150 white men. Right through that mine every white man working there feels that he is a part of that particular industry on that mine. The general manager practically knows the bulk of those men. The shift bosses, the mine captains, the foremen— they are all known and they know their men, and they are a community, as we have often had a complaint at election times when we have said that our difficulty with the mining community is that they appear to be so firmly set as a community. There is the cricket-field feeling there. Every one is trying to fit in and help his side along and that is the feeling that exists in that industry to-day. It is impossible for the Minister or his administration to run the railways on the mass application principle such as exists in the United States or in other big countries. The nature of the people in this country is against it. Another thing is more disquieting to me and disquieting to everyone, who would like to see the service happier and contented and a successful service. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) the other day made a statement that an engine driver after 28 years’ service was discharged. He had made one mistake in the whole 28 years, at the end of the twenty-eighth year. He was discharged and he received a letter from his immediate superior to say that he was discharged, but he gave the man a most excellent character, a most excellent testimonial. What is the position? If I were working in an industry where I saw men with long periods of service suddenly being bumped out because of something which might have happened to any of us, I should be alarmed. I should consider that I was in the service working up for my pension. The only thing I would be sticking to the service for would be until I came to the pensionable age. When a man sees a thing like this happening, when he sees one of his fellow engine-drivers “fired” after 28 years’ service— certainly he gets certain monies back if he has paid into the fund—he feels that that man has been thrust into the street, has entered the unemployment market, and the pension has vanished. If you think that because you have punished that man in that way you are going to secure greater efficiency and make an example so that the rest of the men will be better, you are mistaken. The effect of that will be to make the other men so nervous that they are not able to give the full benefit of their services, such as men with confidence in their employer should give. We know the type of employer who instils a feeling of nervousness in his employees. It often results that a man’s nervous state is such that he cannot give the best that is in him. That is a bad thing to do if the employer wants efficiency and peace and contentment in his service. I suggest to the Minister that he should take the heads of the departments, not merely the general manager, into his office and hold a real, good conference with them, with the men who control the work on the railways. He should tell them that there must be more of the milk of human kindness in the service and personal contact and personal understanding rather than this working of the mass application that they have probably read about in the railway journals, published in the United States. There is only one thing more I want to say before I conclude. I referred briefly yesterday, in my opening remarks, to the fact, just by the way, that we had been excluded from the select committees of this House. The South African Labour party, the National Council that controls that party, and we who represent that party on these benches, by being excluded from these select committees, are debarring many thousands of people a voice in the preparation of many Bills, in the consideration of the administration of many departments; and the fact that we are excluded from these committees is not going to redound to the credit of the people responsible. We have been elected by our constituents and we also claim to represent the thousands of people who voted for our defeated candidates, and if we count the total number of persons who voted for our party, the number will run into a great many thousands. Just as the South African party, when they were in control in the Transvaal provincial council, said to the Johannesburg town council, “You shall not exclude a town councillor from sitting on a committee, but you must appoint him because he represents a large number of people,” so we say to the Government that the people who elected us have a right to be represented on select committees of this House. To-day there are 21 select committees sitting in the House of Assembly, and we are boycotted from every one of them. I am not complaining for myself personally; as a matter of fact when I first came to this House nearly 10 years ago, I was placed on two committees one of which—the Public Accounts Committee—met three times a week and the other twice a week, so that I sat in select committee every morning for the first three months of my parliamentary life. From a personal point of view, the fact that we are not allowed to sit on select committees does not hurt me, but I have not come here from a selfish point of view, but to serve the people who believe in the principles for which we stand. It is only by being on select committees that we can give full effect to our constituents’ desires. We have never suffered from any inferiority complex; there is no inferiority complex about us, in regard to what we stand for, any more than there is any inferiority complex in our blood and our natures, and, as my hon. friend remarks, our minds. There has been a good deal of talk in this House about the higher status. We have never claimed it for our party because we know that we have a good cause, and stand for the highest principles, but I hope the Prime Minister, as a professed lover of the higher status, will see that justice is done to a strong, small and honest party which is determined to do the work it has been sent here to carry out, and to do so with that independence of outlook which should be the outlook of any party that has sound principles. We are here as humble missionaries, fully alive to our responsibilities, and determined to protest when we are unfairly dealt with.

After the marathon speech to which we have just listened, I will not follow the line which has proved attractive to so many speakers in this debate—the line of comparing the respective demerits of this Government and its predecessor, and of estimating just how heavily the balance tips against this Government. After all, a budget debate offers the opportunity of examining some of those subsidiary aspects in our national life, the consideration of which is necessary if we are to have that complete picture of it for which such a debate provides an opportunity. I want to avail myself of that opportunity in regard to one or two of those aspects. Before doing so I should like to make a few general remarks about the budget. We have heard many positive things said about the budget—I want to say a few negative things. In the first place, I would describe it as not being a heroic budget. We have heard much of the courage of the present Government, and of its determination to get things done, and we have also heard quite a good deal about the alleged tendency of its predecessors to allow things to develop. This is essentially a budget of allowing things to develop. It is a budget of refusing to face the full seriousness of the position, a budget of hoping against hope that something will turn up. When I think of the budget, I am reminded of a picture which is probably familiar to most members—a picture which is usually referred to as “September morn.” The Minister of Finance has been faced with a situation requiring heroic measures, but instead of taking the cold plunge which would have brought him to the safety of a balanced budget, he has preferred to wrap himself in the comfortable cloak of a carried-over surplus which should have been applied to the redemption of debt, and in the warm but potentially threadbare garment of anticipations which may or may not be realized. That is the picture, the picture of September morn, which comes to my mind as I think of the Minister of Finance contemplating his budget, and by his side I see the spare form of the Minister of Railways shivering chilly. The Minister of Finance hopes that he will end the year with a balanced budget. In the interests of the country I hope so too, but it must be clear to most of us that the Minister is taking very considerable risks. Take first the customs duties. The Minister has given us figures showing the collection of customs duties last year in four-monthly periods. During the first four months of last year the yield from customs duties was £3,333,000, the second four-monthly period produced £3,144,000, and the third period produced £2,773,000. Without attempting to advance a shadow of substantiation for the belief that the fall in customs receipts has been checked, without attempting to prove to us that we have reached rock-bottom, the Minister comes to us with an estimate for 1930-’31 on the basis of customs receipts of £2,820,000 for each four months of the year. In other words, he has estimated that in each four-monthly period in the year that lies ahead we shall be getting £50,000 more than in the last four-monthly period of last year; he has estimated, therefore, an increase of £150,000 over the full period reckoned on the basis of the last four-monthly period of last year. That is risk number one. I pass on to risk number two— the income tax. The Minister, in his budget speech, differentiated in his income tax between mining tax and general income tax. I limit my remarks to what he said on general income tax. He estimated £4,253,000 as against the revised figure for last year of £4,620,000. He told us the latter figure included a windfall of £150,000 which he cannot expect again; that would leave the figure at £4,470,000. The Minister, therefore, expects his income tax will drop by £217,000, or by less than 5 per cent. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) suggested that it was 10 per cent. It can only be 10 per cent. if one allows for a possible speeding up of the rate of the collection of the tax. But when we remember that this is the head of taxation where the effect of financial stringency is felt last, then we have to admit that here again the Minister is taking a risk. He is taking another risk with regard to the revenue of the postal department; last year there was a shortfall on the estimate of £35,000. In this year’s budget he expects an increase of £120,000. He may have perfectly good reasons for that expectation, but he certainly made no attempt to give the House those reasons. There are other risks that he is taking. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) referred to the Minister’s optimism with regard to the diamond position. We hope that optimism will be realized. But surely the most serious risk the Minister is taking is the final risk he takes when he finds himself with an estimated shortfall of £425,000, and says he will make it up by economies in expenditure. The Minister justified himself by saying that these estimates were made in December when things were not so bad as they are now. That was two months after the Prime Minister made his speech of grave forebodings at Bloemfontein. Surely a Government which, despite those forebodings of its chief, has framed estimates of expenditure involving an increase of £500,000, does not inspire much confidence as to its will or its capability to economize to the extent indicated. Those are risks which the Minister is taking; rather than adopt heroic measures, he has preferred this budget of risks and chances, and precarious anticipations, and if one or more of these risks go against him, then he will have to meet a heavy reckoning indeed when he comes before this House on next budget day. Let us consider for a moment what the position may be next year. Let us assume that next year the Minister will make a more effective effort to reduce expenditure, and that his rate of expenditure will be checked so that it is not more than, say, £200,000 above this year’s. He will then have to budget for an expenditure of £30,100,000. Let us assume, further, that his revenue remains stable, allowing, however, for the fact that he will have the benefit of the unrebated income tax for a full year, and get more from that source than he gets this year; the revenue will then be £30,140,000, which will give a deficit of £860,000. But next year he will not have a surplus to set off against that deficit—he will probably have a deficit from this year to add to it. The other point I wish to make very briefly with regard to the budget is that it is not a poor man’s budget. When this House debated a motion for an investigation in regard to the cost of living, to which I cannot under the rules refer, the proposal was rejected. The Government has followed up its attitude of rejecting that proposal by coming with a budget which cannot but have the effect of raising the cost of living, especially as far as the poor man is concerned. I am not disputing the grounds for the increases of the tariff of which the House will be asked to approve, and I have no doubt justifications will be put forward for this increase, as they can always be put forward. Part of the justification will be the high cost of production, and in that a very important factor is the high cost of living, and for that the Government cannot entirely disclaim responsibility. Surely the time is coming for an investigation on the present and potential economic position of the country of the Government’s failure to reduce the cost of living, and for that failure the primary producer and the poor man have to pay. Now, sir, I want to go back to the position of the provinces. I shall not cover the same ground or repeat what I said on a former occasion. I want to deal with the matter in its wider aspects, and I do so because this is a matter which we have to consider if we are to get a full view of the country’s finances, as a whole. After I had spoken on the last occasion, the Minister made this remark—

Let me say that the Minister did me rather less than justice. I hope he will accept my assurance that I raised the matter purely in the public interest, and in so far as I had a subsidiary motive, it was merely to obtain a statement of what was the much-advertised policy which was so much in the minds of Ministers in August and October last year. What I have ascertained is that the Ministers and the Government, in this important matter, have no policy at all. It would be easy to criticize the Government on the ground that it has no policy on this matter, and to contend that the Minister, realizing as he clearly does, the impending gravity of the provincial crisis, should have thought further and more deeply on this matter than he has done, and reached some other attitude than is expressed in a mere injunction to the provinces to put their house in order, or, put more colloquially, stew in their own juice. That attitude, the Minister will find, will be difficult to maintain in the months that lie ahead, and to maintain it he will have to exercise all his firmness and all those powers of saying “no,” which he indubitably possesses. The Minister has admitted that the Transvaal and the Free State provinces are heading for difficulties. When I spoke last I estimated that the Free State would this year be faced with a deficit of £150,000. I was deliberately putting the figure low. I did not wish to be charged with exaggeration. It would now appear from the facts that the deficit will be double that; it will be in the neighbourhood of £300,000. I also estimated a deficit for the Transvaal of £250,000, and following on my statement, a member of the Transvaal executive committee said that I had underestimated the deficit. I did under estimate the deficit. I only hope I did not under-estimate it to quite the same extent as I did in the case of the Free State. But there is this further significant fact. In both those two provinces to-day you have a majority both in the executive committee and in the provincial council of the same political complexion as is that of the Government which sits in this House, and I think the Minister knows that the authorities of those provinces are going to find the path to the treasury door a much easier path to tread than the path which leads to increased taxation and to the resultant unpopularity. Perhaps they have trodden the path to the treasury door already, but, if not, they will do so later. Look at the position of the Free State, faced with a deficit of £300,000. Looking at that position, considering the taxable reserves which that province still has available, I am afraid I for my part must admit that the provincial authorities are faced with the impossible task of presenting a balanced budget. They will come before the Minister with a case which, on grounds of sentiment, he will find it difficult to reject. But the Transvaal authorities in their turn will come before him with a case which in one respect on grounds of equity he will find it very difficult to reject. The Minister will remember that at the Durban conference one of the sources of revenue left to the provinces, a source of revenue in regard to which they retained the power to legislate, was the revenue from liquor licences. That was to remain as part of their taxable reserve. But then some few years ago the Minister of Justice, the predecessor of the present Minister of Justice, introduced a liquor Bill which took away that power from the provinces, and fixed uniform rates of liquor licences. The Transvaal protested, and I believe the Free State also protested. The Transvaal was told that under the new law, instead of getting an annual revenue of £65,000 under this head, it would get £150,000. The Transvaal contested those figures, it contested them successfully, but once again the Transvaal was given the assurance that it would be all right, and that it would not suffer loss of revenue. Yet the effect of this new law has been that the Transvaal and the Free State have had to submit to loss of revenue. At the Cape the revenue from liquor licences has gone up from £65,000 to £150,000. In Natal it has gone up from £12,000 to £32,000, in the Free State it has dropped from £15,000 to £12,500, and in the Transvaal it has gone down from £66,000 to £52,000. The estimates which the Minister’s officials put forward have been proved to be fallacious, and the fears of the Transvaal and Free State provinces have been proved to be justified; and not only have they suffered loss of revenue but they have had taken away from them a very important part of their taxable reserve. But I do not want to speak merely in terms of criticism. It would be possible, as I have said, to criticize the Minister because he has not got a policy. I am not going to do that because I do realize very fully the difficulties of the Minister’s position, and that realization rather hampers one in criticizing with that gusto and enthusiasm which, in the absence of that appreciation, one might be tempted to show. Moveover, I am not one who believes that the time is yet ripe for a radical change in our provincial system, and I hope that the present difficulties will not lead the Minister to make a premature radical change. I wish rather to sound a warning note, and to urge that in our provincial system we have a part of the fabric of our government which involves a heavy contingent liability as far as the Union treasury is concerned, and that the other aspects of this particular problem should not be overlooked when the matter comes up for discussion. Certainly, the significance of the financial discontents of the provinces lies not merely in themselves, but in their bearing on other aspects of the provincial system. These difficulties, for instance, will undoubtedly reveal the constitutional weaknesses of the provincial position. What are the facts? We have to-day provincial councils elected for a fixed term with irresponsible executive committees. Those executive committees cannot be called to account by the provincial councils. They in their turn cannot dissolve the provincial councils and appeal to the country. Where party divisions are acute they are not homogeneous bodies, and they are presided over by administrators who are not responsible to them nor to the councils, and who may have been party politicians until shortly before their appointment. What is the position? Take the Cape. Here at the Cape you have a provincial council with a South African party majority. You have an executive committee with the two parties equally balanced, and with an administrator who until recently was a member of this House on the side of the Government. I think the inference must be obvious that when you come up against the necessity of imposing taxation there is almost certain to be a deadlock. There has been that experience before in the Cape provincial council. My friend the Minister of Mines will remember an unpleasant experience, when with the approbation of a unanimous executive committee he introduced taxation proposals which were rejected by a unanimous provincial council including all four members of his executive committee. That illustrates the travesties of constitutional government to which we are liable under the present provincial system. Take the Transvaal. There you are not likely at the present moment to have a deadlock between the executive committee and the provincial council, but in the provincial council itself you have a majority of one. I leave it to hon. members to imagine the position of that party with a majority of one in attempting to carry through unpopular measures of taxation. I leave it to them to conclude that the time is not very far off when in the Transvaal also you will have a financial deadlock. And do not forget that deadlocks mean deficits, and when there are deficits, in the long run the Minister of Finance will be bound to come to the rescue. There is another weakness in our present system, and that is on the administrative side. If one were looking for grounds of criticism and attack on the present Government, one could certainly find them in the fact that they have not faced up to the administrative weaknesses in our present provincial System. If anything they have made them worse. To put it in a sentence, we are in our provincial system in this country to-day trying to divide the indivisible. We have a line of demarcation between provincial and Union functions which tends to overlapping, and that leads to waste and inefficiency which cannot but have its financial effect both on the Union and on the provinces. Let me illustrate. Take the question of education. The Act of Union lays it down that education other than higher education, should be dealt with by the provincial councils. In the old days, we all thought that higher education was university education, but subsequently we got a definition that any institution should be an institution of higher education which was deemed by the Minister to be an institution of higher education, and as a result, it has, in fact, happened that simultaneously there have been two advertisements in the press—one from the Union Department of Education asking for applications for the post of kindergarten teacher in an institution of higher education, and one from a provincial education department asking for applications for a post of lecturer at a normal college to teach matriculated students. The present Minister of Education has gone further, and made confusion worse confounded by the unnatural divorce which he has enacted between technical education and other branches of secondary education. I say secondary education, advisedly, because, rightly considered, technical education is merely one aspect of secondary education. As a result, you have in the towns of the Transvaal to-day free high schools and alongside of them you have fee-paying trade schools and industrial institutions. In the country districts the proposals which the Transvaal Education Department had under consideration and in regard to which it was well prepared for action for establishing institutions of industrial and vocational education were as a result of the Minister’s policy very considerably delayed. And with it all it has become more difficult than ever for us to develop that national policy of education which is a very pressing need. One could go further. Take hospitals. Provincial administrations are responsible for hospitals. They administer some hospitals, but there are other hospitals administered by Union departments. In regard to public health administration, there is constant friction between the Union and the provincial administration. In regard to roads, we have the same position of overlapping. The problem of roads is after all simply part of the general problem of transportation of which the railway problem is another part, and the time will surely come when we shall have to regard transportation as a single question of which railways and roads will form parts, and the Minister of Railways will be replaced by a Minister of transport. These are some aspects of the provincial problem crying out more and more insistently for solution, aspects which we are not facing up to to-day, but which we shall have to face up to when that financial deadlock comes which we have good reason to anticipate. With regard to our approach to this problem, I want to say this, that all these difficulties are derived from the fact that the provincial system is based on compromise—on a two-fold compromise—a compromise between federalism and unification; and a compromise between the idea of a legislative body and the idea of a local authority. In the provincial councils the framers of the constitution sought to find the means of satisfying the Federalists without impairing the essentially unitary character of this constitution. They sought also to reconcile the absence of organs of rural self-government in three of the provinces with a desire to retain some of the traditions of the old colonial parliaments. But all that was done was to create organs of government which have not found, and it seems, cannot find, an assured place in the constitutional fabric of this country. For the ultimate solution of the problem we shall have to get away from this hollow compromise and to follow out logically one or other of those principles, between which a compromise was affected. We shall have to move either in the direction of state parliaments, under a federal constitution, or in the direction of the abolition of provincial legislative bodies. On the question along which of these two lines we shall find the ultimate solution I do not propose to go now. I have before now stated my opinion on that point for what it is worth. But I shall at least give the Minister an indication of the lines on which, I think, we ought to proceed. I want to say that if we advance prematurely towards either of these solutions we shall still find ourselves face to face with one of those problems with which the framers of our constitution found themselves faced, namely, the absence of organs of rural local self-government in the northern provinces. That is the weakness to-day and its continuance is a reproach to any Government. The inadequacy of its system of local government is a source of weakness to any democratic country, and the enjoyment of the freedom of self-government by a people is limited by the extent to which it has learnt how to govern and that lesson can best be learnt in the school of local self-government. The problem of the provinces is not merely a problem of provincial government, but it is a problem of provincial and local government; these two have to be dealt with together. It would certainly be a disaster if we were to-day, or in the near future, to do away with our provincial councils and to leave the local communities in the northern provinces to the whims and devices of a centralized bureaucracy. I have wandered, it may seem, some distance from the budget and yet I believe that the points which I have mentioned are of very considerable importance. For if there is a provincial breakdown, and it would seem that we are heading for one, it will involve the treasury in considerable burdens before a new system is devised; it is a contingent liability of which we must not lose sight. And I want to go further. At the root of the problem of the provinces lies the problem of rural local self-government. At the root of the problem of rural local self-government lies the problem of local taxation in the northern provinces. It is idle to talk of the abolition of the provincial councils until you are able to secure the establishment of administrative bodies in the rural areas with powers of local taxation. Until that is tackled, I do not think the Minister can solve the problem of the provinces. When that will come about I do not know. I believe that public opinion in the northern provinces is setting in that direction. Away back in 1922 the Transvaal Local Government Commission, over which the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) presided, found a considerable body of opinion in favour of a system of district councils in the Transvaal and if recommended accordingly; but that recommendation has not been given effect to, and while political parties are divided, as they are to-day, while you have two great parties appealing to people with the same economic interests and the same general outlook, and each waiting for the other to make mistakes, out of which political party capital can be made, it is not likely to be given effect to. And this is one of the difficulties—there are other difficulties also— which have made some of us wonder whether the present division of parties must necessarily be regarded as permanent. There are members of the House—and they are to be found on both sides—who believe that the course of our political development is setting towards the bringing in conjunction again on a fair and equal basis many of those who are divided today. Of that fact I think we had evidence last night in that straightforward, courageous and finely patriotic speech of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) whose friendly gesture will, I hope, prove not to have been made in vain. There are many more outside of this House who also hope that such a consummation will be arrived at. These hopes, as the hon. member for Albert suggested, have been quickened by the declarations which the Prime Minister made at Bloemfontein, indicating the advance made towards the removal of old historic causes of difference That hope may well be realized sooner than most of us think. May I, in the light of that last statement of mine, say a last word in regard to the general economic position of this country. The one outstanding fact to-day in regard to our economic position, the one word on the lips of all of us who are thinking of our economic position, is the word “depression.” We may not all be agreed as to the extent of that depression, or as to its probable duration. For myself, I am not disposed to regard it, as far as our national finances are concerned, as likely to have anything like the extent of the previous depression. I am inclined to think, in that regard, that, in its main incidence, it will not be unduly prolonged. But I do think that its effect on a large section of our farming community is going to be serious—it is serious to-day-—and I am very much afraid that it is going to be prolonged. For, after all, we are dealing with factors to-day which have been created, in a very large measure, by the very big increases in world production, and that, in turn, is due to the peaceful development and the coming into world markets of countries which, in the old days of war, had not a fair chance of development. Those factors will not soon lose their force. If I am right in that anticipation, then certainly more than ever before the need of our farming community in this country will be for co-operation, and with that, for the shaking off of those paralyzing effects which have come from the largely artificial political divisions of to-day. The realization of that truth by our farming community is bound to have its effect upon political divisions in the country and in this House.

I think that everyone in the House will agree with me when I congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways on the position in their departments, when we remember in what circumstances the world and this country are to-day. Although the state of our finances is good, there is a fuss made by the Opposition and we are instructed what we should do now. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) made a very calm speech here this afternoon expressing his anxiety about the fact that according to him the Minister had overestimated his revenue, but I cannot assist the hon. member there, nor can I assist him in his zeal for higher education. I merely rise to bring a few points to the Government’s notice, but before I do so I want to make a few comments on the Opposition. They are not intended as a personal attack, because I do not believe in personal attacks. I can quite understand that the Opposition is put here as a watchdog, but I want to warn them that if a sentry goes to sleep on his post he is useless, and he is even a danger. The sentry who sounds a false alarm is a danger, because the people will think that there is no danger when he sounds the alarm rightly. I want to point out that they have sounded a false alarm, and that the people no longer trust them. The provincial elections in the Transvaal have clearly proved this. Not withstanding the fact that aid was sent even from the Cape which made a fuss about the German treaty, the Nationalist party in the Transvaal without the aid of the South African party, and I can say without the help of the Labour party, got the majority. Notwithstanding the mischief making, even the Jewish community voted Nationalist, because the public only believe in the right alarm which is given when necessary. The South African party now wants to teach us, but which of the lessons they are trying to give us can we profit by. Our finances, railways, agriculture, and external relations play a big part in our policy. On which of these matters can we learn anything from the other side? Financially they caused such confusion during their regime that the state machine almost stopped running; there we can learn no lesson therefore. We come to the railways, and there we can learn nothing, because the railways were in a hopeless position when we came in. To-day the position is such as everyone must agree that they can suggest nothing, because what the Minister of Railways and Harbours has not yet done is not worth doing. I come to the Department of Agriculture and ask what they can teach us about that. About agriculture on which the existence of our population depends they can also teach us nothing, because when we examine the past we find that the farmers suffered very much in 1920 through their wrong administration. The present Government has imposed no taxation, but is trying to assist the people. I now come to the Department of Lands, which is of great importance to the development of our country, but this again is so much better than under the South African party Government that we can learn nothing. We come to our external policy by which we promote peace and friendship. The only lesson they can teach us is that of the interests of the British empire, but they are opposed to the appointment of our ambassadors, who promote our peace, friendship and trade with other countries. Hon. members opposite now believe in South Africa first; they already believe in our independent status, and we hope that with regard to ambassadors, also, they will soon adopt an enlightened point of view. I do not want to criticize the Opposition any further, but say a few words to the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). The hon. member said last night that he was in favour of a levy on the farmer’s produce, but I want to say at once that I do not agree with him on a single point, nor do I agree with him when he speaks about conciliation, and I want to warn him that he is following a dangerous path with that. The first man to speak of conciliation was Gen. Botha, the next Gen. Smuts, and they conciliated to such an extent that they abandoned their point of view and principles. If the hon. member moves along that road I believe that he will have disappeared in a short time. We can be friends, but just look how long it took them to be convinced by the Prime Minister of the slogan: “South Africa first.” If the hon. member starts with conciliation, then he will soon get lost amongst them, as so many of the Afrikaans-speaking people have disappeared amongst the South African party. I hope the hon. member for Albert will abandon that attitude.

I am still in the same position as I occupied in 1912.

We also want to cooperate as much as we can, but the hon. member goes a little too far. I now want to bring a few points of interest to the agricultural population to the notice of the Government. They are important to the country, and to my constituency. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Irrigation are not here just at the moment, but I hope they will give their attention to it. The first point is in connection with bores. I want to point out that boring for water is one of the few ways of developing the country. To a great extent we are a dry country, and apart from dams boring is the only thing that makes development possible in those parts What the Government has done in this connection is very praiseworthy. In 1928 regulations were slightly amended, but what I feel is that there is a section of the farmers in a detrimental position. Formerly the charge for a Government bore was £5 a day on the farms; that was an impossible amount for the farmers, because the bore at that time only worked eight hours a day, and the farmer had to bear all the costs. The present Government, accordingly, reduced it to £3 10s. I want however to point out that there are some people who still bore under the old system of £5 a day, and are still owing some money in connection with it. I think it is quite right and fair to ask for the debt to be brought down from the £5 basis to the £3 10s. basis to make the people, who are suffering as a result of the South African party £5 regulations, come under the £3 10s. Nationalist regulations. According to the report of the Director of Irrigation, the price is 11s. 3d., on the average, per foot. The farmer has in addition to pay all the expenses of carriage and transport, etc., and when a farmer has to pay 11s. 3d., and bores 300 feet, it is a considerable amount. The bores are not used so much by the rich people, but the poor people have to make use of them. But it ought to be realized that in view of the development of the country this is a national matter. The people in the dry parts are the poor people who trek there to develop the country, and if they get these heavy burdens, they cannot exist. It is impossible for the poorer people to go in for dear land, and therefore they trek to the distant parts, undeveloped areas, and do useful work there. They must be assisted by the state, then they will be able to stop on the land and contribute to its production. The best way to push land settlement in the dry areas is for the state to pay something. According to the report of the Director of Irrigation, boring on the ground let by the state to the lessees, costs 17s. 3d. a foot, but on Crown land the average price is 19s. 6d. a foot. The cost is added to the purchase price, but I want to urge that the Government should pay half. By adding the total charges to the purchase price, the burden becomes too great for the settlers, and they cannot make a living. The price of boring on Crown land is 19s. 6d., but the Minister is obliged to add the amount to the price of the ground, and cannot make a concession if the boreholes produce no water. I feel that this will cause great difficulties in future. This is a national matter, and must be tackled in such a way that the poor people can make a living on the land. We must lay down that on Crown land the Government shall pay at least half of the boring charges, and the settler the other half. I want to add something about the buying of land. The Minister of Lands follows the policy of buying the land under section 11 and not section 10 as the previous Government did. My experience is that the present Government’s action is the better. Land is first selected, and enquiry is made by people who have knowledge of land, and it is valued, and before the Land Board is convinced that the land is worth the money and that settlers can make a living there, the Minister does not buy the ground. In former days a great deal of ground was bought from pals at high prices and the poor settlers had to pay. The farms cost too much, but the settlers had to live on them, and pay. The Minister of Lands has had an enquiry instituted, and I believe £900,000 has already been written off. I say it must be written off, but the policy of the present Government is much better. It has, however, a few defects; land is bought every year to the extent of about £400,000. We vote this under loan funds, and for this money land is purchased in the various provinces, but it is clear that there must be bad purchases. In the Transvaal there are at least ten kinds of agricultural land of differing values, and certainly 25 per cent. are bad purchases. You can send out the best and most capable farmers to value the land, and bad buys will still occur. The defect, however, is that when the Minister has bought the ground and it appears that the ground is not worth the money, the man who has been given the land by the Government cannot be assisted. The man has put his capital and energy into it, and it turns out that the ground is worthless. In such a case the Minister cannot help him. The Minister cannot come to the House with an individual case like that. The Land Board is obliged to refuse to reduce the prices of land because the Act does not permit it. The price of land cannot be reduced unless Parliament first consents. I want the Minister and the Land Board to have the right to write down the prices before the land is again advertised, because if that is not done, it may happen that a second and possibly a third person may be ruined there. The Act must be amended, so that the Minister has more powers in connection with land that is bought under Section 11 of the Act. Then there is another point that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is in connection with the Land Bank. If there is one useful and good institution in the country which is indispensable, it is the Land Bank. I do not want now to criticize the banks, because we know that they are commercial concerns, yet the Land Bank exists for the support of the farmer, and when we examine the returns then we find from a question, which I asked the Minister of Finance, the Land Bank was making great profits on the loans made to the farmers. Those profits are too large. We can understand them being £10,000 or £15,000, but we find that they have been £30,000, £40,000, and even £90,000 for 12 months. These profits are made out of the farmers, and it is a little hard, especially if we remember that, according to a calculation, the farming population during the past eight years has lost, owing to all the various misfortunes, between £45,000,000 and £50,000,000. According to the latest report, we find that the Land Bank showed a profit of £70,000. The public have brought this to my notice, and said that the profit is so large that all the officials of the bank are getting bonuses. I cannot believe it, but yet the profits are there. The Minister must go into this, and reduce the rate of interest so that the profits are not so great, If any other section of the community, the merchants, or the mines, had suffered the losses which the farmers have during the past eight years, they would have been ruined. Over and above this the farmers now have to pay this high rate of interest. It is too much, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to it. Then there is another point which I have already brought to the notice of the previous Government. I saw at once that they would have nothing to do with it, and so let the matter drop. I want, however, to bring it to the notice of this Government. Let me say that I am not a person who likes advocating a levy of taxation. The position, however, is that we all have to pay taxes to the state, even the farmers who have farms, and want to protect their mineral rights. We now find, however, that there are land estate companies whose mineral rights are protected without their being taxed, and I hope the Minister of Finance will also deal with this matter. Those people possibly live overseas, their mineral rights are protected, and they do not pay a penny in taxation for it, with the result that the country doesn’t get a penny out of it either. We must tax them in that respect so that these minerals will be worked for the benefit of the country. I want to close with these few words, trusting that the present Government will give its attention to the matter. The previous Government would not do so, but I want the Minister of Finance to investigate the matter, because I know there are farmers whose mineral rights are protected without any taxes having to be paid in respect thereof.

Since this session started I have noticed astonishing depression on the faces of hon. members opposite, but the other day when the Minister of Finance announced that he was expecting deficit at the end of the next financial year, I noticed a smile on many faces opposite. It was a broad smile, like that of the man who said that he was very much in love but still unmarried. It is as if hon. members felt inclined to say: “At last a year has come without a surplus.” I think that they will again be disappointed when we meet next year. The hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) has again referred to the export of sour oranges. I thought that that matter was disposed of, but as he has referred to it again I want to say a few words about it. The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) asked a question about it, and thereafter the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) tabled a motion. That showed me that systematic action was being taken to ruin the smaller producers of citrus fruits. The farmers in the north plant oranges with pips, they are the oranges which the Opposition now want to prohibit, and which are known as sour oranges. They are, however, merely pip oranges, and when those oranges are exported they become sweeter in time and even sweeter than the other oranges. The Minister of Agriculture has decided that the boxes in which those oranges are despatched must be labelled as “sour.” Why the smaller producers of oranges must also be ruined I do not know. The fact is that those oranges have always, as yet, realized the best prices on the London market. I think that the motion is intended to benefit the large orange farms, like the Zebedelie Estate. I wanted to refer to the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who complained about the Government’s protection policy. He spoke chiefly about the increase of customs duty on readymade clothes. I want to give figures about the value of the clothes made in our factories to show what good effect this protection has had. In 1924 the value of the production in the clothes factories was £1,840,000. The later figures that I have are for 1927, and that year it had already amounted to £2,663,000. There was, therefore, an increase of nearly £1,000,000. We all know also that the industry was declining when the protection policy of the Government was introduced in 1924. As soon as the Government started it the languishing industries immediately commenced to progress. More industries mean more work. To show how the finding of work has been extended, I want to point out that in 1924 4,644 workers were engaged in the factories mentioned, and 8,346 in 1927, an increase, therefore, of 3,702. The salaries and wages increased by 121 per cent. If it had not been for the protection policy of the Minister those industries would have failed. It has been said here that the poor man will suffer in consequence. No, the poor man will have benefit from the protection policy because his children get work in our factories owing to it. The price of clothes is such that already a first-class suit made here can be got for £2 10s. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has declared himself a free trader. I think he is only thinking of the workers overseas, because if he felt for our local workmen he would support protection. Hundreds of those people have found work owing to the development of our industries, and that development is entirely due to the protection granted. I want to ask the Minister of Finance to give more protection to our boot industry, because every pair of boots from overseas means 5s. in the £ less purchasing capacity in our country. I am astonished that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) opposed protection because inasmuch as more of the people he pretends to represent get work through it he ought to support protection. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned how taxation had increased by £1,000,000 a year. In that connection the public are told that taxation has been increased. It is the same argument as when a man with an income of £500 pays 5 per cent. tax, i.e., £25, but when his income rises to £1,000 and he pays 4 per cent., i.e., £40, then hon. members would say that the man’s taxes have gone up. That is the way they go to work, but in my opinion, it is very misleading. Another thing the hon. member mentions is the 20 per cent. rebate on income tax which has again been put on. I must say that I am glad about it, because it is the richer man who, owing to it, pays less. There are many things for which the farmers, in my opinion, are thankful to the Minister, especially that he has abolished the taxes on everything the farmer requires for his work. The hon. member for Troyeville appeared the other day as the champion of the farmers. I am astonished at it, but it almost looks as if hon. members, when they can get a horse to trot, think that they are farmers. I must say that it will be interesting to see the hon. member for Troyeville in a pair of riding breeches on a horse. The hon. member, however, need not trouble to advocate the interests of the farmers, there are quite enough hon. members in the House to do that. What I deplore in the debate is that it has been said that we raise race hatred, and that we give jobs to pals. I think that it is just the reverse, and that the Opposition create race hatred. We find that during our regime 55 more English-speaking persons have been appointed to the public services than Afrikaans-speaking, but during the last four years of the South African party Government in the posts with a salary of £600 and over, 183 English people were appointed as against seven Afrikaners. I therefore say that the race hatred entirely exists on the other side. I ask myself what the few Afrikaners who still sit on that side did when these appointments were made. We have now again had a great fuss about the appointment of Mr. van Zyl Ham, Dr. Geldenhuys and Mr. van Rensburg, because they have Afrikaans names, but I ask hon. members opposite whether they could have recommended just as capable persons who did not have Afrikaans names. I am glad our Government has also appointed English people so that the South African party can see that we do not make the same fault, but are setting them an example. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout complained very much in the past that we were isolating ourselves, and I was astonished to hear that he is dissatisfied at our appointing ambassadors abroad. It looks as if he blows hot one year and cold the next. I want to point out to him that in 1924 our trade with Italy was £253,513. Since 1925, when we appointed a trade commissioner, our trade has so increased that it now reaches millions of pounds per annum, and the majority of products bought are farmers’ products, like wool £968,000, hides £90,000, maize £620,000, and beef £199,000. They are all farmers’ produce, and we have now succeeded in getting the order for the Italian army for three years. It is not necessary to deliver the best beef under that contract, but we can deliver any beef. In that way we are enabled to get rid of the native cattle, the scrub stock. I think the future will show that the appointment of ambassadors will contribute to the welfare of the Union. I hope hon. members will show that their thoughts and interests are in South Africa, and that they will assist us in every attempt to push our country. The hon. member also insisted on economy, and said there were too many hon. members here. I agree with him that there are 48 members too many opposite, and I am convinced that the work will be done much better and more quickly if they were not there. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), inter alia, asked for an appointment of a commission of enquiry to investigate the grievances of railway workers; I am one of those who will welcome it, because the hon. member will be very sorry if it is agreed to, because it will turn out that a large part of the dissatisfaction amongst the Afrikaans-speaking railwaymen is due to the fact that they are being kept back in many respects. I should like to say a few words about the method of election on the countryside, especially in view of the fact that we have just been through an election. I must blame the Opposition—and they must not take it amiss in me for saying so—for talking so much with two voices. I am always prepared to repeat in Parliament what I have said in the north, but the Opposition during elections say things there which they would not repeat here. I said in the north that the Unionists had swallowed the old South African party, and I say it again here. I said that I have never yet seen the tail wagging the dog, but always the dog wagging the tail, and I say it again. But now they say in the north, e.g., that the cause of the depression must be looked for in the German treaty, they do not think about Australia, which has no German treaty. People have gone there from South African because they did not want to live under the present Government. I now learn that they have soup kitchens in Australia to provide those people with food. I read in the Rand Daily Mail that through the intervention of friends in South Africa those people are now returning here, and I think they will rejoice if this Government remains long in office. Since their experience they will think differently about the matter. Then the story is always still used on the countryside in the north of how the people who took part in the second war of independence were to get 5s. a day. I think that is misleading, and I would like to see the leader of the Opposition disciplining the members of his party a little and repeating what he said, viz.: that whoever had made the promise of 5s. a day had been guilty of political hypocrisy. I think the time has come to let the people know what the position is; everyone ought to know that the matter should have been adjusted when Union came about in 1910. It was not done at that time, and to-day the Cape Province and Natal will not be prepared to agree to the payment of 5s. a day. I, myself, would very much like to see it done, but we realize that it should have been done at that time. Another thing said during the election was that we could not get loans in London. Now there is a large premium on our loans. Then it is said that a large number of our industries have languished in consequence of the protection policy. Those people forget that when the statistics were collected in 1925 there were about 300 factories written off the list which could not be considered factories, such as stone making, and quarrying jobs, etc. The Opposition had to fight the elections in the north in that way. I think that it is deplorable. I say we ought to go to the people on the merits, and my party and I have always hitherto been ready to do so. One of the most sensible things the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has said was that he was not going to talk about the merits or otherwise of the two parties. I think that was very wise, because we are not in the least afraid of the past being raked up. We notice every day that when we talk about the past hon. members opposite are very frightened that old histories will be unearthed, because these old cows still have sharp horns, and are still able to poke a good deal. When we talk here of Unionists we are very much blamed. When we talk about the treatment of Afrikaans-speaking people we hear a great shout opposite, but I think that the Afrikaans people have not, by a long way, yet come into their own. Since this Government assumed office their endeavours have been to treat Afrikaans- and English-speaking people on their merits, and I think it is right. I want to co-operate, but not in the way it worked out under the previous Government, especially during the last four years of their regime. Then the one side got 97 per cent. and the other 3 per cent. I am prepared to let them have 50 per cent., and to take 50 per cent. for ourselves. I have always said so on the countryside, but the position is a long way from that. Hon. members opposite talk nicely but in the old days they used to say that one could know a tree by its fruit, and we have not yet seen much fruit for the benefit of the Afrikaans-speaking people. There is a great deal in being a South African. I say that the test is to give up your life for your country, even if it is against England. If they can stand that test, I acknowledge them to be Afrikaners. I say without any hesitation that if trouble has to come with England—a thing which I, of course, never expect—that I am prepared to sacrifice my life for South Africa against England. When hon. members opposite get to that mentality, then we will welcome them fully as Afrikaners. I should now like to revert to the old phenomenon that hon. members are so accustomed to talk with two voices. In the towns they speak in one way, and on the countryside in another. The example I want to quote is what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) recently did in connection with the provincial election in the Transvaal. At a meeting in Springs he said to the public: “Look, it is no use voting for the Nationalist candidate because a Nationalist cannot represent an urban constituency. His party only looks after the interest of the countryside.” From there he went to Losberg, where he said that the people should vote for the South African party candidate because that was the party that looked after the interests of the countryside. I think it is impossible for a person to speak seriously with two voices. I had a high opinion of the hon. member, and I did not think that he would be so quickly carried away by his party as to speak with two voices. I think it is an indication that his influence in the party is nil, or that he is not trying to use his influence for good. I would now like to come to the charges in connection with the depression, and what is said about it. In this connection I would like to quote what the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce said recently in Pretoria—

I agree entirely with this. The improvement came during the last six years. There are, however, a few more points I want to mention. One is of great importance to the farmers in the north, viz., tobacco. As we know, the tobacco farmers are the section of the people in the north who have suffered most recently. Let me say that when the customs conference with Rhodesia failed I rejoiced about it, because I felt that it would benefit Zwartruggens, Rustenburg and other parts of the country where tobacco is grown. When I, of course, consider the matter in general, and from the point of view of the country as a whole, I agree that an agreement with Rhodesia has good results, but it is at the expense of the tobacco farmers in the north, and therefore I have the greatest confidence in coming to the Government for assistance for the tobacco farmers, and, let me say that when I speak of them I speak of a community which counts no less than 15,000. The position is that the Land Bank demands its interest at the end of every financial year. This makes it impossible for the tobacco farmers to develop the overseas market, because the whole supply has to be sold if the farmers are to be able to comply with the demands of the Land Bank, and it takes 15 to 18 months to bring tobacco to the right flavour. The cooperative society must, therefore, always have a certain quality of tobacco on hand. My request is that a sum of, say, £100,000, be lent at a nominal rate of interest of 4 per cent. for a long period of about 10 years to the cooperative society. That will assist the farmers, and will keep many of them from becoming poor whites. I think I have every right to ask for some such thing, because as I have already shown the Rhodesian agreement was entered into at the expense of the tobacco farmers. Moreover, those farmers directly and indirectly contribute almost £1,000,000 a year in revenue to the Government. I think, therefore, that we must assist the tobacco farmers. We find that the Government has taken steps to protect our interests in Rhodesia which amount to this: that practically every year £100,000 is paid to Rhodesia on behalf of our industries. I therefore, think that the Land Bank should grant this loan to the co-operative society, because it will assist and keep alive a very great industry in our country. This will be a bad year for the tobacco farmers, because we find that the hail has damaged a great part of the harvest, so that some farmers will have no harvest. The large tobacco factories could have helped us if we wished, but they on the contrary have put themselves out to go and buy in Rhodesia. They did not take the least notice of the farmers who kept their factories going in the past. As soon as the duty was abolished they went and bought in Rhodesia. As I said, it takes three months for the tobacco to sweat well, and then another 18 months to get the right flavour, and if the co-operative society that makes advances to the farmers still has to pay to the Land Bank at the end of each financial year, it will result in an impossible position. I therefore hope that it will be possible to assist the tobacco farmers in the way I have suggested. Another point I want to mention is the illegal smuggling of cattle from the British Protectorate. There are speculators who go to Lake Ngami, who buy cattle there, and drive them to the Malopo and Crocodile Rivers; cattle are then sent from the Transvaal side to water there. The cattle drink together, and in that way they are driven into Transvaal territory. Thousands of animals come in in that way and our cattle farmers have to suffer, because those animals flood the Johannesburg market. I suggest that the border from Ramatlahama along the Malopo River should be closed, also that the police should be changed every three months, and that bonuses should be paid to every man who reports an instance of this to the police, in order that prosecution can be instituted. Then there is another matter that I want to mention, which I consider very important, it is about teachers of the old C.N.O. system. There are very few of them left, and they have helped us very much in the past. They gave the basis to our education in the north. They established the Christian National Educational School in the time of Lord Milner to assist our people. Is it unfair then, when those people have not had a chance of joining a pension fund, that they should not have something done for them in their old age? It would be a scandal if we allowed them to suffer from want in their old age. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government to do something for those people, so that they should not feel to-day that they are being repudiated.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) on the speech he made last night. The spirit he displayed in that speech is, I believe, the spirit of all the Dutch people in the Eastern Province. There in some districts we have an intermixture of English and Dutch and the two races are beginning to understand each other more than they do in other parts of the Union and we have a Better spirit prevailing.

You will find the same position in the north.

Let us compare the first session of Parliament six years ago under the Nationalist Government and this session. One of the differences which is most striking is the lack of racialist speeches to-day. We hear much less of Dutch versus English, much less of “rasse haat” and that is all to the good. In congratulating the hon. member for Albert I feel he spoke not only for the Dutch but for the English section of the people of the Eastern Province. There is one factor, however, regarding the present position which we have to consider. During the debates on the five previous budgets which the Minister of Finance has introduced there have been paeans of praise from the Nationalist benches. It has been said that we on these benches are now rejoicing because the Government have to face troublous times. Let me tell hon. members on the other side that this depression is going to affect us individually on this side just as much as it is going to affect that side. Bad times will hit us just as much as they will the Nationalist. But I think we are looking with rather more critical eyes on the Cabinet, and asking how they are going to deal with the crisis facing the country to-day. Hon. members on the other side during the previous years of depression eight years ago were insistent critics of Mr. Burton and Mr. Jagger. I wonder, whether in the course of two or three years, or of one year even, we will not have hon. members going down on their penitent knees and saying, “Oh, for a Jagger.” I wonder, if a crisis does come and the Minister of Railways and Harbours will feel the full pressure first, whether he will deal with it as Mr. Jagger dealt with it. That will be the real test and the country is watching the Government. We find railwaymen already saying that they would rather have a Jagger than a Malan. Hon. members on the other side claim credit for everything good that has taken place during the last six years, even when it rains from heaven. Are they also prepared to take debit for evil conditions that prevail. Every hon. member must realize that the position, as far as the natives and coloured persons are concerned, is extremely unsatisfactory, and it is growing worse every year. Will hon. members on the other side admit that the Government are directly and indirectly responsible; that by their legislation and actions and policy they are largely responsible for the feelings of unrest spreading through the country, which we hear of and read so much about every day. Hon. members opposite have themselves admitted that the state of affairs is far from satisfactory. I would like to detail some of the many actions of the Government that is causing this unrest. I do not wish to deal with the question of republicanism, but let us admit that amongst the native races and the coloured people, the Pact gospel—the doctrine of republicanism—has always had the effect of creating a feeling of unrest, suspicion and of fear almost. I hope the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll), who again brought up this question last night, will realize that he creates more unrest by referring to this unfortunate matter. The first action taken by the Government when it came into power was that of the Minister of Railways and Harbours in introducing his civilized labour policy. I think it is necessary that we should try to raise our Europeans, and I take no exception to assisting the poorer classes, but I quarrel with his attitude with regard to the natives. He dismissed natives from Cape Town, working on the harbours, who had been in the railway service for many years, and thereby created in the mind of the native the impression that he was not wanted in this country, the place of his birth. The next was the Native Taxation Bill. The Minister of Finance told us on the introduction of that measure in 1925 that he did not want any more revenue from the native but that the object was to attain a system of uniform taxation, but it bad the indirect effect that the native considered increased burdens were being placed upon him. It had the effect of increasing the burden on the Cape native and of decreasing that of the native in the north.

You did not oppose the Bill.

I do not say we opposed the Bill, but I am pointing to the general effect. Then there was the extra taxation on cotton blankets, secondhand clothing, etc., which has put a tremendous burden on the native. I will deal further with this matter at a later stage and show hon. members how heavily it has hit the natives. This was followed by the Wages Bill. Hon. members representing the then Labour party admitted it had been introduced to force the native out of the spheres of labour in which he was earning a living. In the district I represent, the Minister knows, he tried to force natives and coloured people out of the printing trade by compelling the payment of wages that would have closed down the printing business there. Then we had another factor—I do not say the Government is to blame —but it is one of those factors which works in the mind of the native and that was our new status, together with the flag question. The natives began to ask themselves: “Where are we going to? In past years we acknowledged Queen Victoria as our queen, and today we acknowledge King George. But what does this all mean?” Then there was the colour bar Bill, which also caused a grave reaction amongst the natives. The Government sat for days and days to pass that Act, and it has never been put into operation yet. The only effect it had was to stir up hostility in the minds of the natives. In 1926 we dealt with the Bill for the prevention of disorders, and hon. members will realize that that stirred up the natives in the same way as the Riotous Assemblies Bill is doing to-day. Then there was the Native Administration Act, which we, in general, this side supported. But the Minister for Native Affairs must know that that Act ft creating an atmosphere of suspicion in the minds of the natives. There are continual law suits over it, and there is a case before the Appellate Court even now. They say they will take it to the Privy Council as they will never get justice here. This was followed by the German treaty. I ask hon. members over there who know the native mind, what must the native think when the first treaty we, as an independent nation, make, is made with the nation we were fighting only a few years ago. What mast the natives think who went across the ocean to help our side? Hundreds of our natives volunteered to render assistance, including loading chiefs. Hon. members will remember the sinking of the “Mendi” when over 600 relatives lost their lives. A few years later we enter into a treaty with our late enemies. Do hon. members not realize that this must have had a serious effect upon the native mind? Then there was the “black manifesto.” Hon. members will admit that they have heard of such a thing. That created a feeling of hostility, a feeling of fear and resentment right through the native population of the Union. I wish the Minister of Agriculture were here. I would like farmers to ask themselves if, for 20 years, they had been unable to send a beast out of the district in which they live, what would happen. If extra duties were put on their requirements, and not a single beast were allowed to be exported from their area, what would they do? There would be a revolution if European farmers were treated in that way. Yet that is how the natives have been dealt with. In addition to all this, there is hanging over them the shadow of the Prime Minister’s Bills and the Minister of Justice’s Riotous Assemblies measure. Hon. members cannot be surprised that the natives are dissatisfied. I now wish to deal with the question of native taxation. The Minister, when he introduced his Native Taxation Bill, I think it was in 1925, stated that he anticipated raising taxation to the amount of £900,000 from native sources, and that he would be satisfied with that. On this side of the House we supported him, as far as that measure was concerned, as it created uniformity which was desirable. In 1923 the native taxation amounted to £810,000, and in 1924, £850,000, and the Minister anticipated by bringing about uniform taxation throughout the Union that he would get £900,000. I don’t think the Minister will dispute my statement of the position. To-day he has estimated for £975,000, which amounts to an increase of approximately £125,000 since 1924. I have gone through the figures. I find from the last Year Book that in the Cape we have 1,780,000 natives, and in the Transvaal 1,710,000, approximately the same number, yet in the Cape they are paying almost double the amount paid in taxation in the Transvaal. On reference to figures we find that the gross direct taxation of the Cape natives including the general or poll tax and the local tax amounts to £615,000, whilst in the Transvaal the amount is only £344,000. Based on an estimate of one in four, which is the ratio of poll taxpayers to the population in the Cape, the Cape pays in general taxation £445,000 and Natal is underpaying by an amount of £10,000. The Transvaal should be paying £105,000 more, and the Free State £18,000 more, if the taxation were proportionately levied on the Cape basis. It is quite clear that uniform taxation has not been brought about, or that the taxes are not properly collected in the other provinces.

Surely you know that the incidence is uniform.

There is something wrong.

Then you complain that the collection is at fault?

There must be something wrong to have that huge discrepancy in the figures. The Cape natives are paying much more than the natives in the other provinces. I have referred to the taxation on cotton blankets. There are 301 Europeans employed in the four Cotton blanket factories, and the native is paying £300,000 in taxation on cotton blankets per annum. For every pound a male adult pays for poll tax, he also pays 7s. taxation on cotton blankets alone. On a shipment of cotton blankets worth £849, the customs duty amounted to £768. This protection is being increased every year. There is a certain sheeting called toya drill, that the native women wear which was, at one time, subject to 12 per cent. customs duty. Owing to the heavy increased duties on cotton sheeting which was largely worn by women and children, the native had perforce to find some other material to wear which would equally suit their purpose and be cheaper and they therefore started wearing this toya drill. A few weeks ago the following question was put to the Minister on this mattér—

The reply elicited from the Minister was as follows—

This involved an increase of practically 500 per cent. on the duty. I would ask the Minister this question. If the natives started wearing silk to-morrow, would the Minister classify silk as cotton sheeting and put on an increased duty of 500 per cent.? I know cases of traders who have ordered this particular sheeting, and paid for it, and suddenly the extra duty was put on before the goods were cleared and they could not sell the stuff, with the result that they sustained heavy losses. We have only one factory manufacturing this cotton sheeting to-day in this country—and the natives have to pay £48,000 a year duty to keep that factory going. I do not know how many people are employed in the factory; I cannot even find out where it is; but the Minister tells us there is one factory. Does not the House think that to put such a burden on the native of this country to protect the few employees in that one factory is calculated to cause unrest among the natives? I say, without hesitation, that if the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs had been sympathetic to the natives—if the promises made by them had been carried out; if something had been done to develop the natives, there would be less dissatisfaction amongst them in the Transkei and elsewhere in the Union to-day. Has the Minister of Agriculture done anything for the natives during the last five or six years? Let him look up his estimates and judge for himself. I want to read to the Minister of Native Affairs, and the Minister of Finance, what the Prime Minister said when he was Minister of Native Affairs in 1925—I quote from Hansard—

I read this to my native constituents at that time and told them that now they had such a promise from the Minister of Native Affairs, I believed that he was going to do something for them. I have approached the Minister of Finance time after time, but can get nothing for these people. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he did during his period of office during the last few years, to carry out those views or promises? If the only thing this House is going to do as far as the natives are concerned is to put additional burdens on the natives, then all I can say is the native will get the idea that Parliament is nothing but a taxing machine and that he is only regarded as a beast of burden in this country. The Minister of Native Affairs has been through the Ciskei recently, and knows the unrest in that part of the country. If we can do something for these natives they will feel, at any rate, they are getting some returns for the burden of taxation put upon them. If after all the legislative measures I have mentioned which very directly affect the natives—if after the extra burdens of taxation placed upon them and the general attitude of the Government towards the natives generally, the hon. Minister for Justice thinks the unrest that has been caused will be cured by his Riotous Assemblies Bill, he is making a grave mistake. The Government must take steps to regain the confidence it has lost during its term of office. The Minister of Finance admits that he is getting £75,000 more from native taxation than he anticipated. Why not use this money for native development? We had a heaven-sent gift in the diamond discoveries of Namaqualand, from which the Government got six million pounds. Why was not some of this money used to acquire more land for the natives. I repeat that the unrest in the country to-day is causing grave anxiety and I ask the Government to get away from the idea that the application of force will remedy the present state of affairs.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has explained to the House that the unrest in this country is due to this Government. He took the point that this country must be governed according to the whims and fancies of the native population that we have here. He wants to make us believe that if we want to govern the country wisely we must, in the first place, think of the native population and we must pass legislation to assist the natives. He told the House that one of the great faults of the Government was that it had introduced the civilized labour policy which had caused unrest amongst the natives. The hon. member possibly does not know that there are 41,578 natives and coloured people in the railway service, and that they earn £1,800,000 a year in wages; what does the hon. member want more? Does he want our railways to be run only with natives? Does he want to double the 40,000 and draw-more of them from their territories and bring them here? I do not know what he wants. He speaks about native taxation, and connects it with the education, or advantages which the natives do not get from us. I want to remind the hon. member that none of us directly gets benefit from the taxes. The department has a large number of police constables who maintain order among the natives, must they not contribute anything to that? Must they contribute nothing for hospital facilities, roads, and other benefits which uncivilized people enjoy when they come to our civilized country? Are they not to have any part in the burden? It seems to me that the hon. member thinks that we should consider it an astonishing honour if the natives lower themselves so much as to come here. The hon. member mentioned the customs duty on cotton blankets. I should like him to say whether he knows that cotton is grown in this country. Why does he not go to his constituents and tell them that the people must plant cotton and make cotton blankets in this country? Why does he not tell the electors there that last year cotton blankets, pots, etc., were exported from Belgium to Central Africa for natives, in return for which £2,000,000 went to Belgium? Why does he not tell his constituents that they ought to develop themselves economically? He can do good work there. He ought to suggest something better. Now he talks here of the colour bar, and actually also about the German treaty. The German treaty is the cause of the unrest. That the Government entered into a treaty with Germany with which fifteen years ago it was at war is the cause of the natives being uneasy. Greater folly cannot be imagined. I am surprised that the Opposition did not rather talk about the finances of the country, but I can understand that they do not do so because that was never their strong point. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) possibly went the furthest. He merely said: “the spell is broken”, and there was great rejoicing in the camp of the Philistines. Nothing else Nor did the Opposition ever think about the prophecies about the current financial year being very premature. We know only too well what they think about finances owing to their past and the speeches they have made here on the subject. Their weak spot is the finances of the country, and therefore we probably wait in vain to hear what they have to say about the finances. When I think of the past of the South African party Government, then I cannot get away from one idea, viz., that as far as the financial control of the party is concerned it was frightfully weak. The Minister of Finance of that time was as weak as one can imagine anybody to be; he was the Minister, and I say it with all respect, with whom our Heavenly Father punished the South African party, and he never could have punished them more severely. He was the Minister who headed for the abyss, and who rushed the South African party Government into it eighteen months before the time for dissolution. Hence we heard during the recent general election from every platform of the South African party that they had never spoken about surpluses. Surpluses were a curse! According to them, deficits were really a better thing. They, therefore, immediately explained the distinction at their meetings between Burton and Havenga. The people were to choose! Just imagine the South African party mentality. They choose Burton without hesitation, and the slogan actually arose, “deficits on top”. This shout was raised at all the meetings in my constituency: it was, therefore, no wonder that their finances got into such a state that during the last years they were in office they no longer had a policy, but abandoned it in favour of manipulation. They took from one source to supply another. They emptied various chests and made funds bankrupt to fill up other holes and to cover deficits. In mathematics, so say the learned people, and also in science, one must take account of details. I came across a formula in mathematics which was O—X; I asked what it meant. That X is an unknown quantity, so that the quantity must be infinitesimally small; O—X must indeed be very small. It seems to me that the financial capacity of the South African party is O—X. That is presumably the reason why no financial criticism has been made here. There is another mistake which strikes us in the South African party, and that is their imagination. This quality of the South African party is really strange. They imagine something, and deal with it so long in their thoughts, which is not saying much, that they subsequently themselves think that it is true. An exact science does not occupy itself with the imagination, for that brain power is required, and of brain power with regard to finances they have a tremendous shortage. Therefore, I understand their action in not venturing during the course of this budget debate to discuss the financial side of the matter. I should like here to tell a story of how the imagination of that party goes to work. During the elections in Colesberg, after I had dealt with the finances of the country, I said that the Government had during the past year given up a definite amount which would be used for the payment of old age pensions to our old and worn-out people. What happened? The following day one of the old people came to me and said: “Doctor, how am I to understand the matter. You said last night that the Government had voted money to pay pensions to the old people, but I have just seen a man who is going about talking to the poor people, and he says that it is untrue”. I then said to him: “How so?” His answer was that that person told the people that the Government got the money from an old lady who had died in England and who had left that money to the poor people of South Africa. Of course that old lady could not have been in her proper senses—non compos mentis—because she did not know how many poor people there were in her own country. He added that she had left £5 for each person, but that the present Minister of Finance was deducting £2 10s. to pay for cost of administration, and the people were, therefore, only getting half of it. The power of imagination of the South African party is very strong. It is so strong that what they imagine subsequently appears to be reality to them, and they expect us to believe it as well. A thing the Opposition greatly objected to is the money spent in appointing plenipotentiary ministers overseas. The people who are to represent us in European countries. I remember quite well when after the world war I heard for the first time of the higher status we had got, and I asked myself quite a few questions about it. I asked, first of all, what it was? I listened to various speeches in this Parliament. I read others made at various meetings in different parts of the country, but I could not exactly learn what the higher status was. I did not only ask what it was, but also how did we get it? Was it a gift, or was it a payment for the “see the war through” policy which was adopted by our country? I also asked whether it was one of our inherent rights. I must say that all the same I added that last question. I asked myself the question what the higher status was in the South African party. It meant nothing. They will deny this to-day, but the position always remains as it had been. We heard of a higher status, but we never saw the results of it. The higher status which they had was only a name, a beautiful name to mislead the people in this country a little more. We have made out of the higher status absolute equality with England and any other country. We have achieved that we have the right just as England has to have our representatives in other countries, and we have even achieved that England, in its own Parliament, has to make amendments and repeal laws which we soon will repeal in our Parliament. We have made a state of South Africa which need not take second place to any other state. Now hon. members abuse our ambassadors overseas. This is their argument against our ambassadors. I do not like talking much about abusive people, because they are not amenable to courtesy. I will leave them alone, because we can compare them with a basket of rotten eggs, a bad smell emanates from it. Other hon. members of the Opposition objected to the embassies because the ambassadors cost too much; as for the expense, I think it will be an honest standard if we were to place ourselves in the position of an ambassador. I do not mean to imply that I want to become an ambassador, but if we ascertain what the reasonable expenses of an ambassador are then we shall find that the cost of our embassies is not too high. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they are going to abolish the embassies or to reduce the cost if they get into power. Will they allow the ambassadors to carry such a burden that they cannot do their work with self-respect? Another objection by the Opposition is that those people will not do much for us. I thought that they would be thankful about it, because their policy surely is for us not to have so much business with other countries, but that we must remain in the big combine, and only do business with them, and if the embassies therefore are a failure, I thought that would be to their liking. The hon. members remind me of the story that I read about an English clergyman; he had no wife, and earnestly prayed for a wife, but at the same time he was in love with a girl called Mary. On a certain day the verger picked up a note and read it. It was a prayer by the clergyman for a wife, but it ended with the words “Oh, Lord, but it must be Mary”. And if we in South Africa want to enter into trade relations then the South African party agrees that we must do so with the whole world, “but it must be Mary”, and that is the great difficulty of the South African party. They are not aware of that they conflict with the interests of their group, and are constantly differing in the House. That is the reason that they effected nothing during the time they were in office. They tire themselves out with disputes so that they had to make an appeal to the country eighteen months before the time. It is because our Government saw that the duty of the Government is not to put group against group, but to regard and to look after the interests of the people as a whole that they have had so much success. I should now like to go on to something which is of more importance than the South African party. The difficulty of the South African party is that they saw with envious eyes that the railwaymen at the recent election voted dead against them, they cannot forget this, and therefore they are doing all in their power to debate the interests of the railwaymen. We know the object of the motions which have been introduced into the House. They know that they cannot win quite a lot of seats in the country if they do not do so through the railwaymen, consequently railway matters are dragged in at every opportunity and the interests of the railwaymen discussed. The railwaymen, however, do not so soon forget how the old South African party Government went on about the white labour policy which they introduced. They sent the railwaymen to places where they could not live, in order in that way to get them out of the service, and have their places taken by natives. Nor do the railwaymen forget that the Treasury chest was nearly empty when the South African party Government came to an end, so that this Government will have to pay in £400,000 extra every year until, I think, 1940, into those funds to get them straight once more. Just think what that £400,000 would mean to the Minister in these troublous times. He would then have not a deficit but a surplus, and could use the surplus to improve the condition of these people They do not forget that the superannuation fund is one of the best pensions funds there could be in the country, better than any railway administration has. One of the railway officials told me that with all the grievances and everything one hears about, if it were for nothing else than this superannuation fund, he would always remain a Nationalist. The man who managed the fund worked for years under Burton and Jagger, and struggled in the matter, but could effect nothing, appreciates what the Government has done in this respect. This Government had not been one year in office when they had already put the pension fund in order, and the railway workers do not forget it. Hon. members opposite think that the railway workers do not know their civic duties, do not want to bear their civic burdens. They think that the people actually believe all this, but I say that they are prepared to take their share in the burdens of the country. There are grievances and such a great concern could not exist without them. This is one of the discoveries of the South African party with which to make propaganda, especially in the early papers about the amazing quantity of grievances among the railwaymen in the hope of the people possibly voting against the Government. There are grievances, and I want to ask the Minister of Railways to give his attention to them, but I specially want to appeal to him not to discharge the people. I know that in times of depression things are difficult, and I am certain that he could manage with far fewer people. I believe he could discharge 5,000 people without making it impossible to carry on the service, but I want to appeal to him to keep the people on, to keep them at work. Keep them going until the depression is past. They will be thankful if that is done. Now I come to another matter. A dismal matter which I have already referred to several times here. I know that the Minister has had nothing directly to do with it, but his officials have had, and therefore he also. It is the wretched system of local allowances, which causes so much annoyance and dissatisfaction among railwaymen. I speak under correction, but I think that a redistribution of places last occurred in 1920. That is ten years ago. And the strange thing about the matter is that the Department of Census obtains figures from various towns about various things, such as servants, houses, coal, groceries, meat, etc., and the figures are received every three months. The Public Service Commission then gets the figures and the areas are sub-divided on the basis of them. The Cabinet, but especially the Ministers of the Interior and of Railways and Harbours, are concerned in it, and ought to bring about a change. The division is arbitrary. Take, e.g., Johannesburg; Klerksdorp is a good distance from Johannesburg, it was not classified anywhere, and was therefore included with Johannesburg. They can do nothing else with it. Kimberley is on one side of the river, and De Aar on the other; De Aar, however, is not included with Kimberley—I think it would be better to include Kimberley with De Aar, because I almost believe Kimberley cheaper— they make a dividing line. On the one side there is a small house and the man gets a local allowance, on the other side, 200 yards off, there is another small house, but the man gets no allowance. It is the greatest nonsense. I also want to say something else in connection with the housing of the railway workers. The shortage of houses is particularly felt at De Aar; ten or twelve foundations have existed in De Aar for years, I believe. They were put in by the South African party Government, and it reminds me of the bible story that foundations are built but the cost not counted. I believe that the Minister, if he would speak the truth—and he often does—will say that he has received many applications for houses from De Aar. The municipal council have offered to build houses for the Minister. His administration, not he directly, has sent the council of De Aar from pillar to post, from Pilate to Pontius, this is the inverted way of doing it. In the end the town council was so angry with the administration that they wrote that negotiations were off. The administration have become sober but the people have no houses, so the matter is not completed. To the Railway Administration it is far from settled. The people must be assisted wherever the money comes from. The people particularly have small grievances, and it is the small grievances which differ and later give trouble.

When I spoke this afternoon there were only five Opposition members in the House, now there is one less, there are just four. They have run away from Dan to Beersheba, consternation is in their camp. I have spoken to the Minister of Railways and called attention to the grievances of the railway workers. I want again to tell him that the grievances are often considered as trifles by the Administration, that is the trouble, and the Administration runs the danger of throwing a child out of the bath together with the water. Some of the grievances are actually small, but there is also a greater grievance, and I hope the Minister of Railways will find a way of dealing with that grievance. I discussed it with the Minister last year, and suggested that he should appoint a grievances commission. He said it was not necessary because there was a welfare officer. I agree with him. I do not want to go into the administrative matters of the railways, because fortunately I am not the Minister of Railways. I want, however, to tell him this that he must regulate the work of the welfare officer a little bit differently. In all the large railway centres the welfare officers must stop a few days. They must go about among the workers, and I would suggest that they can convene a meeting with the workers. It will not be a bad thing. I do not wish to get rid of my responsibility, but I do want to say this that we who represent railway centres find that our position will soon become impossible. If we are to deal with all the grievances then the Minister of Railways will have to introduce a Bill to increase our salaries and to appoint us as full-time officials. He can easily do so without the railway incurring any loss, because he can deduct from the other side the salaries of the members for the Cape Peninsula who live in their homes here, and who practically have no expenses. Those grievances make me think that perfection is made up of trifles. Perhaps the Minister had not thought of it. Perfection consists of trifles, but perfection itself is not a trifle. We must look at the matter from that point of view. I think that the Minister of Railways and Harbours will say that he is glad that I have now done with speaking about the railways. I want to say a few words about something else before I sit down. I am sorry that the Minister for Irrigation is not here, because I want to speak about irrigation, and I am convinced that I need not talk for long to convince the House that I know nothing about irrigation. All kinds of people, and all kinds of members speak about irrigation. It is a peculiar thing because it is clear to us that many of them also know nothing about it. The old policy of the Irrigation Department was to help the people in two ways; on the one hand they are provided with bores, boring is done cheaply for them, and long credit is given, and when water is found windmills are erected. The Land Bank lends the people money who erect the windmills to take the water from below and put it on the ground. Another way in which help is given is that certain large irrigation works are built. I have no objection to either of these two methods, but I want to say this that in my humble opinion we take the water out of the ground, and we do not provide for the water above the ground. We allow the water table to drop and we do nothing to replace the underground water, with the result that the connection between the damp under the ground, and the damp in the air are separated. When the droughts come the windmills have no water to pump. We must attach a longer pipe to the pump to get to the water, and then it is too heavy for the capacity of the mill. The Irrigation Department helps us to pump the water, and not to collect it on the surface. The result is that the water runs away in the Karroo, because little is done in the Karroo by way of irrigation, with the result that it is a dry piece of land. Will the Irrigation Department adopt a new policy? Would it not be better to establish a farmers’ board? And when such a board can resolve that a farmer can build a dam at a particular place, will not the Irrigation Department give a subsidy to such a farmer? This is what we must do if we want to accumulate water in our country, and if we do not want to let the water table drop. If we do that then we shall not have subsequently to look after settlers, but we will enable the farmer to farm on his own farm. When one speaks to the Irrigation Department about it they say straightforwardly “you can get money for dams,” but what money? We can get money by going into debt, in addition to the debt the farmers already have. It is not a good policy to tell the farmers that they should incur more debt. If there is one matter that is of great importance to the large and important Great Karroo, then it is that the Government will assist by giving subsidies for the building of dams and in that way to accumulate water on the ground. With regard to the big schemes I want to say that I do not for a moment think that those big schemes will pay. There is always a certain amount of loss in connection with them, but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that some of the people connected with the scheme are having a very great difficulty to pay the annual redemption, because the schemes do not always answer to expectation. There is, e.g., the Zeekoe River scheme; there were six or seven farmers connected with the scheme, and the expert on it told the people how much it would cost, because that they, of course, first of all wanted to know, and he said it would cost £5,000. They clearly asked him whether he was certain that it would not be more, and he replied: “I stake my reputation as an expert that it will not be more than £5,000.” When it was completed he exceeded his reputation by £5,000, and the people said that he never had a reputation otherwise he could not have said it. When the people could do no more the Irrigation Department had to write off the scheme. The matter was even, I understand, dealt with by Parliament. If I had been here I would have brought the matter to the notice of the Government, but unfortunately my predecessor sat on the opposite side and I do not know what happened. The people are now in trouble, and something must be done by the Irrigation Department if we do not want them to be ruined. There is another point to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, viz., that there are large fruitful valleys at Petrusville and Phillipstown, and still larger valleys on the De Aar side which can be irrigated, if the Orange River is dammed up. I want to draw the attention of the department to this because, in my opinion, that Van der Kloof scheme is a very important one, and if it is carried out it would alter those areas in the Karroo very much. And thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the patience with which you have listened to my speech, which I have made as short as possible.

The dominant, if not to say the triumphant, note that has characterized the budget speeches of the Minister of Finance for several years past is strikingly absent on the present occasion. In fact it was a somewhat subdued and chastened Minister that appeared before the House. It is true that he produced a surplus, and that surplus as on previous occasions has been taken from the pockets of the taxpayer. For almost every year that the Minister has been in office he has underestimated his revenue; he practically did the same thing during the past year, and to-day his work is disclosed as nothing else but really bad budgeting. This year he estimates for a deficit, and it would appear as far as the amount is concerned that he is going to overestimate for the current year as much as he has under-estimated in the past. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. T. Naudé), the chairman of the select committee on public accounts, is convinced, however, that the Minister is wrong, and that he is going to have a good surplus at the end of the current year. I cannot share his optimism, but may I congratulate the hon. member on his prospective advance to cabinet rank, which has just been published in his local paper. All good luck to him—a very genial member indeed. Now we are enjoined that we must practice economy. Such a homily on the lips of the Minister is strange coming from such a spendthrift. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who said that he did not consider the hon. the Minister a squanderer, but he certainly had squandered a good many of the surpluses he had enjoyed of recent years.

In what way has he squandered?

I will tell you. It is true he has been pushed from behind, but I think he should have resisted more vigorously.

We would like to know where the squandering comes in.

To-day we are asked to practise economy. I would like to know where the economy is in the Minister’s estimates. When this Government came into power in 1924 the estimates of expenditure were £24,000,000, and by regular progression they have now reached £30,800,000, an increase of £6,436,000. Let me quote the hon. member for Yeoville once more. The hon. member said the other day that it is only right that in this country we should spend a considerable amount in the ordinary development of the country. Everyone must agree with that, I think, but surely increased expenditure, despite the words which fell from the hon. the Minister of Defence the other evening, should bear some relation to increase in population, and unfortunately the increase in population of the Union is not in the slightest degree commensurate with the enormous increase in expenditure. The public debt when the Government came into power was £199,000,000; to-day it is £244,000,000. The loan votes during that time have totalled £75,000,000. During the period of office of the present Government it has added a young army to the civil service. In 1924-’25 the total was 35,739. This year the total is 41,504, an addition of 5,765, or more than 1,000 a year. Three a day. Not bad recruiting, and this year the increase is 874. Is there no squandering in that direction? Although the customs revenue for the year is estimated at something like 10 per cent. lower, yet the personnel of this department has increased from 615 to 653. Considerable exception has been taken on the other side to the criticism that has been advanced in connection with what has been called our diplomatic corps. We are spending nearly £40,000 per annum in that direction. What benefit can we derive from it? What will Mr. Ben Pienaar do for us in the Eternal City, or Mr. Eric Louw in Washington? It is true that we have spent during recent years some £10,000,000 in motor cars in the United States, and we have dealt to this extent with a country that does not receive any of our products. They have built a tariff wall it is impossible for any of us to get over. During the recess Ministers and members of the Government party have expressed themselves in very dubious terms concerning the provincial councils. We have not heard what their attitude is to be in the future. It is all very well to say they must go, but what are we going to put in their place? This country is too big to be governed from one centre. We are trying to govern it as far as the central Government is concerned from two, and that sooner or later must come to an end. The Minister of Finance says that the provincial councils must put their house in order and keep it in order. That is very fine, but under present circumstances it seems to me a counsel of perfection. Hostility to the provincial councils is principally due to taxation, and a good deal to double taxation. I made a proposition to the Minister of Finance a few years since, which he rejected, saying he had enough troubles on his shoulders without taking on more. We had a speech the other evening from the hon. the Minister of Defence, a vigorous speech, reminding us in this House of his old manner. But, after all, it was a pathetic speech. It looks as if he were indeed singing his swan song. The present attitude of the Minister of Defence is somewhat amusing to those who remember his diatribes against the Nationalist party in years gone by. Never would be lift a finger to put the Nationalists in power, and now he is cheek by jowl with them, and he now votes for measures which were then anathema to him, the Riotous Assemblies Act for instance.

I am afraid you are now ascribing to him sentiments he never gave utterance to.

The Minister of Defence when leader of the Labour party said that he would never lift a finger to put the Nationalists in power. He instanced the case of King James and King Charles. Charles he said reminded James that the people of England would never cut off his (Charles’s) head to put James in power, and then he said in effect “Nor will I cut off the Government’s head to put the Nationalists into power.” I ask the Prime Minister is that correct?

I think that was as between the South African party and the Unionists at the time.

No, my memory is very clear. Mr. Merriman was sitting behind me at the time and commented on the statement.

It is a very cheap jeer.

He was the leader of the Labour party then. Where is the Labour party now? He smashed that party. A new Labour party is bound to arise in this country, but I do not suppose it will ever be under the leadership of the present Minister of Defence. Well, at any rate he has been very good to his friends. He has found in Mr. Strachan, the late member for Pietermaritzburg (North) what he describes as an ideal labour adviser and on Mr. Strachan losing his seat, he snatched him up for that position.

And put him on the Railway Board.

Mr. Peter Whiteside died most conveniently to enable the Minister for Railways finding an admirable substitute in Mr. Bob Waterston. And the Prime Minister, not to be outdone in generosity, found a place for Mr. Boydell in the Senate to safeguard the interests of the natives, displacing a man who had given his life to the service of natives in the person of Dr. Roberts. To talk about economy is farcical, unless the speaker does something to practise it. We have now been under Union nearly 20 years and we have produced 20 volumes of statutes, some of them pretty stout ones. The country would very gratefully welcome two or three years’ respite from any new legislation whatever. Every Bill passed sets up further machinery, necessitating the engagement of more officials which means more expense. But worse than the laws we pass are the regulations. This what Lord Hewart. Lord Chief Justice of England, calls the “New Despotism.” This is the sixteenth volume up to 1922, and I am told that between that time and now, there are ten more volumes, making 26 in all. Instead of being under the Government of the country, we are being ruled by regulations administered by officials.

What is your remedy?

Stop all legislation except necessary financial measures for a bit. All these regulations apply a penalty. Our penal code to-day is fast becoming the wonder of the world.

Where do you get your facts?

I have the authority of one of your predecessors, and I will put you in touch with him any time you wish. I desire to direct the attention of the Minister to a peculiar and, I hope, singular case. Nearly 20 years ago a young girl entered the postal service of Natal and made rapid progress. After some years she was sent to Cape Town on further promotion and did most excellent work. She was a spinster and devoted the whole of her savings towards the maintenance of a sister, who had been deserted or was a widow with three children. After being employed in Cape Town until just a year ago, this girl fell ill, and, after a long illness, died. On her death-bed she expressed a wish that her body should be sent to Natal and buried beside her parents. The sum necessary to pay her funeral expenses was guaranteed by her brother, and it transpired that every penny she had beyond what she had contributed to her sister’s support was swallowed in hospital expenses. The sum that remained due to her from the department was £1, and her brother applied to the department that some of the earnings of the girl should be handed to him on the ground that she had contributed for years to the superannuation fund and had never drawn a penny. Afer considerable correspondence, this was refused, and I was asked to intervene and did so, but without success, and I stated that I would make public this matter; when I was told by an official that the public service would not thank me for doing so, I refused to believe it. I have too great respect for the public service of this country to believe that they could regard windfalls such as this as welcome addition to the superannuation funds.

What is your complaint?

Here was a bill of £100 incurred in connection with a girl from Natal who died in Cape Town, and this girl had contributed for years to the superannuation fund. It was asked that a small amount for her funeral expenses should be paid—

I presume that it could only be paid in terms of the Act passed by your Government.

I consider that no windfall such as this should ever be taken by the treasury, or by anyone else. In fact, I consider it is nothing more than robbing the dead.

What is your cause of complaint? Is it that the treasury has acted illegally?

The treasury is empowered to deal with such cases of hardship under the Act, and I beg of the Minister of Finance to do a simple act of justice. That is exactly the position. Despite all the talk, there is no reason either for panic or despair in this country, not in the slightest. I feel sure that things are going to be quite all right in this country. I have lived long enough here, longer than some members on the opposite benches have, and I have seen prosperity and contraction, expansion and depression, but, nevertheless, the country always goes on. I think there was a jeer by an hon. member in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). I am sure that the spirit of the hon. member’s speech will be re-echoed on these benches. We shall be only too glad to co-operate with him for the welfare of this country, which we all love. I hope the sentiment expressed by the hon. member will be put into practice, and we shall hear the last of the problems of racialism. I believe, in the words of Paul Kruger, that “alles sal regkom.”

I was pleased to hear the last speaker say we have no reason for panic or despair, but it must be admitted that the world depression has reached South Africa, but to attribute that to the policy of the Government, as has been done so frequently on the other side of the House, is as foolish as to blame the Government for the discovery of the new planet. The slump in the price of wool on account of the slump in Europe, the depressed position of the diamond market is on account of the financial crisis in America, and now this season that we have bumper crops of wheat and maize, we find there is over-production all over the world, and we have to face cut-throat competition. There is a reduction of about six millions in what we shall get for our exported products, and it is because this money is not available to purchase commodities that we are suffering at the present time. This is reflected in trade and industry, and commercial people as they cannot sell their stocks are not calling upon the manufacturers to replenish them, and what has a direct effect upon our public finance, they are not importing goods, and customs duties, therefore, are falling away. Any Government, never mind whether it is on this side of the House or on the other side, is absolutely powerless in these circumstances to expedite the bringing back of good times. But to contend, as the arguments on the other side have contended, that the Government is responsible, and to justify the contention with some of the arguments used, shows that they have a very poor case. Parliament has dealt with the question of wheat, and our crop is going to be consumed in this country. Maize promises to be a record crop, although it is not reaped yet. When it is available, if it can be sold quickly, the money coming in will be used to absorb the stocks of the traders, and the traders’ position will be that they will be able to import from the overseas markets, and that will bring about a revival of customs dues, and assist to set our finances in the way we should like to see them. In spite of the gloomy predictions we have heard, the difference in taxation with which we are threatened is only 20 per cent. of the income tax, which has been rebated during the good years we have had. It seems to me that if in a bad year this is all the difference we are going to have, with regard to taxation, I believe the people in South Africa are very fortunate indeed. I am glad the Government has not become panicky, but has decided to continue public development, because one of the easiest ways of creating depression is by getting panicky, and bringing about a lot of unemployment. Anything that the budget has done in the way of reducing the cost of living, I am afraid I cannot see. The hon. the Minister has told us that he expects a continual fall in commodity prices. He did not give us any details on the subject, and I cannot follow him. I cannot see where the reductions will be brought about. Certainly, the increases that are proposed in sugar and flour commodities, if they do not increase the cost of living, will certainly not decrease it. This subject of price commodities of flour and sugar I shall leave until a later date.

made an interjection.

The falling price of wheat is immaterial. So long as the Minister permits the millers and bakers to charge the public 8d. per loaf, I do not see how the price of wheat will affect the public one iota. The depression is world-wide, and it is not due to political circumstances. We may be told that Australia is in a worse position than we are, yet, for the past 10 years, Mr. Bruce, who has the same economic outlook as hon. members opposite, has been in charge of the Government.

He is a protectionist.

No, he is a free trader. Certainly the late Government in Australia had the same economic outlook as hon. members on the other side. The new Labour Government in Australia has tackled the depression problem, and has very pluckily put aside a quarter of a million pounds for development to develop 1,000,000 acres of new wheat lands. In the coming season they will have this extra money coming in. I contend that our policy should be to expand our industries, and prevent so much money going out, which will have the same effect of balancing the national ledger. The big obstacle in this country to industrial expansion is the fact that many members on the opposite side of the House and certain sections of their press, are continually disparaging our industries. In addition to belittling our industries they are now also questioning the wisdom of our protection policy. I understood protection was the accepted and settled policy of this country.

So it is.

Then why is it continually being raked up? The manufacturers have accepted this policy, and it would be a distinct breach of faith to them, after they have sunk their capital in their industries, and put their energies and enterprise into them, if we should make any departure from the established policy. The manufacturers are in this position to-day. They are faced with a bankrupt Europe, with millions of pounds of surplus stock. South Africa has the lowest customs duties of any of the so-called protected countries, and is, therefore, the one country into which these people would like to dump their surplus stocks. I think it is time that Parliament and the Government should definitely affirm our intentions to stick to protection. We want to encourage our manufacturers, and give them the protection necessary in order to maintain and expand their industries. Otherwise, we shall have to agree to scrap our fine ideals of a living wage for our workers, and we shall get back to the policy of sweating that was in vogue a century ago. That policy of sweating which finds favour with a lot of our friends on the opposite benches. We know it was very much practised in this country up to the time when the Wage Board called certain manufacturers and shopkeepers to account, and made them pay decent wages to their workers. If our protection policy is to be reviewed and amended annually there will be no guarantee of stability to our manufacturers and no encouragement to them to extend their enterprises or start new ones. Our opponents speak of our manufacturers as if they were of little account, and altogether a wrong idea has been given of the value of these industries. According to the census of 1927-’28 these very much despised factories produced products to the value in one year of £107,000,000. They employed 85,000 Europeans and 122,000 non-Europeans, and distributed in salaries and wages £25,300,000. It will be seen that there is a total of 207,000 employees in our factories, and reckoning them and their dependents it may safely be said that 500,000 persons depend on the success of our factories for their living. If the farmers will only take the trouble to calculate, they will find that if these people spend only 5s. a week each on the purchase of farmers’ products, that means a local market worth £6,500,000 annually for factory workers alone. That is a very substantial and real market as compared with some of the imaginary markets which our farmers seek when they send their goods overseas. The gold mines have been referred to as the sheet anchor of the country, and they are the one bright spot at the moment because they are doing exceptionally well. Of course, I do not want to belittle the gold mines and wish to acknowledge the assistance they have given to our factories, but nevertheless to prove the value of our factories I wish to compare the two industries. Our factories distribute £25,000,000 in wages and salaries a year, and all that money is circulated in the country, whereas the mines circulate only £14,500,000 in salaries and wages, and as 25 per cent. of that amount is paid to Portuguese natives and therefore mostly goes out of the country it will be seen that on a figure basis the factories are far more important to us than are the mines. Other important factors are that in the factories the ratio of employment is one-and-a-half natives to one European, while on the mines it is nine natives to one European. Again, whereas the mines must eventually come to an end, if our industries are encouraged they will no doubt go on for ever. If you could assume that, without protection, we shall get our commodities cheaper, although there is no guarantee of that as importers will charge as much as they can, the £25,000,000 now circulating in South Africa in the shape of salaries and wages of factory employees, would be transferred to Czechoslovakia or some other foreign country to pay their people to work overtime while our own people walk the streets unemployed, and I am sure this is a policy our people would never agree to. The Minister of Defence has referred to the “yes-no” attitude of the Opposition in regard to protection. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said “We recognize protection as a necessary policy for a country like this,” but in some weird way he expects to get protection without increasing the duties. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was more candid and said he had a bias in favour of free trade. This is certainly a fifty-fifty attitude as far as the front Opposition bench is concerned. The Government has found it necessary on the advice of the Board of Trade to increase the duty on ready-made clothing by 5 per cent., and this is held by the Opposition to be a crowning iniquity. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, disregarding the question of employment given, has appealed to people not to support what he describes as a bastard industry. Anyone would think that this 5 per cent. was a special impost for the benefit of a handful of greedy tailors, whereas in 1927-’28 the clothing factories employed 4,570 Europeans and 3,590 non-Europeans and circulated in salaries and wages the sum of £800,000. Not at all bad for a bastard industry. The reason this is called a bastard industry by the hon. member is that it has to import the raw materials, but this is not the argument of a man with a bias in favour of free trade because the remedy which suggests itself is a further application of protection. One can visualize the hon. member if in the dim and distant future he realizes his ambition and sits on the Treasury bench and if he sees the error of his economic ways, he may have an opportunity of legitimizing the industry by giving sufficient protection to firmly establish the woollen industry. This is one of the industries we should have. Our farmers instead of sending all their wool overseas, should keep back a portion of it, to be woven into cloth for our own requirements. This could easily be done. New Zealand which has a smaller white population than we have and has not our huge native population, has a progressive woollen industry which in a recent year paid in salaries and wages £369,000; the value of the wool used was £425,000, the wool output was valued at £1,000,000. There is no reason whatever why we cannot establish a wool industry and have the same results here. Before deciding to impose an extra 5 per cent. on cloth, the Minister called on the Board of Trade for a report, which showed that the local industry has captured the market for the cheaper garments and therefore that the increased duty is not an impost on the poorest of the poor as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it was. This assertion of the hon. member’s sounded very well as a debating point, but was contrary to fact. The board further reported that the purchasers of the better class goods, who were presumably able to read the disparaging speeches and newspaper articles regarding our industries, shrank from supporting a so-called bastard industry, and there was great prejudice against the better class local article. The board also found there was a good deal of seasonal dumping, perhaps at the end of the winter season in the old country, and for ten months of 1929, over £1,000,000 worth of ready-made men’s clothing had been brought into the Union. The board further reported that the machinery which our industries had installed was first class, the workers were efficient, and there was no evidence of excessive profits being made, in fact prices were cut down to the bone because of the competition between local factories being so keen The board inferentially pointed out the futility of what might be called the piecemeal and partial protection so dearly beloved by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who likes protection, but hesitates to go the whole way. The board in 1926 recommended to the Government that for ready-made clothing, the duty should be 25 per cent. The Government put on 20 per cent., and it now found it necessary to put on another five per cent. It is, however, only 20 per cent. effective protective duty because there is five per cent. duty on the raw material. The board reported having considered allowing the import of raw materials free, but as it was impossible to estimate what the result on the revenue might be, it was decided to have some other arrangement. The consequence is we find the Minister has put on 25 per cent. duty to encourage the industry, and is taking back five per cent. to benefit the revenue.

No, no.

What I would ask for is that the Minister should give us a clear protective duty of 20 per cent., and let the raw materials in free. I hope he will readjust the matter. There is a lot to be said for putting on 20 per cent. as protection, but I cannot see that there is anything to be said for putting five per cent. on the people’s clothing merely for revenue purposes. I want now to deal with the references of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to the Labour department. In considering that department, critics do not give sufficient consideration to the great difficulty of inaugurating a system of regulating wages and hours in a country where hitherto people have had little knowledge of trade organization. They expect to find within a few months the same level of excellence in that department as is to be found in England or elsewhere, although labour activities in those countries have been continuous for probably a century. What the hon. member did not tell the House, and what I wish to tell it, is that the Labour department has marked a new era in settling industrial disputes by conciliation. I would like to refer to the Conciliation Bill of 1923, which when it first came before the House provided for the settlement of industrial disputes. It was sent to a select committee, and when it came back from there it had practically been redrafted by the two Labour members of that committee, and it was a Bill for the prevention and settlement of labour disputes. That is the keynote of the Labour department’s policy—to prevent industrial disputes, if it can—but if disputes do lead to trouble to settle them as soon as possible. In 1913 and 1914 we had very disastrous strikes on the mines of the Witwatersrand, which involved tremendous losses not only to the mining industry but to business in the country, and to the men engaged in the mines, but these strikes were entirely dwarfed by the 1922 upheaval. The strikes in 1913 and 1914 might very easily have been settled if there had been any machinery to bring the parties together. The 1922 strike, from what we know now, was more difficult to settle, because it was obvious that the mines were determined to reduce costs, and were not particular how they set about it. A much better settlement could, however, have been achieved than was ultimately the case, and it could have been brought about without all that loss in money and life which subsequently eventuated. When that strike was on—the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows this—there were clamours from all sides to bring about a settlement, but there was no labour department to give a lead in those days. When the Prime Minister of the day was appealed to, we know his historic reply: “Let things develop.” We know how things developed, how the mines were closed for three months, how the whole country stagnated, and how even the seaports began to realize what an important factor the mines were to the country. Most bitter feelings were aroused on both sides, and as a result 247 men were killed or died of wounds, 591 were wounded, and 651 men were sent to jail for various terms of imprisonment. This sounds more like a description of a pitched battle on the eastern front than a record of a settlement of our industrial dispute. If we had had the labour department then certainly that shocking loss of life would have been avoided and the position would have been much improved all round. The financial result of that conflict was that the European workers who in 1921 drew salaries and wages to the amount of £10,250,000, in the following year drew only £5,500,000, so that there was a loss of £4,750,000 in wages. Of course we know now that reductions in wages were inevitable, but it can be safely said that the men lost between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 and the country and the mines must have lost at least £5,000,000. When you come to ask whether the Labour department is worth the money paid for it I would ask hon. members to remember these figures. I would like to show the House the way the Labour Department now deals with industrial disputes. Since the present Government came into office there have been several disputes on the mines of the Witwatersrand, but these have all been tactfully dealt with and settled through the intervention of the Labour Department, without disturbing industrial peace. One disagreement which was looked upon as likely to have serious results arose on the City Deep in 1927, when 400 men suddenly “downed tools.” Senator Boydell was Minister of Labour in those days, and as soon as he heard what had happened, he hurried to the Band to see what could be done. The Cape Argus, referring to the matter, thus described what took place—

In eight days the men were back at work again, and a situation that might easily have resulted in a repetition of the horrors of 1922 was settled amicably. This was a triumph for conciliation, and yet hon. members have attacked as an extravagance a department which could accomplish things like this in only one branch of its activities. I think any business man would be foolish indeed to refuse to pay £82,000 a year if only as an insurance to prevent a repetition of the horrors and happenings which took place in 1922 and which, apart altogether from the scandalous loss of life, cost the country more in a few months than would suffice to maintain the Labour Department for a century. The Labour Department has also improved conditions in various other branches of industry, and it was largely due to the activities of the department that the good spirit was created between employers and employees, which brought about and maintained the industrial peace which has been of such great benefit to the country and assisted so materially to the rapid industrial expansion we have had. Hon. gentlemen opposite have adversely and unjustly criticized the Labour Department. I see the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) is getting ready to speak, and I would like him to say whether, if the Opposition returned to power, they will abolish this department that they have criticized so severely. I think the Opposition, instead of indulging in this destructive criticism and ill-natured recrimination, should co-operate with the Minister and his staff and encourage them to continue and extend the very important work they have got on hand. The member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) this afternoon made great play with respect to the increased duties on kathr cotton sheets. He asked if there was not good reason for the native to become rebellious when he was overtaxed in this way. I have gone into the question, and I find that the kaffir sheets he speaks about have been superseded by a local product. The toyo drill the hon. member referred to is a product of Japan, and was brought in here to try to evade a special duty put on kaffir sheets. It was formerly classed as calico but was subsequently put in the class for kaffir sheets. The Government, and I think, quite rightly, put a high duty on cotton blankets in order to encourage the sale of woollen blankets, as the woollen blankets are far better value for the natives themselves than the cotton rubbish they were formerly buying. When the duty was imposed the traders clamoured to have it removed, and it was then discovered that though appearing so solicitous for the natives’ interests, the traders were selling cotton sheets to the natives for 5s. which cost them 1s. 6d., and it was in their own interests and not in the interests of the natives that they protested. It was in order that the natives might get better value for their money that the Government acted as it did. This action of the Government has borne very excellent fruit. We find that there is a tremendous market in this country for blankets for the natives, and a big Belgian firm making cotton sheets have sent a representative to this country, and are now about to establish a factory in Durban, and three local firms are already competing for this trade. The position at the present time is this, that cotton sheets made at the Huguenot factory are now selling in Adderley Street, a single sheet at 2s. 11d. as against 4s. 6d., formerly charged for the imported sheet, and a double sheet at 4s. 11d. as against 7s. 6d for the imported sheet. If all the duty charges are disregarded, our factories are now in a position to compete on level terms, and this before we have this very large factory which has now come from Belgium. The price of the locally-made article is now equal with the imported article, and when the big factory gets into operation and reduces prices the native, instead of being victimized is going to get cheaper blankets, while the country is going to build up a very large industry in this country.

I wish to make a few remarks to the House on subjects which, I think, are of great importance to the country. The first is the question of oversea publicity, with a view to attracting visitors to our country. I feel that the Government is not paying sufficient attention, if it is paying any attention at all, to this very important subject. People generally consider that money expended in this way is thrown away, but I have had a good deal of personal experience as a member of the executive of the Durban Publicity Association, and I have come to realize what a very good investment money spent in this way is. I have had an opportunity of coming in touch with many visitors to this country, both British and American, and I can assure you they have all expressed in the highest terms their appreciation of the attractions of this country from the tourists’ point of view. A new line of steamers has recently been established running between New York and South Africa, and I feel this is an opportunity to launch a publicity campaign in the United States working in co-operation with this newly-formed company with a view to attracting visitors. The Railway Administration spends about £50,000 a year in overseas propaganda, and I think the Administration is to be congratulated on their enterprising and progressive policy in this respect. But I feel that to expect the department to undertake this additional burden is expecting too much, and I think that the central Government should share part of this expense. I do not suggest the Railway Administration should curtail their activities, but I suggest the Government should augment that amount, as I consider money so spent would be an excellent investment for the country. I would like to refer to a report of the general manager of railways for the year ending 31st March last—

The report goes on—

I ask hon. members to consider what a great asset it is to the country, an amount of £8,000,000 spent over a period of five years. This is satisfactory, but more would have been achieved had funds on a liberal scale been provided for publicity propaganda, and I think the central Government should be prepared to assist the Railway Administration in this respect. These are bad times, and it is the duty of the Government to look for fresh avenues to bring prosperity to the country. We cannot do much in the export trade, but it is surely our duty to look elsewhere. I ask hon. members to consider how much better the position would be had the Government spent £30,000 on overseas propaganda, instead of on diplomatic services abroad. I turn to the question of roads in South Africa. One realizes that visitors coming here want to see the country by means of motor travel, and I think it is the duty of the central Government to take the question of roads in hand. I know the Minister will say that roads are a provincial matter, but I am referring to national roads; those which link up the four provinces and Rhodesia. I do not think it would be reasonable to expect provincial authorities to undertake roads of that nature. For instance, if a road had to be constructed from Cape Town to Durban, the road would pass through a considerable portion of the native territories in Pondoland and the Transkei. You could not expect the provincial council of the Cape to spend a lot of money on a road through the Transkei. It is the duty of the Government to take in hand the question of a national road policy. There is another point in connection with the construction of national roads, and that is it would find an outlet for employment of white persons. I think the employment of unskilled whites in this country on road-making would be far preferable to their coming to the towns and living in slums as they do now. Then, with regard to hotels, these are an important adjunct to tourists’ travel. Here again we have to confess that South Africa is much behind the times in regard to hotel accommodation. Some years ago I took a trip from Cape Town to Durban and had to spend a night at many of the small towns en route, and I was disappointed with the accommodation provided. The country hotels develop their bar trade, and pay very little attention to visitors and their accommodation; to sanitary arrangements and baths, etc. I see that Section 39 (1) of the Liquor Act gives the Licensing Board very wide powers to decline to renew licences. I gather that if the Licensing Board so desires, it could inform the hotelkeeper that unless he improves his sleeping accommodation, his licence will not be renewed. Now I find in so many of these Acts passed by Parliament that they put in these powers and regulations, and there is nobody, apparently, to see that the regulations are carried out. I consider that this power is in the hands of the Government, and that they should circularize all the licensing boards throughout the country, and instruct them to endeavour to improve the standard of hotels in the country. I hope the hon. Minister of Justice will take a note of what I say and will see that something of this sort is done. Otherwise, I fail to see the object of putting such power in the hands of the licensing boards. The next point I wish to deal with is the question of our export trade. I am sorry again to have to refer to the trade treaty with Germany, to which hon. members on the opposite side of the House take such an exception when it is referred to. Personally, I fail to see that this treaty with Germany has done South Africa any good, or is likely to do South Africa any good. I feel that it has done more harm than good, probably by adversely influencing public opinion in our best market. I wish to put up an alternative suggestion. I have recently had an extended tour in the far east and the near east. One thing struck me very forcibly over in that part of the world, that is the entire absence of cattle. I felt that here, surely, is a very fine field for the expansion of South African trade, especially in farming products. It seems to me that butter, cheese, eggs, preserved milk, dried fruit, bacon and various other forms of farm products in South Africa would find a very considerable market in that part of the world. I refer to India, China and Japan. As you know, these countries are teeming with people. I do not say that they all have a very large purchasing power, but, nevertheless, there is a considerable portion of the population who can buy these products, and I am sure there is a very good opening for our trade. Here again, we have a direct line of steamers running between South Africa and Japan. On the way to Japan to call at the Straits Settlements, Singapore and Hong-Kong. The steamers are here, and they are already taking certain products from South Africa. The steamer on which I travelled had a considerable consignment of wool and wattle bark. It seems to me that it is only a question of the Government taking the matter in hand and endeavouring to develop trade in that part of the world. I should like to suggest that a delegation visit China and Japan, or that a trade commissioner be established in the Far East to see what can be done. At any rate, I think it is worth while trying, especially in these times, when we are looking for new avenues for our export trade. I should like to say a word or two on the question of housing. This is a question with which I have had a considerable amount of experience, and in which I take a considerable interest. I should like to congratulate the Minister of the Interior on having decided to bring forward this sub-economic housing scheme and providing £500,000 for that end. This is a principle that the municipalities have been fighting for many years, but they have never been able to get the Government to agree to participate in an sub-economic scheme. That is a movement in the right direction, and I am very pleased that the Government has at last adopted this principle. It is certainly in the nature of an experiment, for all the previous housing schemes have been carried out, so far as I am aware, on the selling principle. It is proposed now to erect houses and let them to poor people. There are two points which I wish to bring before the House, in connection with which the remarks of the Minister of the Interior, to my mind, have fallen short. What I am afraid of is that in erecting these houses the municipalities will be inclined to take the line of least resistance in letting them, and probably you will find that these houses will be occupied by people other than those for whom they are intended. I take it that they are intended for the really poorest people, and I am sorry that the Minister has not laid down some conditions in lending this money to the municipalities to the effect that they must be occupied only by the poorest people. I think that some condition should be made as to the earning capacity of the prospective occupiers. To make my point clear, I would say that, supposing a man comes along earning £20. He is in the position to afford to pay a rent of £4 per month. He will probably get the house because the municipality will be sure of the rent, but I contend that this sub-economic scheme, and the letting of these houses, should not be on those lines. They should go to the man who is earning £10 per month or less, and they should let him have the house at the smallest rent possible. Another point which the Minister raised was the elimination of slums, and he even went so far as to say that we must adopt the slogan: “The slums must go.” That is a very laudable object, and we all agree with him, but I do not know of an instance where a slum dwelling has been demolished as the result of the erection of new houses. This is a case where you require a strong hand, for, unless you adopt stern measures, there will be no diminution of our slum conditions. I suggest to the Minister that he adopt the slogan that “for every sub-economic house erected one slum dwelling must be demolished.” It is not sufficient to have these slum houses renovated for the undesirable conditions will still continue, as they are ill-lit and badly ventilated, and the sanitary arrangements are very poor. We want in these new housing schemes to have modern house planning. If you get that, the children will be far more healthy, and they will become very much better citizens. I am very glad that the Minister has seen his way to make a start in this matter. Now I am going to tread on delicate ground. I wish to refer to the speech the Minister of Finance made a short while ago when he referred, with regret, that the time was coming when, in the public service, there would be more Dutch-speaking entrants than there were entrants from the other section of the community. I give the Minister credit for full sincerity in the remarks he made, because he did indicate that he thought it was regrettable that such a situation could arise. We all want the two sections of the country to pull together, and what better way is there of bringing the two sections together than in the public service? The Minister indicated that the reason why there are not so many English-speaking applicants for positions in the public service was the fact that they could not or would not learn the Afrikaans language. This is where I come to rather delicate ground. The feeling among the English-speaking section is that it does not matter whether an applicant can speak Dutch or not, but it is a question of whether he has an English or a Dutch name which influences the question. I do not say that in a racialistic spirit, but as expressing the feeling of the English-speaking section that they are not getting a fair deal. I am not accusing any Minister, but if they enquire they will find there is a great deal in what I have said. In fact, I know of one or two instances where this has occurred. I hope the Minister of Finance will, as far as possible, see that this state of affairs does not continue, and that both sections will get a fair deal in appointments to the public service. There is only one other question I wish to refer to, and that is to suggest a relaxation of the dual language requirements in Natal. It is very difficult for a Natalian who has learned Afrikaans to remain proficient in it as one never hears Afrikaans spoken in Natal. The Natal members of the public service are at a very great disadvantage under the bilingual requirements. As far as my knowledge goes, there is nothing in the Act of Union which says that it shall be compulsory for every man in the public service to know both languages. No one disputes the equal language rights, but if Natal had known at the time of Union that the condition was to be applied in this way it would have taken up a very different attitude.

There is also the 1923 Public Service Act, which was passed by consent.

That does not help the position. Natal is suffering under a great disadvantage, and I refer to men who have done 30 years’ loyal service, but who, because they cannot speak Afrikaans, receive no further promotion. I hope the Government will bear this question in mind.

I propose to address you in a language which is foreign to me, but I have decided to do so in order to assist my hon. friend who has just sat down, when I touch on the subjects of equal rights, republicanism as understood by a good sound Nationalist, and our membership of the commonwealth of British nations. I shall first, however, try to deal with a few remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) when he quoted the Mozambique treaty as one of the factors adversely affecting the supply of natives to the mines and other industries. Listening to his remarks, it occurred to me “What is wrong with South Africa?” We have practically a white population of 2,000,000 and a native population of between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000, but notwithstanding that all our industries are crying out for labour. Our Labour friends say we do not want to pay sufficient wages, but I feel convinced there is some other reason for this scarcity of labour. South Africa has been called a poor country, but it is not so very poor after all. It cannot be a poor country which gives a livelihood to 10,000,000 people of which not more than 25 per cent. are producing. What we should do is to curtail the importation of labour from outside the Union, and force labour of the Union into the labour market. Mozambique feels that it must utilize its own labour supply. Let it do so and let us utilize our own labour. After that I want to touch on the other subject he mentioned—the trades and industries branch of the Government. He admits it has done good service, and would like to see them better equipped so as to be able to find better markets for our primary products outside of our own country. At the same time he and other speakers have run down what the Government has been doing for that very interest— the expansion of our trade outside our boundaries. We have appointed representatives overseas for that very purpose which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) mentioned —the expansion of our trade overseas. Our former representatives were only commercial travellers who were termed “trade commissioners,” and they could only advertise our trade. They could not further our trade and industries. Now our representatives can do so.

Say what they cannot do.

They do not do everything, but they can do much because they have ministerial rights and can enter into negotiations through our own ministers. It is not a whim to show our greatness, but to show our interest in other countries and to build up our trade with these countries. We were told that the Nationalists want to create an isolated little nation on this side. No, we are not isolated, but we want to get into touch with the whole world. In Italy we spend £9,832, at the Hague and Hamburg £10,623, and in Washington and New York £13,340, making a total of £33,795. In London we spend £66,237 for the same purpose. We do that willingly, but if you compare the business with those countries in which we spend that money with what we spend in Britain, we spend 34 per cent. outside the United Kingdom and I make bold to say that our trade with them amounts to more than 34 per cent. of our foreign trade. Some items were dealt with which seem to have hurt some hon. members on the opposite side—only a few—before long we shall have fewer who are dissatisfied, and they will join with us in the welfare of our good country’s progress. The Minister has been criticized for the “lavishness with which he spends the country’s money.” From a business point of view, looking at the balance sheet, and every business man does that, at the end of the year, when he finds he has made a good few pounds, there are a few things which distress him—the bad debts he has to write off and the income tax he has to pay. The Government has not to pay income tax, but have their bad debts, which consist of non-productive investments. If we look through the reports of the various departments, we find that in 1924, the non-productive debt was £57,243,000. Our public debt naturally has grown, and with that ever increasing expansion and development, we naturally can expect the non-productive debt shall also grow. In 1930 we have nearly wiped the slate, and now show only £42,950,000, or we have reduced it practically by £15,000,000 in the six years or to be exact £14,293,000. What does this bad debt consist of? We know we have over £30,000,000 in war debts, add a few small items and we find that our non-productive debt amounts practically to our war debt and what we spend in defence. We can not accuse the Minister of not bringing down our non-productive debt. We hope he will be there long enough to wipe it off entirely and leave a clean slate for his successor. I would now like to touch on something which has been very much touched upon—the depression we are experiencing in the Union to-day. Not only does that depression affect us, but it is world wide, consequently we cannot escape and we have to suffer through it. One thing that worries me— it is put that way quite correctly—is that we are only now coming to normality, to the real readjustment of values following the Great War. It is a pity it did not come immediately after, when every one of the countries which were involved in it—we included—should have cleaned their and our slates of that bad debt. There was only one country that did it; we do not call them honourable for disavowing their honourable debts, and that was Russia, who repudiated their war claims, and they are really the best off to-day because, in war debts, a very large amount is sheer waste. When claims are paid for such things, we know from experience what the wastage of war is, it is a pity that we are only just now coming to readjusting values. The farmers are the greatest sufferers. We know that they did experience good times during the period of fluctuation of values when they got good prices for their wool and other products, but values went up in other things which they bought. Every business man has acquired stocks at the ruling rates, and so the farmer has acquired land at the ruling price. He has now, however, to accept the readjustment of values for his products, and most of his commodities are export commodities. How is the farmer going to liquidate his liabilities when he has to accept the readjustment of values for his products, and others ask him to pay the larger amounts? If we could get back to normal conditions in all countries all round, we would all be smiling. If we had lived judiciously and spent our money economically when we were making good money, we would have been in a different position. The Union has experienced a very prosperous time during the last years, and is it right at the first setback that we should be in the position that most hon. members admit we are in? Is it right, when we have been making so much money, having saved nothing? We have been living rather injudiciously, and one of the factors accountable for placing the farmer and others in difficulties is the motor car. In 1928 we imported motor cars and accessories, and tyres, petrol oil and greases to the value of £10,300,000, leaving out an amount of £500,000 for motor cycles and accessories. This amount of £10,300,000 represents landed cost, not including the profits of the traders, and distribution costs. We admit that this is a motor age, and an age of development, but we also admit that a great percentage of those cars have no right to be on the roads devouring capital. We must admit that the easy system by which it is made possible for the man who should not own a motor car to get one, contributes to the trouble. I think the Minister of Justice should consider, to further amend the insolvency law, as to exclude the motor car from being sold on the hire purchase system. I contend that no man has a right, whatever his financial position may be, to own a luxury. It is difficult to define a luxury, but a man’s financial position readily defines what would be a luxury to him.

Why not cut them out altogether?

Because we cannot do without the motor car in our present stage of development. We admit, however, that a quarter of the cars on the road should not be owned, and if we take the figures of 1928, we find that a quarter of the money spent on motor cars would amount to £2,500,000. Therefore, in three years that would amount to £7,500,000, and if that money had not been spent, we would have had £7,500,000 circulating in this country, instead of being sent out of it. With possession of £7,500,000 South Africa would not have felt a depression. She would have readjusted her values, and come up smiling. I want to touch upon another aspect which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock). In his speech he made a veiled reference to the seeming non-success of our loan that was floated in London, as having been affected through the German trade treaty, also the Quota Bill which has just been passed by this House. The Minister passed that off very lightly. I would have taken note of it. If the British mind is so small, if the British investor is so small, that, because we make a treaty with Germany on the very same basis as Britain has made one up, moneylenders will not lend money to South Africa, and if they take up that attitude because we exercise a right under the Quota Bill which we must exercise, in our own interests (which I refuse to believe) then it behoves South Africa to take good care what she does in the future with regard to her possibilities in the handling of 75 per cent. of the gold production of the world. I would like to deal with our railways and harbours, and I have to congratulate the Minister of Railways on his able administration of the biggest business concern in the country, capitalized at over £140,000,000 and employing over 100,000 persons, some 58,000 whites and over 42,000 natives. This business concern started first of all with the colonies and states which afterwards became the four provinces each operating its own individual policy, and eventually co-ordinating into a common policy prescribed by the Act of Union. Every business man knows that to run a business successfully, it is necessary to depend on a competent and loyal staff. The difficulty which the Minister has is that all political parties use that vast staff of his for political purposes. We have listened to motions being put from the other side; the Minister would like to pay higher wages and to shorten the hours; though he has on many days to work his fifteen hours a day like his general managers, but the unfortunate position is that a big business machine swings a heavy pendulum and it is not always possible to do what one would like. With the present readjustment of values, no one is offering increased salaries; everyone is retrenching and reducing salaries. I am doing it; everybody is doing it. I will welcome the day when the railways and harbours can be administered by a distinctive railway board of directors on a policy to be dictated from this House, so as not to allow this huge staff to be at the beck and call of political aspirants and others. It is easy to cause dissatisfaction and the service suffers thereby. We know there may be reasons for complaint but no business man can allow his staff to dictate to him the business policy he should follow, as to working hours or as to how he should solve his difficulties. We must have discipline. I would, meantime, increase the powers of the board and I want to congratulate the Minister on the usefulness and integrity of his board. Some hon. members have belittled the members of that board. It has saved the Union hundreds of thousands of pounds of needless expenditure. Every business man knows he has leakages which, if not stopped, would deplete his profits; there are damages to pay for; bad handling accidents—but accidents happen in the best of regulated families. There is another aspect on which I congratulate the Minister and that is upon his efforts to work up a road motor service that is utilizing light units. I would like the Minister to further those investigations and build as many light units as he can so that some of those branch lines that are not paying may be made to pay. Anyone can imagine how a road motor should compete or could compete with, say, a 50-ton motor in the rails working even with petrol against the same class of truck competing on the open road. These light units, I am pleased to think, the Minister will find will turn his non-paying branch lines into paying branch lines. I am sure that every hon. member will read the Road Motor Service Commission’s report with great interest. Now having dealt with a few subjects which I feel I had to touch upon, I would like to turn to a delicate matter over which so many of our friends seem to have such a tender feeling. That is republicanism and our partnership of the great commonwealth of British nations. Having to deal with a subject of such a great issue, that can be easily misconstrued and misunderstood I should like to crave your indulgence, Sir, and that of hon. members of this House to fully appreciate our position as republicans and the development of that republican thought. It will necessitate us going back a bit into the history of the Union of South Africa. Here we have to deal with a view of republicanism. We will go back to the history of a little over 100 years ago.

Go back to Van Riebeek.

If you will listen and try and comprehend you will go back 100 years or more. That is to the early population or pioneers of South Africa consisting of Dutch, French and German, who had become merged into one and became the unit of the South African population. They had established their own code and ideals. We find them annexed by a foreign nation with different ideals and outlook on life.

What about the Graaff-Reinet republic?

That is just it, their ideal of republicanism. They had their ideal and they trekked. They trekked northwards, eastwards and westwards, and eventually they found that ideal republicanism when they established their two free republics north of the Orange River and the Vaal. Amongst those very republicans you will find the names of some of the good old 1820 settlers. They have British names and they also were dissatisfied with the then British Government which ruled over them. You will find that their progeny to-day are just as good republicans as their old forefathers. I am born of a republican father and mother.

Amen.

I was born in the Free State. The little bit of education I have got I got because I was compelled at the republican Free State Government school to learn two foreign languages, English and High Dutch. I was compelled by law to learn them to make me a useful citizen of my republic; so was Tommy born of English-speaking parents. Tommy and Ralph learned of each other history and traditions in each other’s languages so as to respect each other. So when they grew up Tommy said, and Ralph said, “You are also the progeny of a noble and proud race. We are both of the same mind, that this is a great country that our forebears have left us. Let us work side by side for the building up of that great country, not you as an inferior to me or I as an inferior to you, but as equals, and as equals we are going to work for the welfare of the country, and Tommy and Ralph went to the Great War side by side fighting for the freedom of their republic. If the British mind would only feel the same way and acknowledge and treat the Dutch mind from the same aspect, we should not have this racial feeling.

Where do you find it?

We find it here. I have a report before me which appeared in the “Cape Times” of March the 13th of 1930, reporting speakers at a South African party meeting at Wellington. Mr. Borlase said—

“Hear, hear,” God forgive them, for they know not what they say. If they had the real British attitude of mind regarding equal rights for all men, they would not say such things nor would they say “hear, hear”. It is the small mind that cannot conceive that any man is equal but who always likes to say that he is my superior, which I do not acknowledge. I acknowledge he is my equal but not my superior. I have tried to show that republicanism is the fairest, soundest and most righteous, for it was that feeling which drove the Prime Minister to proceed to the Imperial Conference in London in 1926. He went there for one specific purpose, to get what—not a republic? Yes, he got a republic —the Union of South Africa, as free as we wish to be, as free as England—which was our conqueror—could declare us, England could not go one inch further; she should not declare the Union and the other dominions freer than herself. She has since that time declared South Africa and the other dominions as free as she is herself, and she could not go one iota further. You ask what more do we want. We want nothing more than economic independence, which we hope to attain through this free connection of being associated—freely associated —with the British commonwealth of nations. Freely associated—not bound by any law; laws are always irksome—but we are bound by a common law of friendship which is stronger than any other bond. Are you there to destroy that bond? [Cries of “No”.] If you are, continue to do so by treating me as your inferior, but acknowledge me as an equal and give me freedom to strive for a republicanism which you do not understand, and which is not there to destroy anybody or to do anybody any harm—nothing of the sort. We wish to utilize every inch of the freedom we have got, we being as free as England is herself, and she is as economically dependent on me as I am economically dependent on her.

What are you grousing about then?

England could not exist for three months if she did not have her friends outside who are also dependent on her. We can freely associate with each other, and we do so with pleasure. Nobody here ever heard from the Prime Minister how he attained that declaration of independence which was belittled by big men in South Africa. He got a declaration established which we wanted, and which we were striving for. Since we had it, we are looking forward to the unity of this people of the Union of South Africa. We have two great races. Let us put our hands together, and make this country the greatest that has been created in the world; greatest, because you will not find another country that has the resources the Union has. There is nothing that cannot be found in the Union. Why call it a poor country? Why do we not get the immigrants we do want? It is because there are those who have said that there is racialism in this country, and that the Nationalists are full of it. It does not exist. I would say to these people, “Do not damage the reputation of the Union by saying things which do not exist”. I know for a fact, not three years ago, when I sat in conference with the mercantile community in Cape Town, when we were discussing the flag question. If British minds had understood this question there would not have been that controversy. For our flag is the symbol of our unity. Members of the Empire Parliamentary Association travelled right through the Union, even through the two late republics, and never saw any rebels and racialists. One of these hon. members mentioned to me that only two years ago one of his sons had qualified himself to become a farmer, but, instead of coming to South Africa, he went to the United States of America, and that was because of what he had heard about South Africa with regard to racialism. He said that if he had known there was no such thing as racialism in South Africa, such as had been expounded, he would have sent his son to South Africa instead. That is one of the reasons why we do not get the immigrants we want. Work together for union, and we shall get the class of immigrants we want. This South Africa of ours is poor only for the want of development, and of unity. With the indulgence of the House, I have endeavoured to convince hon. members opposite that racialism does not exist, and that republicanism is nothing for them to be frightened about. We have a few young Turks on our side like the ultra extremists on the other side, but we may well forgive them, because they do not know what they say.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe), in his observations on racialism has referred to the fifty-fifty principle. I wonder whether he has the idea of one horse one rabbit, for when I look at the racial representation on the Nationalist benches, that is the only sort of fifty-fifty that I can see. With regard to our plenipotentiaries abroad he says that our trade with oversea countries should be improved very much because our represenatives overseas are now ministers plenipotentiary, and no longer mere trade commissioners, and as the trade of our country is to be handled by men of ministerial rank, our trade must improve. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that ministers plenipotentiary are not permitted to handle trade matters? And that if any one of our ministers did so he would be sent back to us for having done that which he ought not to have done? As accredited diplomats they can have nothing to do with trade. With regard to trade development, all parties are pledged to the policy of establishing industries. So far as primary industries are concerned, I merely wish to say that primary industries will establish themselves in this country without any particular care on the part of the Government, if they are left unfettered and unrestricted and free from Government interference. Our particular concern then is the secondary industries. What are the main points which we must bear in mind? The most important question we must bear in mind is that of a market for the product it is contemplated we should produce. It is not often an industry is established in this country with a prospect of finding a sufficient market internally to ensure continuous and steady development. It therefore becomes necessary to not only develop the internal market to the greatest possible extent, but we have got to look for markets overseas as well as outside our borders. That is a very important point. We must consider before we encourage the establishment of an industry in this country where we are going to find a market, and what possibilities there are of developing it. With regard to to the markets outside our borders, we have, of course, in the east coast and west coast and in the centre of Africa an immense potential market. We have millions of people emerging from barbarism coming into contact with civilization, a market which is the envy of highly industrialized countries such as America. Let us see to it that we use these immense natural and potential resources for our own benefit. We must wake up before it is too late and we find America selling its products under our noses. With regard to overseas markets these are sub-divisible into two. We have the empire market within which there are many potential markets, and assistance is given to us in finding those markets through the empire marketing board. Those industries which we can establish with the greatest economic soundness are those which we can develop so as to have a big market in the overseas countries of the British empire. With regard to non-empire countries, if we want to find markets in these countries we must realize that we shall have no adventitious aids and must compete with all producing countries under the influence of the ordinary economic laws such as supply and demand. If our goods cannot establish themselves under the same conditions as other competing countries, we shall not obtain markets in these countries, and if we are to do so, it is necessary that the costs of production in this country should be kept as low as possible. I hope the Minister of Mines and Industries will be able to state that he has a definite policy with regard to establishment of secondary industries and that no assistance will be given to industries which have not got adequate potential markets both internal and external for their products. The next question is the supply of raw materials in suitable quantities at suitable seasons and suitable prices. Secondary industries have been established in this country with no consideration for these matters, with such dire results that they have had to come to the Government for more and more assistance. Other considerations are labour and power. So far as labour is concerned no other country has such a suitable and efficient labour force as South Africa. Facilities for light and power exist in this country which other countries envy us. The most important considerations then are those of markets and raw materials. So long as the raw materials are of Union origin we shall have the support of every hon. member of this House, even those on this side who are labelled as free traders. The chief essential for the establishment of industries is a broad survey of our potential industrial capacity. That is the whole crux of such remarks as I have to make. A broad survey must be made of our industrial capacity. Protection used indiscriminately to create industries which serve no real economic purpose in South Africa is sheer folly. We should decide definitely on such industries as are likely to prove of permanent and national value to South Africa, and do our best to foster and encourage, in every way, such industries, rather than allow our industrial activity to be dissipated over a broad field where failure in a few impossible industries tends to discredit activity and enterprise in other industries. We do not want to try and make of South Africa a sort of Birmingham—a place where every variety of goods under the sun is made in small factories. We have not a hope of competing with the generations of skill and private enterprise which are implied in the industries of Birmingham to-day. We do not want to see back-room factories established where people are employed sewing buttons on shirts. That is the tendency at the present moment. That is why I am appealing to the Government to tell us what their policy is in this matter. Our best efforts should be directed to using the raw materials produced in South Africa and turning them into finished goods which will sell inside as well as outside our own borders. It is useless to create industries based solely on our internal consuming capacity to the exclusion of other industries which would supply external as well as internal markets. We, therefore, need this broad industrial survey which will enable us to determine our policy in more detail, and indicate the direction in which our industrial development should go. In connection with that I should like to refer to a speech I made last session. I referred then to the question of an industrial bank, and the Minister of Finance promised me he would see that the promise made originally to Mr. Alexander, the late member for Hanover Street would be carried out and the Board of Trade would be instructed to co-operate the assistance of such gentleman as may be necessary to carry out a thorough investigation as to whether or not it was desirable to establish an industrial bank in this country. I hope that the Eon. Minister has not forgotten that promise, and that such investigation is in course of being carried out to-day. This is where it seems to me an industrial bank can be advantageously established. Having carried out this broad and comprehensive industrial survey of the economic possibilities of this country, the Government should decide on the establishment of such a bank with this particular object, that any industries that it is economically wise to establish in this country will approach the state industrial bank not only for financial assistance, but for expert advice and guidance and will set out to convince the bank’s board of experts that such an industry would have every chance of prospering (advancing economic reasons for that faith) and becoming a national asset. Any industry having received the hall-mark of approval of the bank would appeal to the public for funds with very much greater confidence than if it had not that hall-mark, and the state bank would assist. The Government would like to go down to history as the Government that does things, the positive Government, the Government that does not fear to face issues. I hope that it will now do something really useful, and will face the question of industrial development which is hedged round with difficulties, and it is necessary if that industrial development is to take place along right lines, some such survey as I have suggested should be carried out. Let us set to work to find ways and means of using as many as is economically possible of the agricultural raw materials produced in South Africa for feeding sound industrial concerns, thereby providing markets for the produce of our farms and employment for our growing population. Let us take the question of the establishment of branch factories of overseas industrial concerns. These branch factories would give employment to South Africans, and possibly would expect to receive some assistance in the shape of customs protection. However, they may not always be a national asset, for sometimes a branch factory may be established for no other purpose than to secure the control of the South African market, so that no real South African industry of a like nature should be set up. This is done because the overseas people know that as soon as the productive capacity of a real South Africa industry exceeded the South African demand, the products of that factory would come into competition with them in the overseas markets. I sincerely hope the Government will take this question of a broad comprehensive survey of our industrial potentialities into consideration because a sound foundation laid down now will lead to prosperity for generations to come. With regard to the provincial councils, and the criticisms levelled at them in this House, it finds no echo in Natal. The testing time has been not for the provincial councils but for the central government for a failure to put these councils on a proper financial footing: that is the sentiment almost throughout Natal. The councils never have had an opportunity of functioning, and have been consistently handicapped by the central Government. Those who are in favour of their abolition have never recommended anything in substitution for them except a bureaucracy. If the provincial council system is abolished we shall have a bureaucracy in South Africa. Bureaucracy is an abomination in any and every country and if we ever venture to abolish our provincial system we shall have bureaucracy enthroned in South Africa. Natal, at any rate, does not intend that there should be any curtailment of the provincial councils, but is in favour of an extension of their powers.

On the motion of the Minister of Native Affairs, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 7th April.