Up to the present the criticism by the Opposition has been of such a kind that there is little necessity for reply from the Government. There are a few matters about irrigation that I should like to deal with. The hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) urged a few nights ago that there should be further writing down of the Zeekoe River scheme. I just want to say that when amounts are written off schemes by Parliament, after proper enquiry by the Irrigation Commission, it appears to me undesirable to go into them again then, unless special circumstances are adduced, and I am not prepared, therefore, to go into this scheme again and to bring it before Parliament once more. I think it will be interesting to hon. members if I just give a little information about the present position in irrigation matters. As things stand to-day the State has spent in the past £7,000,000 on irrigation work, and of that at least £4,000,000 will not be recovered. When we consider irrigation works in that light and also remember the position that many of our irrigation schemes are in, then the question arises whether we are justified in proceeding with irrigation schemes in this way. That question was answered by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) the other evening when he pointed out that whatever may be said in the reports of the commission, in view of the development which is taking place, as in the case of the Hartebeestpoort scheme, the number of person employed there, the things which are grown there, and the benefit which is thereby indirectly obtained, there is sufficient justification for irrigation schemes even in the future. I may also say that if we look at the Great Fish River scheme, the Sundays River scheme, the Brede River and other schemes, and we compare those parts with the conditions that prevailed before the irrigation schemes, we cannot but conclude that we are justified in continuing the irrigation schemes, although eventually such large sums have to be written off. A select committee of the House is at present engaged in going into the various schemes, and they will doubtless make recommendations with regard to the big schemes in the country. I shall, doubtless, subsequently have to introduce a motion for writing down those schemes. It is interesting for us, in South Africa, that we do not stand alone in our experience with regard to irrigation works. We find that the United States have had the same experience. Under the National Reclamation Act of 1902 they put aside the revenue from certain sources in order to go on with reclamation and irrigation works in certain dry parts in the west of the United States. That money was repayable without interest, and we find that there also large amounts were lost, and that many irrigators were in arrears with their payments. It is interesting to see how far their position in the United States is the same as ours. In the reports about irrigation works we find that large sums had to be written off, because they could not economically pay the interest on the capital cost. It is also interesting to see that they have the same conditions and results there which prevail here in South Africa. Then the reports states that writing off destroyed their ambition, and made them still more dependent. It was said in one of the debates on irrigation, and we find there also that when irrigation schemes were introduced with the object of settling an agricultural community there, that they often ended in failure. We find that the rural population there increased by 500,000 in 1920; in 1921 the increase was 200,000; in 1922 there was a loss in rural population of 260,000, and in 1925 of 461,000. So the losses continue from year to year just as has happened in South Africa with the countryside population, so that when we think of the great loss we have suffered on our irrigation schemes, we must not forget that they have the same experience in other countries. It is not necessary for me to go into all the difficulties that exist in connection with irrigation works. There are various causes for them in our country as well as elsewhere, and they are often mentioned in and out of this House. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) recently said that the Government had no irrigation policy. The Government has been engaged in recent years to investigate properly the position of the irrigation works, and the placing of them on an economic basis, although a good deal has already been done in this respect, there has also been considerable enquiry in connection with new works. Inasmuch as the investigation in the past has possibly been too spread out, we intend to concentrate on it as much as possible in future. The policy which the Government is going to follow will, in the first place, be that existing schemes shall be placed on a proper basis, so that people on them will be able to pay the taxes levied. In this way they will be able to carry on their farming. In the second place the Government has decided to introduce a system of subsidies, and I hope later this session to introduce a Bill in connection with the matter to fix the basis of the subsidy, and, as was suggested by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown, to change the financial provisions of the Irrigation Act where necessary so that provision can be made for grants. We will give precedence as far as possible to those parts of the country where no grants for irrigation works are necessary, but this will not exclude the other parts where the subsidies are actually required, and they will also be borne in mind. Where grants are necessary the Irrigation commission will beforehand fix the maximum tax which shall be levied, so that when the works are completed the amount of tax will be fixed. The maximum tax will, therefore, be settled, and as for the eventual balance which cannot be got back, but which must actually be a liability on the scheme, will not be dealt with by way of a tax, but it will have to be written off, or some other method of dealing with it will have to be found. In any case the burden will not be on the irrigators until they are in a position to bear it. I agree with the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown that the method of writing off which was followed in the past is unsound, and it will be much better if where irrigators are connected with the scheme we commence by fixing what tax they will have to pay, and it will not then be more than the amount fixed. It will be much sounder than constructing works which will cost large sums and thereafter writing off the tax if the people cannot pay it. I also agree that land settlement must go hand in hand with the establishment of irrigation works, and in this connection there will, in all cases where works are constructed in future, be the closest co-operation between the Minister of Lands and the Minister responsible for irrigation. That is happening to-day, and consultation is constantly taking place between the two departments. I also agree that before schemes are started there must be a thorough enquiry. I intend later to submit a number of schemes when the loan estimates are introduced. The certain schemes will be included on which we must concentrate in the immediate future. The data in connection with them is not, in all cases, as complete as we would like to have it, but the intention is to build no schemes in future, unless the fullest information required to be able to fix precisely the position in connection with the matter, is available. One of the things which has been adopted in principle is that, in the first place, no rate will be levied unless irrigators are able to bring ground to the producing stage, so that only when they are able to pay will they be asked to do so. Then, in addition, we have adopted a principle that owners will not be permitted in future to attach large areas of land to irrigation works. The way we shall go to work in this connection will also be laid down in the Bill I will introduce, i.e., it will make provision as to what shall be done in connection with the surplus ground connected with irrigation works. The co-operative question will also be assisted as much as possible, and I think, particularly where grants are made, it is not unreasonable for the Government to demand that, inasmuch as cooperation is the best way of developing irrigation works, that it shall be insisted that where irrigators get the benefit of the grants given, they shall be compelled to co-operate so far as their own business is concerned. I also want to say just a few words in connection with boring. Here, also, it has been decided that certain grants shall be made, and, as a matter of fact, on the basis of dry holes. In connection with this we are drafting regulations, providing that where holes are bored by Government bores which produce less than a certain quantity of water an hour they shall be considered dry holes, and the amount charged in that case shall either be nothing, or much lower an amount than it otherwise would be. I just want to thank the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown for the words of appreciation he uttered about the Irrigation Commission, and also about the Department of Irrigation. New I should like to say a few things in connection with native affairs. I think hon. members will admit that the position with regard to the natives demands our earnest attention, and probably there has never been a time in our history, in any case not since Union, that native affairs have received so much attention as today. In considering matters with regard to the natives, it is necessary for us to remember that they are at present passing through a very difficult period in their existence, viz., a period of transition. On the one hand we have natives who are still adopting tribal and kraal customs, who are still entirely loyal to their tribe, although, owing to the way in which the Europeans have acted, the customs have become much looser than they were in the past. On the other hand, there are the de-tribalized natives who have practically made their homes in the towns. Many hon. members cannot realize the position so well unless they visit such locations as that of Johannesburg, for example, where hundreds of native families live, where hundreds and thousands of native children have already been born who live there and are entirely de-tribalized, and separated from native customs, and the same thing, more or less, is happening in many parts of the country. Between the two, the de-tribalized natives, and the tribal natives, there is a vast mass of natives which cannot be classified as either, and in connection with whom it is difficult to say where they ought to be classed. Everyone will understand that in the circumstances where the natives themselves live in such divergent circumstances, it is impossible to lay down a fixed rule, and we must not forget that in our deliberations regarding the natives the present conditions are greatly due to the action of the Europeans themselves. It is Europeans who have taken them out of their tribal surroundings, away from the surroundings they were in, to employ them in the industrial development of the country. We ought actually to bear these things in mind. The natives have been brought into entirely new surroundings where it is very difficult for them to accommodate themselves as they should. There are two extreme views in connection with the treatment of the native; on the one hand are the people, however good their intentions may be, who are practically fanatics in connection with the matter, and, on the other hand, are the people who think that nothing at all ought to be done to the natives, that they ought to have no rights of any kind. Both sections I think are wrong. However well intentioned the people may be who want to give every right to the native, and take up the attitude that they ought to be put on equality with the Europeans, the arguments they use are of such a kind that they do the cause of the natives more harm than good. Everybody knows what the position is, and the more they talk on those lines, the more is feeling created among the people who incline to the other extreme. I shall return to the point later. With regard to the other section who want to give no rights at all to the natives, they also must remember that in view of the changed conditions, in view of the development which the natives have already made— development for which the Europeans themselves are responsible—that we should no longer consider legislation of 40 to 50 years ago as adequate. The circumstances are changed; these also are all matters which we must bear in mind. It is one of the regrettable things in South Africa that Europeans by their actions have undermined the discipline of the tribe and of the customs of the kraal, and destroyed them, partly by too strictly following the letter of the law. If we go back into history we shall find that the most successful cases of native administration are to be found amongst those people who have not stuck too closely to the letter of the law, but who have dealt with circumstances as they found them, and who acted as they thought best in the circumstances. I want to say here that the Government is prepared to treat the aspirations of the natives with the utmost sympathy. The Government is prepared to go into all the matters that affect the natives and to do what is possible in the circumstances existing to-day, to meet his reasonable aspirations, but in no circumstances will the Government allow lawlessness and riotous conduct to exist, which is often brought about by irresponsible persons, white or black. I also want to say a few words in connection with another matter. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) mentioned a long list of laws which, according to him, created unrest among the natives. He asks whether, in the circumstances, we can be surprised at the unrest. It is not so much the laws which cause unrest, as the kind of criticisms made in this House. When I think of the things which have been said here, then I am surprised that the unrest is not greater. If I were a native, and responsible people said in the House that I was oppressed, that I was unjustly treated, that my rights were being curtailed, etc., then I should become restless and dissatisfied. The hon. member was entirely justified in condemning the press in connection with the agitation, because they give too much publicity to the agitators. He could, in addition, have pointed out that hon. members should also think what the effect of their statements may be on the natives. I want to refer to articles in the press which appeared during the last few days. I shall just quote one heading which appeared in one of the chief Cape Town newspapers, it was: “White justice in Wellington?” I agree with the people who say that if there are things that are wrong it is necessary to call attention to them, but that method of calling attention to matters is not calculated to establish quiet among the natives. I am certain that if the newspapers would only pay more attention to what they are saying there will be less reason for complaint about unrest among the natives.

May we not say anything then?

No, I do not want hon. members not to say anything, but I will say this that never in the history of South Africa has there been a time where people have talked as they have done recently. I think I am right when I say that there never was a time in our history when these matters have been discussed in such a way as has been the case during the past year. I only want to ask the friends of the natives to go carefully to work. It is useless stirring up an agitation in connection with things which the natives cannot get in the present circumstances It is not fair to them; it creates a futile hope in them, and alienates a large section of the white population from the native, which otherwise would be well disposed towards them. It would be better to concentrate on things in the interest of the native, than on the rights that they do not possess, and on injustice which does not exist. I think it is necessary to point out these things, because if we do not act carefully we shall make the position in the country worse instead of better. I should also like to say that, as has already been announced, a commission is being appointed to go into certain questions in connection with the natives. I hope that when the commission reports it may be found possible to make concessions to the natives in connection with many of the difficulties that have been referred to. In the meantime I have decided to appoint an official who will be attached to the office of the Director of Native Labour in Johannesburg, and who will be a kind of welfare officer. He will have to keep the Department in touch with native matters, as they develop in the towns. His duty will be in connection with difficulties between employers, and natives, in order to solve such difficulties satisfactorily, and until such time as the commission has reported I hope that in this way we shall make the position more easy so far as the towns are concerned. I just want to add a few words in connection with the Portuguese natives. The House knows that when the convention was signed in 1928 the view of the Portuguese authorities was that no native ought to be allowed into the Union unless he was working on the mines, and was recruited by an organisation approved by both Governments. The Convention is now in operation, and one of the clauses provided that natives from Portuguese territory who live in the Union without a pass from the Portuguese authorities must be repatriated. The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) said that this was a kind of slavery, and that people could go from one country to the other without a passport. He has forgotten that Europeans also cannot go abroad without having a passport.

They are not even allowed with passports.

When a country refuses a passport to one of its subjects, then it is a matter for that country. What the hon. member intended to convey was that the natives ought to be allowed to come across as they wish. He has forgotten that they are subjects of another country which insists that they must have passports. The Portuguese authorities insist that those natives who come here without passports must be treated as prohibited immigrants, and they are that. We must admit it and the question merely is whether they are to be treated differently than ordinary prohibited immigrants. No steps have been taken to repatriate those natives, and on that point a difference of opinion has arisen with the Portuguese authorities. Our friends in Mocambique thought that we ought to use our police for the purpose of looking for Portuguese natives in this country and sending them back. We pointed out that that would not be proper treatment of the native, and that we had no machinery for looking for those prohibited immigrants in the Union.

It is done daily.

I shall come to that in a minute. I may say that steps are being taken in the towns.

On the countryside as well.

No, it is only when those natives are met with that they are sent away,

What is the difference?

The differences that arose affected this point, and also certain points in connection with the mines, viz., the renewing of contracts with natives recruited under the old Convention. There was also the question of compensation to the dependents of natives when such natives died on the mines, and their dependents could not be found. I dealt with these matters recently when I was in Lourenco Marques, and as far as possible we have settled the points of difference by the provisions of the Convention. As for the Portuguese natives who enter our country over and above the natives that are recruited, it was agreed that where such natives are discovered, and they are already employed, then the notice is served on them that they are prohibited immigrants. Such natives can then get a temporary permit to remain in employment, but not for longer than six months. I laid the correspondence which included the agreement on the Table of the House, and hon. members can see what it is. It is further provided in connection with the natives who are employed and who are allowed to remain in the country for six months, or less, that an arrangement must be made for a sum to be deducted from their wages to pay for the cost of repatriation. That is the position with regard to natives who are discovered on farms. They get that temporary permit to complete their agreed service, and when they have ended it then they are given the choice of going back to Portuguese territory or to the mines.

Not to the farms?

No, when their service is ended they may not go to the farms again. The principle adopted by the Portuguese does not permit natives to work in the Union except on approved mines.

Did you then have no principle?

A great deal was said about natives who would be torn away from their families which they had established here, but if there is an hon. member who knows of any case then I shall be glad if he will bring it to my notice.

I will give you twenty, even 200 cases.

The hon. member can give me the particulars because it was never the intention to tear the natives away from their families. That is the position in connection with natives who were actually here before the 1st March, and in the employ of individuals or companies. But with regard to natives who entered after the 1st of March they can only stop here for three months. They get a temporary permit so that they earn enough to be sent back to Portuguese territory. If they go to the mines the amount which has been deducted by the employers is paid over to them. I want to point out that according to the 1928 Convention it was necessary for the natives to be repatriated, and by the subsequent agreement in any case as far as natives who entered before the 1st of March are concerned, it was arranged that they could stop six months longer, so that the employer had an opportunity of getting other assistance when necessary. In that way also we tried to meet the demands of the farmers, especially in the low veld. I know their position, and also that of the Natal farmers, to be very difficult. Hon. members can say what they like, but that was laid down under the 1928 Convention, and we did all in our power to get the Portuguese to abandon their attitude, but we did not succeed. In the circumstances we did the best that was possible. I just want to point out that if it had not been for this arrangement in Lourenco Marques then the position would have been that it was necessary for natives when they were discovered to be immediately sent away, and in any event we got an extension of time. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I do not know what is coming, but I just want to point out again that so far very little has come from the other side that requires answering.

The House has listened with very great attention to what the Minister has said about the native position, and also to what the Minister has said in defence of the policy of the Government in regard to the Mozambique treaty, so far as it affects our farmers. But I do not think the explanation given by the Minister has removed any of our difficulties, which we have felt so far against this fatal treaty. If ever 4 treaty has been made which has militated against the interests of this country, and has hit its industries hard, this this Mozambique treaty. I hope that the Government, if it pursues the policy of entering into international treaties, will, in future, have better regard to the interests of this country, and the economic interests of the country, than they have shown in regard to the Mozambique treaty. There is no doubt that the eastern and northern Transvaal, and northern Natal, depend very largely on Mozambique labour. We have heard from the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) the extent to which the sugar industry in northern Natal will be affected by the treaty. We know, as a matter of fact and of history, that the Portuguese natives have largely found employment not only in the mines of the Transvaal, but also in the eastern Transvaal, in all forms of agriculture. By a stroke of the pen this has been abolished. We have never entered into a treaty that we were going to repatriate every Mozambique native working in the Transvaal, and we should never have done it. The Minister of Railways, without any real knowledge of the situation, without any qualifications to judge the difficulties, gaily entered into this obligation, and we find ourselves to-day in a very difficult position.

Would you rather have had no treaty at all?

That is not a sound argument. I simply say that the Minister has made a bad treaty, which he should never have made, and we sit to-day with this legacy. We never bound ourselves to repatriate Mozambique boys working on the farms in the Transvaal, and we would not have done so. The Minister said that he had to save the position of the mines— how was that position saved? From 105,000 Mozambique natives now working on the gold mines, we have to come down in five years to 80,000. I do not know how the Minister argues that that is in the interests of the country. At a time when the gold industry should be working to the fullest extent, and when everything points to it being the economic mainstay of the country, through all the ups and downs through which we are passing, We are bound to reduce the number of Mozambique boys working on the mines by 25,000.

The gold mining industry would have been worse off without the treaty.

We would have got on very well without it. There has been a blunder of a very serious character, and to-day it is not only the gold and coal mines, but the agricultural and other industries that are going to be severely handicapped and crippled in years to come. I do not think the Minister has in any way removed the deep misgivings which are felt about the effect of the treaty. Let me say a few words in regard to the remarks made by the Minister of Native Affairs on the native question. I agree with the Minister that the crux of the native position to-day is the detribalized native. In regard to the native who lives in reserves, we do not have much difficulty; in fact from an administrative and from an economic point of view it would not be difficult for us, and it has not proved difficult, to deal with natives who continue to live under their traditional system. The whole of the trouble arises in connection with the natives who have left their tribal areas, cut themselves adrift—very largely under the white man’s inducement—and have gone to live among the white men in towns and on farms. We shall not overcome difficulties by—ostrich-like—hiding our heads in the sand, refusing to discuss these things, refusing to face legitimate criticism, and trying to sit still and say nothing. The Minister seems to be under the impression that discussions of the subject, inside and outside the House, and also in the press, are largely responsible for these difficulties, but you cannot prevent discussion. You are here at the central point in our politics, and you must expect criticism, and sometimes intemperate criticism. We should not be deterred by criticism from doing our duty, and I do not think the Minister has any reason to resent criticism. I agree with the Minister that you have two sorts of people who take up an impossible attitude in regard to the native question. There are people who want to go the whole hog, and there are also people who do not want to go a single inch in recognising the economic and other rights of the native people. We are called upon to look at the matter quietly and sanely, and to find the middle way out of our difficulties. It is no use thinking of abstract principles and logic, and trying to envisage what is going to happen fifty years hence, but as practical men, we have to find our way out of these difficulties, and I believe we shall do so. I am only afraid when I see the temper created in the country to-day. There is no doubt there is a temper of intolerance growing up, which is not in our interests. The natives are becoming more intemperate; they are being led by agitators of a dangerous type, both white and black. Among our Europeans who have so far been calm, we also see a spirit of intemperance, and unless we are careful we shall be in a state of mind which will work irreparable havoc in the country. Everything should be done in this transition stage to calm feeling, and everything should be done by the Government not to give offence either by legislation or policy—not to give unnecessary offence one way or the other. If that is done I have no doubt we shall get into smoother waters, and be able to consider the native question in a quiet, rational manner. I counsel the Government to avoid giving unnecessary offence. I may not discuss another Bill which is before the House for which the Minister of Justice is responsible. It is not merely the native question, but the side issues—these repercussions of the native question on policy generally—which raise trouble. I hope we shall avoid, as far as possible, giving offence in these matters. I do not despair that we shall find a way through many questions, provided we are prudent, cautious and avoid using language or avoid taking measures which are bound to inflame public feeling in all directions in this country. I am glad the Minister is appointing a commission on the economic question, because to my mind the economic position of the detribalized and urban natives is at the root of the trouble to-day. Economic conditions have changed enormously in South Africa during the last twenty years, the cost of living has gone up, and everything has become more expensive for the native. He is making progress educationally, and is taking a part more and more in the industrial development of the country. The whole position has changed, and it is this economic situation and the effect which it is producing on the natives generally which to my mind are the main source of the native trouble we have, and I hope the Government in appointing the personnel of the commission will take every care that a commission is appointed which will probe this matter to the bottom quite impartially. Let us hear what the difficulties are. It is no use getting a whitewashing report. When we know the facts we shall be able to shape a policy. I hope this commission will be a thorough one, which will probe to the bottom the economic difficulties of the native. Let me say a few words about irrigation policy, to which the Minister has referred. There I agree very largely with what he said and with what was said by my hon. friend the member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) in his very able and illuminating speech the other night. We have losses in irrigation, and the country must not be surprised that very large sums of money have to be written off from the advances made for irrigation in the years past. It is perfectly true, as my hon. friend said, that this has been a universal experience, the experience of western America, Australia, and I believe other countries too, but I mention these two countries in particular; and about 50 per cent, of their expenditure on irrigation schemes has had to be written off. I am afraid that is going to be our experience in South Africa too. The actual schemes as far as the finance goes, will not carry the burden, but on the credit side you have the enormous difference made to the country. And no more striking instance can be mentioned than the hon. member quoted from the irrigation report, of the difference it has made to the Crocodile River in the Transvaal. I remember that river when there were a few orange and cattle farms, and to-day it has become ten crocodile rivers instead of one, judging by the development which has taken place, and the population it carries to-day. All that we have to bear in mind. It is not merely the financial side so far as a particular scheme is concerned, but the contribution it makes to the general development of the country, which is the main factor. I hope we shall go on in spite of losses. This is a dry country, and we want to develop it; we do not want it to stand still because large parts of it are dry. You can think of the matter in whichever way you like, and you will find that irrigation still remains one of the principal means of the development of South Africa and remains one of the most potent instruments for its development, I should like to know— perhaps the Minister cannot reply now, but some other Minister may be able to reply— what has become of the policy the Government announced during the last general election to the effect that moneys accruing from State diamond mining would go to the development of large irrigation schemes? That was a policy which undoubtedly appealed very greatly to the country; no details could be, or were, given for the simple reason that any scheme required careful exploration in advance.

[Inaudible]

Is this the sort of scheme? I understood at the last general election that not here and there were small schemes to be put to this account, but really something outstanding was going to be done, and the large rivers like the Orange River and others would be harnessed for the development of the country. I and the country were led to believe that something colossal and something first-class would really be done in irrigation; but since then nothing particular has happened so far as we are aware, nor has the Minister in his statement adumbrated that particular policy. Whether anything is going to be done I do not know. I see in the last report of our chief irrigation engineer (Mr. Lewis) that the only river in this country which really lends itself to such a large scheme is the Vaal River; there you have the water and there you have the land; but I do not know whether there is any first-class scheme in contemplation on the Vaal River. It is only just and fair after the announcement of the policy of the Government on which the last general election was fought that we should know where we are now, and whether there is such a large scheme maturing, or whether the whole thing has come down to the announcement made by the Minister to-day.

Works on a large scale, not one large scheme.

Tell us here, because we want to know. I remember grandiose references were made to the Orange River and others; promises that the desert would blossom like a garden; that rivers would be changed in their courses, and that a revolution in irrigation would arise in South Africa; but if all that was meant was subsidies for boring and schemes here and there, let us hear it. I express no opinion, but only say that very high hopes were raised by the grandiose announcement made at the last election.

Tell us what was said, and by whom, instead of these generalities.

The Minister has forgotten. I may tell you that an irrigation scheme in one particular constituency was started during the elections. I saw flags going up. The river was going to be dammed. I shall not continue the discussion which has been started by my hon. friend the Minister. I want to come back to the budget. I do not want to go into all the various matters which have been raised in this debate, but I think there are certain matters in connection with the budget to which I may make a reference. It seems to me that this is the first real test that the Government has had. For five years the Government has had fair weather, and everything has been going well for the Government. Now, for the first time, a great change takes place. We, on this side of the House, have warned the Government for years, even in prosperous times, that they could not look forward to prosperity Tor ever. It has not been the history of the country. Our history is one of very rapid ups and downs, and it was fully to be expected that what has happened before would happen again. In prosperous times we warned the Government that they were embarking on administrative expenditure which was bound to hit the country hard when bad times came again. The bad times are on us. Our last budget was one of spectacular surpluses. This year we have a heavy deficit. From the surpluses of last year, we are faced with a deficit, apart from the taxation to be imposed, of roundly £1,400,000. That is a tremendous change, and the question is how is the Government going to meet the situation. It is curious that the first thing the Government thinks of is taxation; the very first thing. Here we are face to face with this deficit, and the only tangible remedy that the Government have brought forward in this budget is taxation. That glorious 20 per cent, reduction of the income tax, which was trotted out at the last election, which has been before this country as something enormous that the Government has done—it goes first of all.

Only temporarily.

Only temporarily. We are faced with this, that the way the Government is going to meet the deficit is not easing the burden of this country, but increasing it, and increasing it at a time when the country is least able to bear it. I do not think there can be a stronger condemnation of this budget than the position with which we are faced here to-day, that the very first occasion on which the Minister comes forward with a serious deficit, he has to call upon the House to vote taxation, to vote increases on the income tax, and increased taxation on clothing, which hits everybody in this country and especially the poor. The Minister says that he is going to economise, and he is going to save in regard to the £480,000 which remains as the final deficit on his budget; but we do not know what is going to happen. We do not know whether the deficit will be the £480,000 which the Minister forecasts as likely. It is very likely that the deficit may be a very much bigger one than that. The Minister is making his old mistake. We have complained for years that he has been under estimating his revenue, with the result that he has had these surpluses which he has dangled before the country as a proof of his ability as a financier. Now it is just the opposite. The Minister comes now with estimates which, I think, every reasonable person in this country feels are estimates which exaggerate the revenue which is likely to come to him in the next financial year. He is now suddenly an optimist. He is proceeding on the assumption that we are going to have, not a prosperous, but quite a fair year. He thinks there will be a fall of £800,000 in customs. If he thinks £800,000 is going to be the only fall in customs, the Minister is making a great mistake. He estimates the diamond revenue on the basis that there will be an almost complete restoration of the diamond industry during this year. There, again, I think the Minister is greatly miscalculating, and although the diamond industry is likely to recover, I am very doubtful whether that recovery is going to take place during this year on the scale the Minister anticipates.

Does he over-estimate?

Yes. The Minister of Railways has made the same mistake on an even bigger scale. He seems to be under the impression, too, that this year is going to be a more or less normal year for revenue. I think that the Minister is going to find that this financial year is going to be a very much worse one for him. He looks to the big maize crop, and the manganese ore which is going to be exported from this country, as likely to restore the balance of what he may lose in other ways. I do not think the maize crop is going to make so much difference. The Minister knows, as the House knows, that it is not so much the exports from this country that provide a paying railway traffic. It is the imports. The rates for exports do not produce very much revenue for the railways. It is the imports that very largely see the railways through, and there is no doubt that with the fall in the value of agricultural production, there is going to be a very serious difference. In the past year the difference was £5,500,000 of value in the exports of agricultural produce—

I am talking of the volume.

My argument is that when the value of the agricultural production and of farmers’ income falls by millions, you cannot expect imports on a large scale, and imports and customs are going to suffer very heavily because there is not the purchase money in the country. The primary producers in this country have not the money with which to pay for imports. The customs and railways are going to suffer very severely. I think that these estimates have been over-sanguine, and that in the end it may be found that this year, instead of being what these two Ministers seem to imagine that it will be—a normal year, but on the weak side—this year may turn out to be very bad indeed. I am very much struck by the change of tone during this partial depression, in which we are involved. I do not think we are doing much good by talking about depression and slump, but there is a very curious change of tone to-day. In 1921 to 1922, everything was always the fault of the Government. Now the setback is due to world causes. It was not world causes five or six years ago; oh, no, then it was simply negligence or incompetence of the Government. If the Government is blamed to-day by the people of this country, it is largely due to the way it has taught the people to look to the Government and blame them for all that is wrong, and thank them for all that is right. We know that these things are largely beyond the control of Government, and no person will unduly blame the Government for a slump which is beyond its control. But we blame them if the administrative expenditure increases to such an extent that it will press hard on the people, if this depression continues. We cannot blame the Government if there is a set-back in the tide of trade, and people suffer. But this mentality has been largely fostered by the Government. The people have been taught to look on the Government as responsible for depressions, and if they find the chickens coming home to roost, they must not squeal, because, on their own teaching, they are going to be held responsible by the people of this country. There is no doubt that the Government must economise. What I blame the Government for, what the people hold the Government responsible for, is that the Government has embarked on much too lavish expenditure in the days of apparent prosperity. Those were the days when the Minister of Finance should have held the purse strings as closely as possible, but, instead of that, administrative expenditure grew by about £1,000,000 a year, and it will be a very severe handicap to us in the depression through which we are passing. I think the deficit this year will not be a mere £500,000 as the Minister imagines; it may be much greater, and next year he will not have another 20 per cent. income tax.

But you were so optimistic just now. Cannot you tell us how much we shall have?

Surely the Minister does not expect me to say how much; it will be much greater. The Minister must be sanguine in his estimates, and the deficit may be much larger, and next year there will not be another 20 per cent. income tax and another carry-over surplus from a previous year. There is only one way out—economise. The Minister has shown during the last four or five years very little economy. Expenditure has flourished luxuriantly. He must see that expenditure is cut down; we must not live as though we were a big, rich country. We are a very small country, with a small population; we are a poor country. It is impossible for us to continue to carry this enormous burden imposed on us in the last few years. I admit that the temptation to spend lavishly was great in that period. But I hope the Minister will see that there is a real curtailment of these long lists of officials—between 5,000 or 6,000— with which the Government has been saddled in the last few years. I believe when these boards which cover this country like mushrooms, disappear, that we shall see a more natural condition of affairs which will ease the burden on the people. I do not think that things are fundamentally unsound in this country—that the position is financially unsound. On the contrary, it is perfectly sound. But it has been a tradition of South Africa to live simply and to pay her way, to keep taxation to a low level, and to conduct her affairs on an economic basis—though this Government has rather broken down the tradition—the result has been that our credit has been good, and, on the whole, financial conditions in this country are sound, but we shall have to look carefully at the situation which has arisen in the last few years, and to get back to our tradition of economy, which has been the fundamental policy of this country, and the only safe one. We have a very great object lesson in the conditions in Australia to-day. If we continue to allow this vicious circle to develop, higher wages, higher protection, and higher taxation, wages will lose their real value, and the burdens that fall on the community will become greater than they can bear. Let us return to our old tradition of economy and simplicity and avoid the danger with which we are otherwise raced. I notice the Minister of Labour has tried to make some capital out of what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and also the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in regard to the protection policy of the Government. They criticized certain excrescences of the protection policy and the Minister of Labour said that this party was speaking with I do not know how many voices on the question of protection, and that, whilst we are giving lip-service to protection, this party is really against it. Well, there is a very effective and conclusive answer to that sort of quibble from the Minister of Labour. It is this. All the urban centres and the manufacturing centres, and all the centres of industry in this country stand by this party here. Every centre where you have manufacturing interests carried on, has sent a member of the South African party to this House.

Is that the result of your protection policy?

They are convinced that we mean honestly by the policy we have stated to the country, and that we have carried it out.Our policy has been protection, and we have done as much for the development of the manufacturing centres and of the secondary industries in this country as any party has. Very little, in fact, has been done by the party sitting opposite, except to advertise what they have done. They have been past masters in the art of self-advertisement. But the real foundations of the industries in this country were laid by us, and laid by us in times of very great difficulty. They were laid in times of stress and strain, when it was difficult to do these things. The faith of the communities who live on those industries is shown by the fact that, in every case, they sent members of the South African party to Parliament. That is the position. I hope my hon. friends will bear it in mind. The great thing that we have to do in this country is to keep down the cost of living as much as possible. Nothing will help more the development of South Africa, and the development of our industries than the fact that the poor man can live decently here, that the cost of living and the price of the necessities of life are not so high that it is almost impossible for him to bear them. As long as we keep the cost of living down, and, therefore, give wages their real value, we are likely to make a very great contribution to the development of this country.

That is a very fine sentiment. Tell us how to do it.

I will tell you how not to do it, and perhaps that may enlighten my hon. friends.

I should like to hear that.

Well, you cannot do it by increasing taxation and by increasing expenditure of this country. Every additional tax—

That is a platitude.

It is all platitudes to my superior and ingenious political friend. You can only make life tolerable for the people of the country, and only give them their best chance for development, if you keep down the weight of the Government machine which presses upon them; if you can keep down taxation and administrative expenditure. If you want to keep down the cost of living and you want to give real value to wages, the way to do it is—

Abolish this Government.

Abolish the administrative burdens on the people. I hope that will be done as much as possible. Our primary industries, mining and agriculture, are such that they cannot carry a heavy burden. The gold mining industry is one of a low grade character. Raise the burdens upon it, and you see at once how impossible it is for them to mine their low grade ore.

Have we raised that burden?

If the cost of living is raised in any way—

Have we raised the cost of living?

Yes

How have we raised it?

By the burdens you have put upon the people.

Which burdens?

Your Ministers plenipotentiary.

I should like to ask the Government to bear that in mind now, especially when they will have the opportunity. They may say that they have not had a real opportunity during times of prosperity to practise wisdom, to economize, and to ease the burdens of the people. Now they are going to have that opportunity, and I hope the Minister of Finance will rise to that opportunity and will show to this country that he is quite equal to the chance which he now has of making living cheaper in this country, reducing the burden of administration in the country, and reducing the weight of taxation. If he comes next year again, in the same way as he has come this year, and says that taxation is the remedy for deficits, the country will resent it, and he will get his punishment and his friends around him will feel the weight of the country’s displeasure. There is to-day a great cry from the farming community in this country for relief, for assistance, for the Government to do something to help them in the troubles in which they find themselves. We hear it from the wool farmers. We hear it from the maize farmers, and we hear it from almost every form of farming in this country. We know that the opportunities of the Government are limited. You can easily expect the impossible from the Government, when you are in difficulties such as we are in to-day as a country. I do not think that we can expect impossibilities from the Government, It would be hopeless to do so. But I think there is at least one thing the Government might do. That is to try to establish a spirit of confidence, and keep going these great interests which are so important for this country. When I was in the United States of America some months ago, the crisis had just arrived there. The first step that the President of the United States took was to call together all the interests concerned, the banks, the financial houses, the great industries, labour representatives and representatives of industries. They were called together in a conference at which steps were taken to establish a spirit of confidence. I think that if that were done here, if the Government were to organize confidence, if I may call it so, and call together the banks, the financial institutions, and labour, and create a spirit of confidence all round, that would go very far to overcome many of the difficulties with which we are faced to-day. You cannot do the impossible, but you can do that. You can see that time should be given to people to tide over their difficulties. If that is required it should be done. You can take psychological steps to tide the country over the difficulties they have to face. I hope it will be done. There is one thing I should like to commend the Government for, and that is that they have, after much trouble, patched up a customs agreement with Rhodesia. Although I was not, of course, conversant with the real difficulties that the Government had to contend with, I thought that the first conference had not been held in a spirit which boded well for success in the future. I was not surprised when I saw that that conference had miscarried. It was clear after that miscarriage that the Government had taken a wrong view of the position, and the force of public opinion became more vocal. The result was that conference was resumed, and we have to-day a customs convention which, whatever its merits may be, is at any rate a convention which keeps Rhodesia and the Union together in their economic interests. I am very glad and I think the Government has done right in that respect, and I hope that the day will never come when it will be necessary for us to cut the south adrift, from the north, and when we shall be cut off from the markets in the north. These markets are by far the most important for the future of South Africa—there is no doubt about it. We may make German treaties and French treaties, and treaties with other powers, but what South Africa has to look to for its main market and its main outlet for its developing industries is the north. I hope the road to the north will be kept open, and that everything will be done by the Government to develop those markets growing up in the north. The Government is embarking on a fairly heavy expenditure for representation in other parts of the world. The Government says that the dignity of South Africa requires representation on a fair and ample scale in other countries abroad. Something has to be done for the dignity of this country and to support our status, providing it is done within reason and that it does not place too heavy a burden on what would be far more important from an economic and a financial point of view—that is the opening of the markets in the north. I hope the Government will take steps to see that money is spent with reference to the north which will amply repay us in the future in developing markets and outlets for our factories and our farmers. We understand, from information which is more and more proving to be perfectly true, that an enormous copper field is being developed in Northern Rhodesia—perhaps the largest in the world—and I would like to see us take in advance steps which will secure for us our proper share of the trade which will accrue therefrom. We know what Kimberley and Johannesburg meant for the development of South Africa, and how the discovery of the Witwatersrand and the settlement of that great gold field there made all the difference in the world to the development of the whole of South Africa. If enormous developments are going to take place in Northern Rhodesia, as we are led to expect, the Government should leave no stone unturned to appoint proper persons to represent us there and to spend money to secure that that great opening in the north is developed to a greater extent for our manufactures and for our farming products. Our whole economic movement has been north, and it continues north, and I hope the Government will make the best of the opportunity it will have in that direction. If we down here in the Union, where our population is not large, were to ease the burden and to seek a natural outlet in a direction which providence has provided it may mean a great deal for this country in years to come.

I am very glad to hear from my hon. friend that he can at least approve one thing that this Government has done. I am glad to hear it, and am thankful, but it reminds me of something on which, in my opinion, a few words ought to be said. No one who, during the days of the negotiations with Rhodesia in Pretoria, saw what was going on in South Arica by means of the newspapers could get a high opinion of the patriotism of those papers. I am not talking of the Afrikaans press, but of the English. I believe that never yet in the history of any civilised nation has there been exhibited such a lack of patriotism as that which was shown during those days by the chief organs of the other side. It was a spirit one might expect from a press which was established in the Union, but was no more South African than, e.g., the Rhodesian press. I mention it this afternoon because I consider it one of the most scandalous performances that we have never yet seen in the so-called Nationalist press that wants to look after the interests of the country. They tried, in every possible respect, to bring the negotiations, which the Government was carrying on, to a conclusion which would be to the greatest detriment of South Africa. They acted as if they were nothing else than licensed Rhodesian merchants. So much for that. Now I want at once to blame my hon. friend, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), a little. I have had the opportunity in the past of rapping him over the knuckles a little about the irresponsible way in which he makes statements that are not founded on facts, or rather that he disregards facts as if they were of no importance. Now we have heard this afternoon how he spoke about this Government’s extravagance, and of the commissions which were established and thrived like toadstools, and this by way of contra-distinction with the economical and thorough way in which the South African party handled matters. I just want to give a few facts in passing to show the irresponsible methods of my hon. friend, when he speaks on matters of that kind. It is necessary, because it throws a little light, not only on what we get from time to time from him, but also from other hon. members of the Opposition. Let us just look at this. What do hon. members think that the hon. members’ Government spent during the last five years on those toadstools? I want, however, first to give the figure that was spent during the last five years by our so-called extravagant Government. It was £29,472, but now I ask what would you think was the amount which was spent during the last five years of my hon. friend’s Government? £50,000! No, I beg pardon, it was £79,417, i.e., £50,000 more. I mention it only to show the House how we have always to be on our guard when we listen to criticism from the opposite side, and, as I have said, I have already rapped my hon. friend over the knuckles a few times. He is not the only one, but I must say that we expect that when he speaks, or one of the leaders of the Opposition speaks, then they should not do so without a certain amount of responsibility. When the back-benchers speak, as has happened during this debate, we can shake our heads, and be sorry, but then it is not entirely unexpected, but it is unexpected when we have to consider a speech which pretends to be serious by the leaders of the Opposition. My hon. friend boasted this afternoon that while we were engaged in assisting the country by protection and helping our industries, the industries all stood behind him and his party. I congratulate him on it. We know it, and we always knew it, and notwithstanding that we supported those people in their industries. Why? I know the hon. member cannot understand it, because they, in their time, supported no one except those from whom they could get a vote. They only asked when they did something or other, how many votes they would gain or lose by it. That is the great difference between this party and that. We did not ask what our personal or party interest was, but what was for the benefit of the country. They can keep those industrialists, but can we be surprised that there is a party on that side of whom we do not know whether they consist of two or three parties? If they go on in that way they must get some support which, of course, is a pot pourri of all interests, and all parties. My hon. friend says that we told the public in 1924 that the depression which existed at that time was due to the bad government of the day, but now that there was another depression we say that it is in consequence of the bad world market. He says that we must not cry. No, we will not cry. We are not doing so, but we are engaged, and successfully, in fighting the depression, and seeing that we keep the people on their legs. But if he says that we at that time said that the depression of before 1924 was due to the bad Government of that time, then it is quite right, and he knows that it was so. But the hon. member is exaggerating when he says that we said that the depression was only due to the bad Government of the day. No one would have been so foolish. A great deal of the depression could have been averted if the Government of the day had done its duty to the people. That is what we said, and it is perfectly true. My hon. friend also criticized the anticipated deficit. I shall not now investigate how far his criticism is right or otherwise. I only want to say this: he was once a Minister of Finance, and if I had to choose, or rather if the public had to choose, between him and the present Minister of Finance, there can be no doubt as to whom the public would choose. I almost suspect that his own followers would not choose him before the present Minister of Finance. My hon. friend has already played many parts, and I must say with certain success, but I am certain of one thing, and that is if there is one thing which he will not claim to have made a success of, it is his period of office as Minister of Finance. We practically had no Minister of Finance, he merely held the title. It is a thing that is so fresh in our memory. If there is one thing beyond his attainment, as it is beyond my attainment, it is to be Minister of Finance. He once more made out in his exaggerated way that we made prophecies in 1924 about gigantic and phenomenal irrigation schemes. I can only tell him that the largeness of the schemes is imaginary on his part, but that with regard to the construction of irrigation works, the Government is still just as anxious as before to make a start on them. We are only waiting for the report of the Irrigation Commission, and we cannot hurry the commission, because there are certain things which must be investigated, and we have instructed the commission to make a thorough enquiry. I agree with a great deal of what has been said here. The public must expect the irrigation works to be written down, and a great deal will have to be written off the irrigation works that we took over from the previous Government. I do not blame them. In this respect we must keep in view the future, not only for 50 or 100 years, but for hundreds of years. It is, therefore, wise of us to invest money in irrigation works in prosperous times. We can do nothing better for the future of our country than to invest money in good irrigation works, and not only we, but they also, if they come into office again. I want also to rap the hon. member over the knuckles in another respect. He spoke about the Mocambique Convention which we entered into with the Portuguese authorities as being anything but in the interests of the Union. Well, I want, first of all, to point out to him that we have at least succeeded in making the convention. His Government, and especially he, did not succeed in making a convention with the Portuguese. He knows this, and, nevertheless, he says to us: “We got on well without the treaty.” Is that true?

Yes.

No, but it is not true. He is again talking without the facts. The treaty with regard to natives, and the recruiting of natives, continues. That part of the treaty remains, and he, therefore, acted not without a treaty, but with one. Now he forgets that when he was out of office the time that he himself fixed for a solution expired. The Portuguese denounced the treaty, and we then had to choose between a treaty or no treaty. Now I ask the hon. member if he had to choose between this treaty and none at all, what would be have chosen? It is easy to criticize if you base the criticism on loose facts, but it is another thing when you have to remember facts, and they are decisive. To us the facts were decisive. I want to issue a warning to him and his friends. If they go on like this when the treaty expires in five years, then it is as certain as possible that a serious question will arise whether another treaty is to be entered into or not. They must know this, and he must ask himself as they make so much of the mines what the result of those loose statements will be. The financial leader on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) recently, in the House, referred to the serious position of the mines as the result of the lack of sufficient native labour. I say my friends opposite must enquire whether that sort of criticism ought to be made if the mines are not to be left without that native labour from Mozambique which they now still have. I now come to another serious point. It is a very serious matter to us how far it is in the interests of South Africa for the irresponsible criticisms, which we have been listening to for the last six weeks, almost day by day, to continue. How long will it continue without the leaders who are concerned in it expressing their disapproval? I will go into this a little later, but this irresponsible criticism very ill becomes the leader of the Opposition. It befits them just as little as it befits Ministers on these benches, what they say will have influence, and it does have influence. I do not want to refer specially to the hon. member for Standerton, but to deal generally with what has taken place during the debate. I do not believe that anyone who has listened to the debates can say anything else on what has happened here than that during the last eight days there has been undoubtedly a great deal of talk, but very little said. We have had loose talking, almost all calculated not to be of use to the Minister of Finance or the Government, but of use to the speakers themselves from a party point of view. Both eyes, or, in any event, always one eye, were turned to the ballot box. I only want to say that if we examined the criticism we do not anywhere find—not even in the, speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. (Mr. Duncan) to whom I, and I think all of us in other respects listened to with pleasure— that any constructive criticism was made. There was no constructive criticism, but there was even less, there was not even destructive criticism. There was not even criticism which could say: “Look how rotten this is.” I sat and listened, and subsequently came to the conclusion that the criticsm made the impression on me of a very unpleasant little animal that I will not mention, but which is always to be found between the tree and the bark. During the whole of the debate they were between the tree and the bark, and the hon. member for Yeoville no less than the rest. I just want to point out to him a little of what he treated us to. He criticized the policy of the Government on almost every point, and every problem, but there was never a single suggestion by him, or by the other hon. members, of what was to replace the things they criticized so much. No, all we got from them was: “The time has not yet come.” The hon. member, e.g., expressed dissatisfaction with the growing provincial expenditure; did he suggest anything that ought to be done to stop the expenditure? He also spoke of the disquieting phenomena with regard to the low level of our national life. In this respect I agree with him, and I am glad that he has pointed out to this House, and I hope the public, that our level of existence is very low. It is a thing which is very disquieting, and I want to go further and say that I think that the low level of existence of our people must, in the first place, be ascribed to a lack of forethought. There is a wastefulness among our people to-day, which assuredly cannot lead to the saving of anything in the form of capital. It is a great pity, but in this connection I agree with the hon. member. He also said that it was disquieting to see the large expenditure on child welfare, and how the native labour was diminishing. From the point of view of the mines it is disquieting. He further said and rightly that the low-grade mine constituted a difficult problem. All this, however, leads to nothing. Did the hon. member suggest anything which could improve the position with regard to child welfare? As for the Government, and the treasury, and the object of this debate, and the increase of our finances, it leads to nothing. We feel it just as much as he but we think that we are entitled to expect suggestions from him, and his hon. friends, as to what, ought to be done. I, therefore, say that there is nothing constructive, nor anything destructive in it. It was their duty to show where we have done wrong; then we could see whether we could substitute anything, even if the other side can suggest nothing. The hon. member for Yeoville discussed the protection which the Minister of Finance intends to put on flour, sugar, etc., in accordance with the notice. The hon. member spoke as follows—

Who can help asking himself when he reads those words where the hon. member for Yeoville stands; is he a protectionist or is he a free trader? If he is a protectionist what is his position? Is he going to support it or not?

Yes, after thorough enquiry has been made.

A thorough enquiry has been made, as is done on every occasion, and with reference to the experiences of the past, has the hon. member the right of assuming that there has been no proper enquiry?

We ought to have seen the report.

Then I must assume that my hon. friend, when he made his criticism, did not know whether an enquiry had been made, or what the result of the enquiry was, but in that case I tell my hon. friend that he knows we are always prepared to come to the House, and when the House wants more information it can ask for it. What I actually wanted to prove was that we never know where the Opposition stands on all these points, whether they, the hon. members and his party are protectionists or free traders. They talk in that way, and in the same breath they talk in another way. This does not only refer to this question; I am only mentioning it as a sample of what has taken place constantly in this debate, either they absolutely contradict each other, or they contradict themselves. This brings me to the question of absence of policy of my hon. friends opposite. I do not say this simply to find fault with them, but because it is of great importance to the House for the proper performance of its work that there should be a real Opposition and not a sham one. There are numbers of questions about which the country, and also we in the House, have the right to know where the Opposition stands, but how can they tell us when the hon. member for Yeoville, as the financial leader on that side, takes up an attitude which inclines neither to the one side or the other. How can we arrive at their point of view if two or three different opinions are expressed on the same point on the Opposition benches. If there is not a healthy Opposition then the Opposition has no cause for complaint when that sound financial policy is not followed by the Government that ought to be followed. The position in the House today is actually that nearly every member of the Opposition has his own policy, and not only his own policy, but, as it sometimes seems to me, every member of that party is also his own leader. In six weeks we have already on two occasions seen that on account of the lack of policy, and the multiplicity of leaders on that side, that the front bench leaders were driven out of the House on the division because they could not compromise themselves with the motions of the leaders on the back benches. Well it may be very amusing, but I say it is a very deplorable position in the politics of South Africa. I believe that there has never yet been a responsible Government in the history of our country that has been faced with an Opposition like this one. It is a very unhealthy condition when the Government finds that they have an Opposition which is no longer an organized body. We do not know where we are, and we do not know who to regard as the leader of the Opposition. I hope that an end will be put to this state of affairs. Now I wish to say a few words about the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). I must say it always pleases us all a little to listen to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I hope the day will come when he will find himself, but I must say that I am honestly convinced that he does not know to-day where he is. When we listen to him we do not know whether he sits on the right or the left of the fence, we do not know whether he belongs to the South African party or to a third party, and we are not certain whether he ought to sit on that side or on the cross benches. I just want to address a few words to him. He has made another speech so typical of what we may call the betwixt and between. He says that the Government has no policy in connection with the provincial councils, and that we are heading for a financial crisis which will cause the Minister of Finance no longer to be able to sit peacefully on his seat. What advice does he give? He thinks that the time has not yet come for a radical change! A crisis is coming which will be so serious that the Minister of Finance will not be at ease, but when we ask the hon. member what should be done, then he replies that the time has not yet come for a radical change. This is so exactly the old laissez aller policy, and my hon. friend has so rightly landed where he ought to be. During the general election he was still outside. As he knows that party has been described as the laissez aller party. Quite possibly he has taken my word for that, and decided that that is the place he ought to be in. Accordingly, he also tells us that the provincial system needs revision because there are many administrative defects, and that one of two lines must be taken. There must be an extension of local Government, or centralization of control, but when the Minister of Finance asked him what line he proposed to take, he replied: “The time is not yet ripe for a radical change.” That is so typical of what we have had for the last eight years. It is so typically South African party. Just imagine a man who for five years has been in the closest touch with the provincial system—a man who had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the provincial system from all points of view, and all angles, making an elaborate speech, seeing many mistakes and faults in it, saying that the system is heading for a crisis, but all he can suggest to the Government is that the time is not yet ripe. Well, we shall then have to await that time a little longer. I think that in this case also we shall have to do what we did in 1925 with the provincial councils. The hon. member says that the Government has no policy. Let me assure him that the party he has now joined had 14 years to deal with the matter, and untimately said that it could find no solution. During the first year of our administration the Minister of Finance had such an effective policy that a good solution was discovered. It is quite probable that changing circumstances may again necessitate an alteration.

And what is your policy?

We stand by the policy which we laid down at that time, and, so far as circumstances demand, there may be further assistance. When the time comes we shall just as little hesitate about a decision between centralization or greater powers to the local authorities.

Has that time come?

No.

That is what I said.

Yes, but we expected the hon. member to suggest something and to express his views. He knows what our policy is, but he says it is going to bring us to a crisis. He must, therefore, show what he thinks is wrong, and what ought to be done. If he thinks that nothing must be done, and that the time is not ripe for a change, why then has he roused sleeping dogs.

They are awake.

The provincial councils more than once mentioned the grievance that irresponsible speeches are made which bring the public under the impression that the provincial councils are to be abolished, with the result that the public will not allow the councils to levy taxation. They say that if in such circumstances there must be taxation, it had better wait for the central Parliament.

What about the Minister of the Interior?

I do not care who it is. I have now to do with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North); he comes here and frightens us all about a change which must be made in connection with the provincial councils, but when we ask him what the change must be, he says: “The time is not yet ripe for a radical change.” No, the hon. member creates the impression—perhaps he did not intend to—that he does not talk in the interests of good administration, and a good financial policy, but that he has only turned his eyes on to the approaching election. I have already pointed out how injurious speeches made here are, which show that the Opposition is not acting as an organized body. I did so not simply to make mischief or to be offensive, but because I think that unless there is a change our party system cannot but be injured to such an extent that it will eventually have anything but the prestige with the public that it had in the past. It is our duty, therefore, to see that we act with responsibility, and not in the frivolous and irresponsible way in which this debate has been conducted for hours and hours on such an important subject as the finances of the country.

I notice the suddenly attentuated appearance of the Government benches, now that the Prime Minister has finished his speech. But there are a few “just men left in Israel” who are courteous enough to remain in the House and to listen to what sort of reply a member of the Opposition may make to their leader. The episode we have just witnessed is a very remarkable instance of Parliamentary manners, although it does not affect me in the least. I am glad that the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon was delivered in a calmer and more kindly fashion, and in a much less offensive manner than we have been regularly accustomed to this session. I welcome this change in the Prime Minister’s attitude. All the same, I have never listened to a more ineffective criticism of what has been said on this side of the House; what the Prime Minister has gained in dignity he has lost in offensiveness. The Prime Minister twitted the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) for saying that the provincial council question must be dealt with, but ending that “die tyd is nog nie ryp nie”: without making any constructive proposal. But the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, is responsible for the policy of the Government, and we are entitled to know what the Cabinet’s constructive proposals are. It is for the Cabinet to propose constructive things: not for the Opposition. During the last few months, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been going about the country leading people to believe that steps will be taken immediately to deal with the provincial council question. Yet, after all this attack on the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr), the Prime Minister’s policy is also nothing but a “wait and see” policy. He is always proclaiming that he is going to do something in the future, but he does not do it. Is that the best the Prime Minister can do with all the forces at his disposal? I challenge any impartial observer who sits in this House to say whether the Opposition’s criticism this session has not been one of the most effective you could have. That is a painful fact to hon. members opposite—that the criticism of the Opposition has been more forceful and more effective than that of any Opposition for many years, and it is because they cannot meet that criticism that we hear speeches such as those of the hon. members for Christiana (Mr. Moll), Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) and others, speeches which, when it comes to a question of responsibility, no hon. member, no matter how irresponsible, should have been allowed to make. Still less ought a member to have been congratulated in this very House by members of the Cabinet as the hon. member for Christiana was congratulated after the speech he made. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of the Government, who have approved of speeches which are amongst the most bitter and racial which have been made; it lies on the shoulders of members of the Cabinet who listen to these speeches with approval. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well—he is only trying to give a little bit of encouragement to his own followers when he suggests the contrary, as he is always doing; he knows he has a solid, well-organized Opposition in front of him, whose leader, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), has the full confidence and faith and loyalty of every one of us; the leader who will lead us to victory, and out of the ruts of racial and other matters, to redeem the mess into which the country has been led by the Government. They know our leader has the confidence of every hon. member on these benches.

That is why you ran away from a division?

I do not know what the hon. the Minister is talking about. I have never yet run away from one division. I suppose he is talking about the eight-hour day motion, which was voted upon when I was somewhere on the equator? That is just as far from the truth as the other remarks the hon. the Minister makes. He is making a personal attack on me.

No, I am not; I said the frontbenchers.

It is about as far away from the truth as he often goes. We have had, I think, four speeches from the Ministry in the debate. We have had the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Native Affairs. The Prime Minister told us he will give us a lesson—he is always giving us one. Then we had the Minister of Native Affairs addressing to us the solemn warning that we were not to criticize. That was what it amounted to—neither the press, nor members of Parliament were to criticize matters in his department.

Nonsense !

That was what it amounted to, to any hon. member who listened to it. The result is if we do criticize, we are doing something we are told we have no right to do, and if we do not say anything, it is said we do not criticize. Do we criticize, or de we not? The Prime Minister started off this afternoon by making an attack on the press, which is very well able to look after itself. He accused it of irresponsibility, and he spoke of the English press; I suppose he referred to the time of the Rhodesian conference. If the attack is as well founded as is his general attack on hon. members on this side, the press may very well take care of itself. The English-speaking press is as much alive to the interests of the country as the people on the other side of the House. The trouble is there are people who imagine that there is only one patriotism brand of, and regard for their country, and that is their own particular brand. The sooner they get that notion out of their heads the better it will be for the politics and the Government of the country. The Prime Minister made an attack on my right hon. leader on one of these minor points which seem so futile and petty, on the ground that he had charged the Government with extravagance in expenditure on commissions, and the Prime Minister said, “Look what you have spent in commissions, and look what we spend.” But my right hon. leader never spoke about commissions. What he spoke about was the creation of numerous boards which are being scattered all over the country. This is a matter of extreme importance, because the country is getting covered with boards, costing and spending large sums of money: permanent bodies as compared with temporary commissions. The criticism made was legitimate. The Prime Minister said that the South African party people looked only to votes, but that on his side they disregarded votes and continued on the course of protection, because they thought that in the right interests of the country. I think anyone need look back only a few years to the course of conduct which was taken up by the Nationalist party to see how far the Prime Minister’s statement is true. I can point to occasion after occasion as to which a very different verdict will be returned by posterity regarding the methods of the Government party. Let us take only one slight example. What was the cause of the two parties which formed the Government coming together? Is that in the true interests of the country? Is it in the interests of the Labour party, who take one standard, or in the interests of the Nationalist party, who take an entirely different standard? I would not raise this matter of “smousing” except to show that it would be almost impossible to find a more perfect example of “smousing” than that of the circumstances of the origin of the Government party. What were the terms of that alliance? We do not know, except that we know that two parties having totally different ideas managed to combine to do something, and that was to turn the Government out. Was that in the true interests of the country?

Did it not serve the true interests of the country?

If the Minister asks me to believe that it was in the true interests of the country that two parties who are oil and water, compared with one another, should mix to turn a Government out, then I am afraid I cannot do so. Now I come to other attacks by the Premier on the Opposition. Hon. members opposite take refuge in definitions of our attitude, which are not correct: and the trouble is that they will not let us define our own attitude for ourselves. Take the question of protection. The trouble with Government members is that they will not take our definition on this side of the House of what we are, but will insist on their definition of what we are. The statements attributed to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) have been completely unrecognizable, in fact a travesty of what the hon. member said. What is our attitude in regard to protection? We are entirely in accord with the necessity of developing the industries of the country. In so far as protection is necessary for the development of industries, we are entirely in favour of protection. Where we differ from hon. gentlemen opposite is in the question of degree, and the facility with which protection is applied, and the way in which demands for further protection are met. We say that under certain circumstances, once protection has been given, many protectionists are like the daughter of the horse leech—they are always wanting more. The Government should see that protection is only given so far as it is necessary for the development of legitimate industry. We are entitled to warn the Government that when they embark on a course of extravagant protection, or, as my hon. friend called it the other night, mad protection, they are pursuing a course injurious to the country’s interests. We are entitled to criticize the Government, not because we are anti-protectionists, but because we are anti-mad-protection. Hon. members opposite have no right, because we differ in our judgment as to what is the right form of protection to apply, to put words into our mouths, and say that we are anti-protection. If I may do so, let me take my own personal position. I have never been an out-and-out free trader, and never an out-and-out protectionist.

The difficulties of your party.

The difficulties of commonsense. It is those extreme theorists who run away with the bit between their teeth who do all the mischief. You remember the lines, “Every little child who is born into the world alive, is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative.” I do not know that I have got the words quite correctly, but hon. members opposite say in effect, that every little child born into the world is either a little free trader, or a little protectionist. When protection is asked for the demand for it has to be heard, but the claim has to be carefully examined, and the onus is on those who make the claim to establish it. We have asked for information with regard to claims for additional protection. Persons who object to any claims for protection should be heard by the Board of Trade, and we do not think that sufficient publicity is given to the hearing of such claims, for or against. We are entitled to say that where ultra-protectionists have had their way, as in Australia, Canada and America, great adversity has resulted, particularly among the farming population of those countries. How many people in highly protectionist America are unemployed at the present time? According to the last figures I saw in the London “Times” there are over 3,000,000 unemployed in America. People there are at their wits’ end to know how to cope with the situation. I do not say that it is entirely due to protection, but I do say that in America, Australia and Canada the bitter fruits of protection-run-mad have been reaped, and we owe it to the country to say that a check must be kept upon extravagant and mad protection, so as to see that the country does not pay more for protection than it ought to pay. We know perfectly well that when protective duties have to be considered there are two factors which have to be weighed in the scale. One is, an increase in the cost of living and of goods to the consumer, including the farmer; and the other is the development of a particular industry by the proposed increase of taxation. We say that each proposition for protection should be judged on its merits, and where the scale goes down heavily on the cost of living side, protection ought not to be imposed unless you are going to obtain a very great increase in the industrial activity of the country, which will make good to the country the result of the imposition of heavier duties. The Prime Minister gibed us with one admission, namely, that world causes may have had something to do with the financial depression in South Africa; in other words, he has discovered that South Africa is not by any means alone when we come to deal with financial cause and effect; you cannot shut her up in an isolated chamber. At least he has made that concession and we are thankful for it, although it was a grudging admission. But he admitted that other things may have had something to do with it beside the activities of a wicked Government. What was it the Prime Minister said when he moved for the last time a vote of no confidence, I think in 1923. He said, “I maintain that the Government is the cause of at least 70 per cent. of the economic depression with which the country finds itself faced to-day.”

He did not say that.

The hon. Minister may be loyal, but not very wise in trying to twist what the Prime Minister said. He went on at a later stage of that same speech: “And if the whole blame cannot be laid at the door of the Government, the Government must accept 80 per cent. of it.” You see the rapid growth of the percentages in that one speech: but arithmetic of this kind was never a strong feature with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went on in his speech to-day trying to teach us our place. We have had some so-called lessons this year—threats as to freedom of speech, threats on the liberty of the subject: threats of what will happen if we do not do this, that or the other. We are told by the Prime Minister that we have failed to put up constructive criticism to the Government. The Government with all their sources of information behind them should be in a position to put up constructive proposals to us; it is not our duty to teach them their business. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticize, not to put up constructive proposals.

But there must be some policy behind the criticism.

There is so much policy behind the criticism that you are obliged to turn the offensive by turning on the young men on your back benches with their racial bitter speeches. This is what the Minister said; he taxed the Opposition with not teaching the Government its business; he taxed them with various things they had not done, and with some things that they have done, without meeting the very effective criticism put up. I say that is a fair summary of the Prime Minister’s speech and a very unfortunate summary it is. What was there constructive in his arguments? It was his duty to put constructive matter before us, and he alone can do it in view of all the official knowledge and sources of information he has and we have not. Now I come to a very important matter which the Minister of Native Affairs referred to when he said we were not to criticize matters of public importance and that the press had no right to criticize them. There is one thing I want to ask the Minister of Justice to give special attention to. With a full sense of responsibility I ask the Minister of Justice that he will make the fullest investigation into the occurrences that took place at Paarl, because of the remarks made by the judge in his charge to the jury in the first place, and in the second place because he said there would be not much good in his summing up.

Do you want me to answer the judge’s question?

I think the hon. member for Mowbray knows that, according to newspaper reports, a civil case is pending.

There is not a civil case pending; it is merely a letter of demand.

I do not want to prejudice any civil case, but I also ask the Minister to go into the matter of the evidence of the constables themselves and as to what they admitted. I should also like to ask the Minister to make a full investigation into methods of dealing with prisoners in custody awaiting trial.

What is the suggestion?

The suggestion is that circumstances have developed which suggest that a change of treatment is desirable; I refer for instance to the taking out of prisoners at night from the cells for any purpose whatever. I hope the Minister is not going to treat this in a spirit of antagonism because I believe it is necessary for him to go into the whole question. In England, there was a recent case, the Savage case, in which although I think the police were exonerated the circumstances were such as to justify the Government in getting his Majesty’s judges to lay down a memorandum as to the method which should be pursued in dealng with prisoners awaiting trial, and getting statements from them. I understand there are a large number of these statements and confessions which are brought before the courts, stated to have been made by prisoners. We do not know the circumstances in which they were taken. It is necessary, I think, to go into the matter with a view of seeing whether the memorandum adopted by the judges in England, could not, with advantage, be adapted for use in this country, so as to define the limits within which prisoners in custody can be asked questions. You will also find in Sir Heward Vincent’s “Penal Code” a preface written by that learned judge, Lord Brampton—a distinguished criminal judge—in which he deals with the system to be pursued in allowing constables to put questions to, and to get information from, prisoners. It is quite possible that constables in their anxiety to do good to the force and keep up its good name, as well as to give information to the court, in their zeal, err in consequence of not having instructions which might have kept them from making errors. I do not say that they have no such instructions, but I do say there is sufficient information to justify the Minister investigating the matter and seeing whether rules should not be adopted to lay down precisely the conditions under which prisoners in custody can be asked questions by constables. The memorandum of the judges is printed in the South African Law Journal of November last, page 425, showing the effort made to lay down rules to prevent over-zealous constables from erring in a direction which they should not do. I see the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. Steyn) in the House. A more mischievous statement than that made by the hon. member for Willowmore, it is difficult to conceive. He stood up, and he is a practitioner of long standing, and said that persons were charged merely because they were Dutch Afrikanders, or had Dutch Afrikander names. That is a shocking thing for him to say. In the first place it was not true. But that does not matter a bit whether it was true or not. It is in fact untrue, because there was one coloured constable charged: and he had an English name. But the point is this, that no man should stand up in this House and, without due regard to the facts and the responsibilities of the situation, cast an aspersion on any action taken by the Minister of Justice or the attorney-general. Unless he has good grounds for it, he should refrain from doing so knowing the important position and the control in legal administration exercised by the Minister of Justice and the attorney-general between them. I hope that the Minister of Justice will deal with this matter when he replies. I have raised the points I have with full regard to all the circumstances of the case, in the hope that the Minister of Justice will go into the question and investigate the whole of the facts. Whether it is right or wrong, there are a large number of people who believe that there was, in connection with that case, a great miscarriage of justice, and it is the duty of the Minister of Justice as a Minister of the Crown to investigate the case and see for himself whether there was such a miscarriage of justice or not. He should also let the public know what the true facts were.

I must say that I was astonished at the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). I am astonished that a person who is the leader of the Bar in the Cape Provincial Division could use such language as the hon. member did. The hon. member apparently expects from me that every time his party or the public press is dissatisfied with the decision in the case I should review it. I must go to the judge and ask what his view was, why he used those words, instead of other words, why this, and why that. Let me tell the hon. member that the jury is the only judge in matters of fact; their decision is final, and if any judge wants to explain to them that their decision on the facts was wrong, then they could reply that it was not his business. That is what the hon. member must bear in mind. It does not befit or suit me to ask the judge what his impression is in connection with the jury. I further want to ask the hon. member whether he expects me to go through the whole of the evidence in connection with the cases when any one is apparently disappointed that people have been acquitted? Does the hon. member expect me to go into the evidence and tell the public what I think of the judgment? Then I shall have specially to go into every case, and where I differ from the jury I must make it known. The hon. member cannot rise and say that the jury was wrong, or if he says that the jury was wrong, then he cannot say that they were wrong in any other way than bona fide. I challenge the hon. member to say that the jury was wrong in its finding. But if the jury was not wrong what does the hon. member want? If he wants to give the impression that the jury wilfully came to a wrong finding, or that the jury bona fide came to a wrong finding, what use is it then for me to go into the whole evidence? What is the good of my saying, although I am not the jury I would have come to a different conclusion? If, however, the hon. member wants to suggest—and that is so unjust in his action— that I am lurking behind the matter, let the hon. member then rise in his place, and still more outside the House where he has not the privilege of the House, and let him tell his fellow Afrikaners who were members of the jury, probably Saps. and Nats., that they intentionally came to a wrong decision, then let him do that, but the hon. member comes and wants the Minister of Justice, to make an enquiry sub rosa whether the accused were intentionally discharged. I have never yet heard of any such proposal in connection with any case being made to any Minister of Justice, and it is the more inexplicable from a member of the Bar who ought to know how things are. But the hon. member goes still further; the accused were acquitted of having ill-treated arrested persons who were to be tried. The hon. member wants me to enquire carefully into the circumstances of the people being kept in gaol. What does the hon. member suggest? What was wrong? Why this low charge after the trial by jury that acquitted them? I do not intend to take the least trouble, nor to support the Opposition in the least in the scandalous way they have handled this matter. It was one of the most scandalous things that ever happened that the motion of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) was proposed, and I just want to tell hon. members that if this kind of motion is moved in the future they must not be surprised if it necessarily has a reaction when people are disappointed. I have the fullest confidence in the jury, Dutch speaking or English speaking, or whatever party they may belong to, but I know that no jury would allow itself to be used for certain political purposes, and if these people were ten times guilty —there is not the least proof of that—then the jury would think after the motion like that of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige)—

The Minister cannot go into that.

The attitude of the Opposition, and especially that of their press will, I fear, necessarily have the reaction that such a jury would not allow itself to be used to convict such people.

What about the judge’s remarks?

Does the hon. member suggest that I must act as a judge on a judge? The hon. member also belongs to the same profession. Does he know of one case where it ever happened? It is one of the most irresponsible statements.

I have never yet heard of a judge using such expressions.

I have repeatedly heard of a judge who told the jury that he entirely differed from their judgment and finding, and, as I say, a judge who goes too far lays himself open to the reproach by the jury that they are the only persons to decide on the facts, and that he has nothing to do with the facts. It looks to me very much because the Opposition, especially through their press, took up an attitude in connection with the case—an attitude I fear which is not entirely separate from the pending provincial elections—that they, now that the case is decided, want to save themselves by the strange motion that I ought to review the case.

Are you possibly thinking of the article in the Cape Times?

All I say is that if the people were guilty they have to thank for their acquittal the Cape Times and the Opposition more than the eloquence of their advocate. And we are apparently not at the end of this case yet, because I have had at least three or four journalists to-day who came and asked me what we are now going to do in the matter, whether we are going to abolish the jury system. Do hon. members opposite agree with that? I notice fortunately that the hon. member for Mowbray does not agree that because there is dissatisfaction in certain circles we ought to abolish the jury system. I do not see anyone fortunately in this House who agrees with that, and therefore I shall not say anything further about the press representatives. All I do say is that if a Bill is to be introduced I would prefer to introduce a Bill to abolish the special courts that were constituted in 1914-’15 and in 1922 rather than a Bill with regard to whether there should be juries or not. I hope the hon. member for Mowbray will not take it amiss in me if I do not go fully into the rest of his speech. With all respect to the hon. member it was practically nothing but a repetition of what the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and Standerton (Gen. Smuts) have said. His pious hope about the leadership of the hon. member for Standerton we noted with pleasure, how he would be their leader to the end of days. I only hope then that there will be a little peace and unanimity in the ranks of their party and that the Cape Times also will agree with them. Now the hon. member for Mowbray spoke about statements by the Prime Minister with reference to the attitude of the press during the Rhodesian Customs Conference. I wonder whether the hon. member read the prese during those days.

He was away.

Well then I can understand the attitude of the hon. member, but it is apparently imagined by other hon. members. I want to say here that practically every leading article during those days ended with the words “we must have a convention at any cost.” They do not care whether it is wrong or right to this country, but the agreement must be concluded whether it is in the real interests of the country or not.

Like the Mocambique treaty.

What the Prime Minister referred to was the unpatriotic attitude of the united English press, which only regarded the matter from one side, viz., the Rhodesian point of view. But the hon. member for Mowbray goes further and says that the Minister of Native Affairs has practically prohibited the Opposition from making any criticism. The Minister of Native Affairs said nothing of the kind. All he did was to warn against irresponsible criticism, and I say that if we look at what was written in the papers about the Wellington case, and similar cases, and see what the effect on the public is, then we see that the Minister’s warning was quite justified. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) himself complained that certain newspapers, the Cape Times, and others, by their attitude were constantly engaged in making out to be leaders persons who had not the least influence upon the native. The newspapers take notice, as the hon. member for Tembuland said, of the most irresponsible natives who want to play at being leaders, and who then do harm. Then the hon. member for Mowbray, and still more the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that we had given an entirely wrong construction to the words of the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with the protection policy, and where he stood in that respect. One could see the indignation among the hon. members behind him, it was visible on their faces, when the hon. member said that we had given a wrong interpretation to his words, and the Minister of Defence was especially accused of giving a wrong explanation. I want, however, to quote a leading article from a newspaper published in Natal the same afternoon that the Minister of Defence spoke on the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. I have here a leading article from the Natal Mercury about the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. I see the hon. member laugh, is it possibly not an Opposition newspaper? Is it not the most influential newspaper in Natal? I just want to quote a little of the comment of that newspaper, and I would be glad if hon. members will explain how it is that the same thing that the Minister of Defence said here was said that Wednesday afternoon in the Natal Mercury. The heading is “With what authority?”—

We are very sorry for the Mercury. I think the Mercury is once more feeling very sorry for the hon. member. The argument advanced here is one we really cannot improve upon. The article goes further—

The reference is to the hon. member for Yeoville, hut the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that his personal convictions were in the direction of free trade. He added that he had smothered his real feeling for the sake of his party. The result is, however, that he looks at matters from a wrong angle, and if he says that the above-mentioned customs duty will affect the poor people, then he is carried away by his personal enthusiasm for free trade. The paper then comes to the following conclusion with regard to the criticism of the hon. member for Yeoville—

All hon. members opposite will not see it, but Natal sees it. I am speaking here about the effect which the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville had, and about the impression which it made on the members who sit behind him, and on the public. In Natal there is at least no doubt about the matter. I want to show how for the umpteenth time the Opposition is speaking with two voices. The hon. member for Mowbray said that the Opposition made constructive criticism when it criticized the budget. My point is that I want to prove that the criticism of the opposite side cannot be constructive on account of their divisions.

When One is in favour of protection must he accept everything that is proposed?

Does the hon. member say that the hon. member for Yeoville made an academic speech on protection, and on how far we ought to go with it? No, he confined himself to the specific proposals announced in the budget speech. Then the Mercury proceeds—

In conclusion the paper says—

Well we have now heard the definite reply of the hon. member for Standerton and it was “Yes—no.” I must say it was the answer I expected, and it is the one we always get from the Opposition. What about the Transvaal provincial council election? That is the answer I expected. The hon. member for Yeoville says that it has nothing to do with the case. It is for that very reason I expected that reply. We need not go any further than the attack on the Minister of Defence, and his Labour colleague, and on the whole Labour party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout associated himself with that, and said that the Minister of Defence, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, should resign because no Creswellites had been elected to the Transvaal provincial council.

What about the expression: “One member, one Cabinet Minister?”

The hon. member has already been requested not to make so many interjections. I think hon. members will agree with me that the whole of the attack on these two Ministers, and on the Department of Labour is based on the fact that they must resign because they have no representative in the Transvaal provincial council. That council did not send them here. The Pact was not entered into on the basis of the provincial council, and upon the number of members the Labour party has in the provincial council.

What was the basis?

I want to explain it to the hon. member. He asserted that the Pact was the most unworthy political conspiracy of parties that the country had ever seen. Since the Pact was confirmed after the general election of 1924 the people have had the opportunity of expressing its views about the matter. There was a general election and the country sent the Pact Government back with an overwhelming majority. I must frankly say that I expect this argument which was used against the Minister of Defence, will also be used against the Nationalist party. If it possibly happens in consequence of the propaganda of the South African party in and out of the House that that party gets a majority in the Cape provincial council then the Government will be asked to resign because it no longer represents the people. That is just as illogical as to ask the Minister of Defence to resign now on the ground of the result of the Transvaal provincial election. It may even happen that if they do not get the majority in the Cape provincial council that they will then take the school boards, the divisional councils, or the town councils, and will demand the resignation of the Government on the grounds of the particular constitution of those bodies. There are quite a number of reasons for this attitude of the Opposition, but there is especially one great reason why the Opposition take it up. I am not in the least disturbed about the result of the Transvaal provincial election, especially when I consider the depression, the Quota Bill and the irrelevant talk of hon. members about that Bill.

Did I talk irrelevantly?

No, the hon. member did not, but his leader did. When we consider those things, especially the history of the provincial elections, and the reaction which usually rises against the Government after the general election, then I am not in the least disturbed. I said that there was one reason why the South African party, whether it is by irresponsible motions of back-benchers from which the front-benchers run away, or it is by the attack from the press, even in matters concerning our judicial procedure, and whether it is by one form of propaganda or the other, there is only one reason for this action of the South African party, and it is that there are two provincial elections in view, and this sort of thing is now to serve as encouragement, as a cloth to catch the blood under the wound. After the 1924 election was lost they were kept together by the prophecy of the hon. member for Standerton that the Nationalist Government would only remain in office six months. Later he made it nine months, and then a year, and so on. Those were all prophecies to keep his sheep together. I am firmly convinced that the fuss about the provincial elections in the Transvaal is not due to a sudden interest in roads and education, but it is intended to keep the members of the South African party together by pointing out the so-called victory to them. That is the way they want to keep their people together.

It is like a man whistling in the dark.

Yes, especially when he walks past the churchyard.

We have seen, according to the “Mercury,” that they are divided about protection, about the native question, about the Riotous Assemblies Bill, about the leadership of the hon. member for Standerton, and even about the question as to whether they are divided. I now just want to say a few words about the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr).

When business was suspended I was just about to make a few remarks in connection with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I said that we looked forward with interest to the budget speech of the hon. member, and let me say that with regard to presentation and language we were not disappointed. It was absolutely perfect. It was what we are accustomed to from the hon. member, those of us who knew him outside the House, but so far as matter was concerned, I fear the hon. member fell very far short.

Fie, for shame.

I might also almost say “for shame”. The hon. member commenced by painting an effective picture which reminded us of the picture, “September Morn”. He recalled to mind how the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Railways were blue, frightened and shivering before jumping into the water. Why was it necessary for just the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) to make this comparison, it reminds me of another “September Morn”, and of someone else who sat blue, frightened and shivering, and would not jump into the water, a “September morn” which lasted from December, 1928, right through Palestine, and the general election, until some months thereafter, when at the end of the year he started with a leap into the water. The hon. member said, “the plunge has been made”. We congratulate him on it, but the hon. member should not have made just that comparison. And that is not the only water into which the hon. member wanted to jump. I remember Johannesburg (North) and Bethal, all the water into which the hon. member wanted to jump. I think of Vereeniging, native matters, and all the other big things in connection with which he alone, irrespective of the South African party —because at that time he practically did not know that party—wanted to swim through the water. After the hon. member came to this House he, however, did not get further than sitting blue, frightened and shivering with his party, which was also not prepared to plunge into the water. The hon. member has told us that the budget was not a heroic one, that the Minister of Finance, in order to overlook a big deficit, and to impose effective taxation at once, is out to get rid of the deficit. I think that all hon. members noticed the sensation in the ranks opposite—I will not say among the Philistines, as the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) called them—about the fact that the Minister of Finance ought to withdraw the rebates of 20 per cent. on the income tax. If we are now immediately to impose further taxes, then I would like to hear what the other side would say, especially if it should happen—I hope that we shall still come fortunately out of it, and this may possibly occur if the maize harvest in other parts of the world is a failure—that at the end of the year we shall not have the estimated deficit. Now we have the prospect of a deficit about which the whole Opposition rejoices, but if at the end of the year, after we have gone through a depression, we should have a surplus after we had imposed additional taxes, then I would not like to know what hon. members opposite will say. Their great complaint during the past five years was that we had taken more money out of the pockets of the taxpayers than was right.

Yes.

Good. And just suppose that we are spiteful and put on extra taxes, and then at the end of 1931 have a surplus, then I do not know whether the other side will not ask the Government to resign. I should like to mention a point in connection with the hon. member for Standerton, and in this connection I just want to mention that the hon. member said that we must expect a much bigger deficit, and that we should never cover it by economy. I think I understood the hon. member correctly. But one member after the other opposite got up, even the hon. member for Yeoville, and told us that the budgeting of the Minister of Finance for a deficit of about £400,000 could not possibly be covered by economy. Then the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) told us, and in that respect he was only an echo of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), that this budget was not a pool man’s budget. I do not know whether the hon. member expects us in these times of depression to take off taxation with this large estimated deficit. If hon. members do not suggest that, then their protests simply amount to this that it is directed against the proposed tariffs. If that is so then I would like to see when the proposals in connection with the tariff come before the House, whether hon. members will then state—they talk so much about the poor man—that the increases in the tariff are unnecessary. If the increases are necessary, then the answer to the arguments is what the Mercury has already given to the Natal people. If, however, we do not appreciate that the tariffs must be increased, then it may happen that the statement will be verified that this is not a poor man’s budget, because then hundreds, or possibly thousands of people, will be without food. Then the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) said a few days ago that no less than £800,000 had been paid in wages in tailoring, and we know in what a parlous state that trade would be if they could not get protection. As for the sugar planters, hon. members from Natal can say whether protection is necessary or not. In conclusion the hon. member for Standerton mentioned something else which I cannot allow to pass. When I interrupted him he said that we were putting up the cost of living. I do not know whether the hon. member still maintains that, but I can assure him that all the statistics show that the cost of living has not actually dropped so much during our period of office as we would like to see, but that it has come down quite well. Further, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) gave us an eloquent lecture on the provincial councils, and showed us that there were half a dozen or more defects in connection with the provincial councils. Defects which we have not created, but defects which were created by the Act of Union. I hope that he does not think that he has discovered the defects, because they were known to the national convention. The leader who drew up the Act of Union quite fully realized the difficulties in that connection, but it was the only compromise which could lead to an agreement. Go connection with these defects, I may tell him that I am certain that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is not only aware of them, but can double the number. I am certain that the Minister of Finance can quite easily add quite a lot of other defects. In that respect the hon. member has therefore told us nothing new. What would have been something new is if he had suggested a solution, especially a solution which his party would be prepared to support. I think I do him no injustice when I say that his speech was a strong plea for the abolition of the provincial councils, at least the first part of it, while the second half was just as strong a warning against the abolition of them. The last point he mentions was a serious conciliation argument to the House. I must say that, personally, possibly because I have a little experience of politics, I am a little bit cynical about a conciliatory plea like that. It sounds too much like the “best man Government” of Dr. Jamieson. It reminded me of the arguments of the old progressive. They fought every seat, and if they did not get a majority then suddenly there ought to be “best man Government”. If I am wrong I am sorry, but let me say that as the hon. member made out that there was so little difference between the parties, and advocates co-operation, he is engaged in winning as many seats from us as he can, that gives me the impression that we have once more to do with the arguments of the old progressive. If the hon. member is serious, and is not merely making an empty speech, but if he is serious in his plea that we must not in future make party capital out of everything, then I wish him luck on the wide field of labour he has in his own quarters, and in his own party.

The Minister who has just sat down has made quite a good election speech—it was one that savoured considerably more of the hustings than of the House. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs charged and taxed us with having no constructive criticism, but if any of the three Ministers who spoke this afternoon has given us any constructive programme in the budget debate, I, for one, did not hear it. I was amused when the Minister who has just sat down gave an explanation of the provincial council election debacle in the Transvaal. It reminded me of the story of the young surgeon about his first operation. He said: “The operation was a success, but the patient is dead.” In this ease, the one patient—the Labour party—is dead, and the other—the Nationalist party— is moribund. The Minister made great play with an article from the” Natal Mercury,” but I would remind our Natal friends that, in the past or in the present, when they say anything which is opposed to the Government, they are called un-South African, empire builders, jingoes, and so on. Sometimes they are referred to in terms of opprobrium such as “ex-Unionists,” “Sons of England,” and so on, but immediately they agree with the Government, they are patted on the back and told they are good little boys. Our Natai friends will know how much importance to attach to any commendation coming from the Government. However, I would advise hon. members opposite not to attach too much importance to that article. There is an old adage which says that “gratitude is a lively sense of favours to come,” and in that article there is an evident anticipation of sugary and other favours to come. A concerted attack has been made by the Prime Minister and others on the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hafmeyr). Why have they attacked him? Their chief reason is that he is preaching conciliation. He has gone about the country telling the people that the old feuds started by the Prime Minister have vanished. Is that his offence? Wherever I go throughout the country, I find a very real desire that these old fratricidal quarrels should cease. It seems to me that the Pact Government, knowing that the sands of time are running out, are now going to start the old troubles again—a drowning man grasping at a straw. That seems to be the chief accusation against the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), that, he is trying to heal the breach. That is why he has met with nothing but scorn, contempt and jeers from the other side. We will leave it to the country to decide whether the hon. member is right. I only hope the country will not allow itself again to be stampeded by these old feuds which have caused so much trouble in the past. The Nationalist movement has been an unmitigated curse to South Africa. It has divided families, friends, neighbours and people of the same race and the same country during the 15 years this ceaseless propaganda has been continued. The hon. member for Johannesbrug (North) is conducting a propaganda to do away with all this. More power to him !

You are not following in his footsteps.

He is following in mine. Every single member of the South African party has been preaching the same thing, and nothing I have said in my political life has tended towards anything else but the healing of this wound.

What about flunkeys?

I am not going to raise this question of flunkeys, but I would like to point out how illogical the Prime Minister was the other night. He says I insulted the majesty of the South African people by saying that a few political favourites sent overseas were glorified flunkeys. But what does the Prime Minister do? He tells us that on this side of the Hause we are renegades and “smousers.” He hurled a number of epithets at us. Who insulted the majesty of the country? Was it the hon. the Prime Minister by the using of all these epithets with regard to the representatives of the people, or myself? I leave it to the people of the country to judge. The hon. the Minister of Justice followed the example of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs by charging us with being opposed to protection. Apparently their standpoint is that the moment one of us refuses to lend our unquestioning support to any protective measure, however unsound, the cry goes up, “’ere’s a free trader; ’eave ’alf a brick at him.’ Let me tell the other side of the House that we are not prepared to follow them blindly into any unsound protectionist scheme which the Government may put forward. As far as I am concerned, I wish it were possible to have no protective walls anywhere in the world. I believe that protective walls as between nations have caused a great deal of harm, and are a constant menace of international trouble; but I admit that tariff walls have come to stay, and that we have to follow suit. Nevertheless, if I could have my way, I would abolish all tariff walls. That, however, is a counsel of perfection. It cannot be done, but I repeat that we are not going to follow blindly the Government in any of these economically unsound schemes that they are springing upon the country. We favour protective schemes so long as they are sound economically, and no others. Will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Mines mention to me one solitary bona fide South African industry which has been put on its feet, and which is to-day paying its way, thanks to protection. What, for example, has become of the diamond cutting industry? At the last election the most lavish promises were held out. I am afraid they were intended more as perorations than for practical use. If my information is correct, the majority of the diamond cutting concerns are going to close down, and these unfortunate people from Holland, who were enticed here with glowing promises, when they go back will not, I understand, be accepted by their various unions. They will find themselves paupers. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to one real South African industry which is being strangled by railways, and that is timber. If protected and fostered the industry would be of more importance that all the tinpot little industries they are protecting put together. Thousands of European workers would get employment. I can give one example in my own constituency, where afforestation has been carried on by the T.G.M.E., which has planted thousands of acres of trees; they are going to curtail development, because they say timber is not paying because it is being strangled by railways. Yet an industry such as the screwing of tin plates together and calling itself a South African industry is being protected by the Government.

Do you believe that?

I was given this information with permission to mention it in Parliament. The fact is that rates are too high, and even when industries are bolstered up by pseudo bastard protection—

Such as?

Such as making cream cans from imported materials; protecting cheap gun barrels and things like that. You need only look at the list of protected articles.

Are boots and shoes a bastard industry?

I never mentioned boots and shoes.

You said that cream cans were a bastard industry.

The cream can industry does not use one single thing which was produced in this country. I can see from the interest which the article in the “Natal Mercury” has created in the mind of the Minister of Justice and other members of the Government that they believe in protection no matter what the cost is to the country, no matter how economically unsound a scheme is. If we venture to criticise it, they say, “’eave ’alf a brick !” The members on that side of the House would be willing to support the building of battleships on Hartebeestpoort dam and manufacturing fountain pens on Table Mountain; they do not care what it costs. The Minister of Mines and Industries is a protectionist of that type; it is a fundamental creed with him that the taxpayer will pay the cost. You have used this principle on all occasions. Blow the expense; the taxpayer will pay. I would like to be told what the Government’s intentions are with regard to the Pretoria steel works. Prophecy about South African politics or South African weather is always risky, but I make this prophecy, and would like it to go on record, that that steel industry run by the state is going to be the most ghastly failure ever seen in this country. We do not oppose the steel industry; we did more to start one than the present Government. But has there ever been any competitive industry in the world run by a state which has proved successful? The state can run a telegraph office, or a railway system — non-competitive commodities which the public must have. But I prophesy with conviction that a steel industry can never be run successfully by the state. The steel industry is, with the exception of the oil industry, the most specialized and highly-organized in the world. The United Steel Corporation supports nearly 11,000,000 people— more than the whole population of the Union is supported by one steel corporation alone—you are going to compete with people like that in Germany, France, England and America at a time when steel is depressed. Armstrong-Whitworths have to write down £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, and yet a state concern is going to butt in and make a success of steel manufacture here. We know the official mind; by the very nature of their work, the official mind runs in a groove; yet we are going to run an industry with a half-time official at its head. What will be the result of the Pretoria steel works? You will create vested interest with many people dependent on it, and politically it will become impossible ever to abolish it. The industry will then have to be bolstered up by protective tariffs, and the two primary industries—mining and farming—will have to pay for it. All the three hon. Ministers, during their speeches, have shown themselves hypersensitive to criticism. I do not know why they are getting rattled. The Prime Minister becomes almost unbalanced at times. This afternoon he had one of his violent outbursts about newspaper criticism of the Rhodesian convention. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that it was through that very newspaper criticism that the convention was reopened. The newspapers merely reflected the opinion of the public in the Union. If they had not indulged in that criticism we should have had customs bouses along the border, we would not have had this question re-opened. The press, instead of deserving all this contumely and invective, has performed a great public service, and, instead of being thankful to the press, they are getting abuse. We find the same sort of sensitiveness to criticism by hon. members in regard to the native question. We were told this afternoon by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs: “Do not say anything about the native question.” Do you think it is possible for a great public question like that to exist without the press taking notice of it? Is the press to be gagged over a question like that?

Who ever suggested that?

The hon. Minister of Native Affairs suggested it. He suggested that press criticism on the native question was creating all this harm in the country. He suggested that’ this criticism, perfectly honest and sincere criticism, in the press, was the cause of it. I suggest that the root of the trouble is entirely different. It is a case of cause and effect. I ask the Minister to consider whether these grave symptoms of native unrest that we are seeing in the country to-day—and I have never known them so bad before—are not the work of the Pact Government? I ask you whether they are caused by press criticism or by the type of legislation and the atmosphere created by the present Pact Government? The hon. the Minister of Native Affairs ended up on a note of altruism; “We want to do the right thing for the natives.” I ask him to cast his mind back and to tell me whether during the six years of Pact Government, there has been one single law placed upon the statute book conferring any benefit on the natives? I ask whether one single law was enacted under the Pact Government which was not repressive in its effects?

Opswepery !

If agitation means suppressing the truth, if “opswepery” means suppressing the truth, then you can call me an agitator. That is exactly the mentality that the Government is creating in this country. The moment we tell the truth we are told that we are agitators. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) was carried shoulder high on the shoulders of natives.

That is an untruth.

I wish I could have a cinema (picture of the hon. member and a gramophone record of his interruptions and take them to Stellenbosch to show to his native supporters who carried him shoulder high to this House. If we are not going to say what we think about the native, and we are to be called agitators, the moment we say the things that lie on our minds, it would be a disastrous policy for the country. I have told this House before that I am not an Exeter Hall negrophilist or a mawkish sentimentalist about the native. I have grown up from the republican days, and I have found the old native a decent and honest sort of a fellow. I say that he is not receiving a fair deal from the white people in this country. The Government not only in its legislation, but the members of the Government and members of Parliament on the other side of the House, through their speeches are creating an atmosphere in this country which tends to make the native in this country an enemy and an alien. I say that the whole atmosphere we are creating is wrong. It is going to pile up a day of wrath for us in this country. I repeat that I am not a sentimentalist about the subject, but hon. members on the other side seem to look upon the native as an animal, and the whole atmosphere we are creating is one of hostility towards the native, instead of realizing that the native, whatever his handicaps may be, is a citizen of South Africa.

What about Bulhoek?

What about that from a minister of the church? Recently I read a definition of true South African patriotism by a ‘Nationalist, Professor Edgar Brookes. I would like to quote it as far as I can remember it. He said—

And he said “that the man who espoused the cause of only one particular section of the people and took up an attitude hostile to the rest may think he was a patriot, but he is doing his country a great disservice.” That is a definition of patriotism to which I subscribe. The native will never be our equal socially, or intellectually or politically. But the more he is our inferior, the greater the duty it is that devolves upon the white man to give him a square deal, and we are not giving him a square deal. Every law that is passed is repressive. You can start from the Prime Minister’s “black manifesto” and see if there is any sympathy there. You can look through every statute or law dealing with the native question during the last six years of the Pact Government, and I ask you to tell me whether there is anything of sympathy for the native in a single one of them. All repressive and all oppressive! I say that these symptoms in the country to-day are a question of cause and effect. You cannot suppress any section of human beings for any length of time and not expect that sort of thing. My reading of history has taught me that from the dawn of time there has never been a period when you can permanently and unjustly suppress any species of human being, even on the lowest scale of the ladder. The Government is defeating its own object. Repressive acts are a spur and an incentive to a man who is oppressed. I am not supporting agitators. I would like to suppress agitators myself, but I would warn the Government that if they provide an agitator with a just grievance he is thrice armed, and that is what you are doing.

In what way?

In your legislation and every possible way. I say the whole trend is due to a fear complex. Look how illogical we are. On the one side, we are shouting for more native workmen and want to exploit them, and on the other side we are treating them like helots, and the worst offenders are the so-called Labour members. In the past, in other countries, the Labour movement, whatever its shortcomings may be, has always championed the cause of the under-dog. The Labour slogan in other countries is: “Workers of the world, you have only your chains to lose, but you have the world to gain.” These so-called South African Labour members are not workers. They are overseers. They are the aristocracy of labour. They are the worst oppressor#x2019;s of the workers in this country. The so-called South African Labour party, the so-called Labour Ministers are the worst oppressors of the real working man and the underdog in this country. If the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs were to go to Moscow he would be hanged. I would like to know what the Labour party in England thinks of them. I have sympathy with a great many Labour aspirations, but when I find a man talking about labour ideals, yet taking the lead in grinding down the workers in this country, the sooner that party is ruled out of existence the better. Arising out of the native question, I want to come to the Mozambique convention, which is a very important off-shoot of the native question. Three Ministers to-day made a very lame defence of this treaty. Personally, I can only repeat what I have previously said: that this convention is lamentable from every angle. It is a series of inexplicable mistakes on the part of the Government. I wish to draw the attention of the House to its worst features, in the hope that the matter can still be remedied. I have just come from the Barberton district, where a mass meeting was held to discuss this subject. It was not a political meeting, but was attended by Nationalists and South African party men, representatives of agricultural and publicity associations and mining organizations. What struck me in the first place at the meeting was that every farmer and miner who addressed the meeting spoke of the moral aspect of deporting natives from the country who did not want to leave it. Portuguese natives who had been with them for 30 years and had raised families in this country would come to their employers and ask: “Baas, why are we to be sent back over the Portuguese border?”

Have you any instance where they have been sent back?

I have instances of orders having been given, but if they are not to be sent back I shall not have spoken in vain. The manager of the New Consort mine stated that he employed 200 natives, 60 of whom had made an average stay on the mine of 20 years, and orders had been issued to have them sent over the border, their wives being deported first in order to force the husbands to follow. It is true that every nation has the right to say who shall come to live in its territory, but I know of no civilized country which imposes a universal prohibition on its nationals, and tells them: “You shall be penned up within your borders.”

Russia.

I said civilized country. The Prime Minister in his outburst the other day said I had cast reflections on the Portuguese. No, I was casting reflections on our own Cabinet Ministers. I said I reverently lifted my hat to the Portuguese for the astute way in which they defended their interests, that my admiration for them in that respect has increased, but my respect for the astuteness of our Government has gone down very much lower than it was. Our Portuguese neighbours say they have adopted this principle—that their natives in Portuguese territory must remain there. In other words, a new form of mass slavery has been invented. All these thousands of Portuguese natives are told that they must be penned within the arbitrary international boundaries like so many cattle, and the Union Government is lending itself to this system. Our policemen are smelling out these unfortunate people, even down here in Sea Point and Cape Town, and on the farms and mines in the Barberton district our policemen are doing this humiliating work.

What mines?

Pilgrims Rest, Sabie and New Consort. Many of these Portuguese natives have married Transvaal native women, and they do not want to leave Union territory, but we are taking them by the scruff of the neck and putting them over the border. Is it not humiliating for a citizen of the Union to have to go to the Portuguese curator established inside our borders? They have to go with their hats in their hands, and when the Portuguese curator calls on them to hand over their natives they have to do so. So we have a system under which foreign officials exercise control in our country, notwithstanding our boast of “South Africa first. South Africa alone.” If a white citizen wants to live in Portuguese territory, China or Guam, he can do so, but if a native from Portuguese territory desires to enter the Union he is not allowed to do so. I wonder what the League of Nations would say to this, and I wonder what our conscience says of it. I told the House before that the boundary between the Union and Portuguese East Africa is a purely arbitrary one, cutting tribes in half, with the result that on one side of the line a native is prohibited, and if he does enter the Union he is ferreted out and put over the border. I have discussed the moral side of the question. I now want to discuss the material side. I have been accused of wanting the Government to bully the Portuguese. We have lived long enough in this world under post-war conditions to know that in our time no nation, great or small, can be bullied. I know that our Portuguese friends possess, in a greater degree than we do ourselves, that spirit of national dignity which is so important. But if two individuals or Governments sit round a table to conclude a contract both are justified in using their bargaining powers to the full. From the way the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon, you would think that we have nothing that the Portuguese want from us. I charge him and the Minister of Railways and Harbours with having neglected completely the bargaining power we have on our side—not a question of threatening or bullying, but putting on the table what we possess, of which no use whatever was made. Our Portuguese friends have a large surplus supply of native labour. Let me emphasize this. My information, which comes from a very reliable source, is that they have a large surplus supply.

What source?

That is beside the point at the moment. They completely bluffed the Minister of Railways and Harbours that they did not have that surplus supply. I dare not give the Minister my source, because I know he might well be victimized.

Why are not the mines able to recruit that labour?

Probably because of the stupid restrictions which are imposed. On our side we have an equally valuable asset which to the Portuguese must be a great thing—our money and trade—which were completely ignored by the Government. The Prime Minister said, “I warn you; by another treaty you will not get any natives at all”. I say, “stuff and nonsense I say the Portuguese completely out-manoeuvred our youthful and inexperienced Minister of Railways and Harbours. There is a good deal of truth in the cartoon that was published by the Portuguese, showing a building with the Pact Ministers inside and a lot of people laughing outside the building, which is marked “Home for Children”, That is the estimate which our Portuguese friends rightly have of our Ministers. Let us look at the result. Before the treaty, the mines had 110,000 natives. My right hon. Leader said, “105,000”, but I am informed that it is 110,000. There were 13,000 on the coal mines and 10,000 to 12,000 on the farms. We surrendered 50,000 native workers at one swoop, for which we get nothing, and also surrendered the right to get more in future. In the second place, the Minister of Railways and Harbours fatuously enough, in dealing with the Portuguese, thought he would make them a present of the 7s. 6d. customs for natives going back. Under the former arrangement for every native that went back from the mines our Government paid 7s. 6d., for which the native could take his goods purchased in the Transvaal free of customs duty That cost this country about £30,000 a year The Minister of Railways and Harbours, fatuously thinking he would do a good stroke of business, said: “You have been so good to us, we will also remember this £30,000”. The Portuguese jumped at it.

It is foolish.

The Minister is a good judge of what is foolish. Did you give up that 7s. 6d. or not? To-day every native, who used to buy his tin trunk and stock of goods to take back to his kraal, has to pay a prohibitive duty at Komati Poort, and has completely ceased purchasing in the Union. The result of trade on the Rand is the loss of one and a half million per annum. I want to come to the result on the farmers. I know that to quote figures is a tactical error at this stage of the budget debate, but I want to show how it has affected our farmers. Another feature of the convention is that the Portuguese can flood our markets with what they like. Before this new treaty the Portuguese sent into the Union fruit, £664 worth, in 1920. Since the treaty, in, one year, they sent in £59,326. The figures for 1929 are not available, but will probably be much more. It has sprung from nothing, practically, to £59,000.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I am quoting your own figures. The Minister can put me right. I hope I am wrong. Let me take the question of ground nuts. I have just received an urgent appeal from one co-op. Before the treaty, they sent us £27, and now they send us £52,000. The farmers’ Government over there is laughing, but I can assure you it is no laughing matter for the farmer. As regards tobacco, before the Portuguese treaty, we sent £19,500 to Portuguese territories, and now £790. With regard to maize meal, we used to send £15,900, and now £12. Let us summarize on the debit side what this treaty has cost us. It is costing us 50,000 natives, £1,500,000 turnover on the Rand, threatened ruin to our farmers in the low country and to our mines and sugar industry in the low country. What single benefit have we obtained? The Government has made a unilateral agreement; it is all on one side. The Portuguese have every right to be proud of their work. I have never heard a lamer defence of the treaty than I heard from Ministers this afternoon. If this is the sort of treaty we are going to get, then Lord help us! It seems to me that the Minister of Railways was so inflated with the bare idea of being entrusted with the task of making a treaty, that he did not worry about the contents of it. I have just come back from my constituency, and from Tsaneen, a very fertile area, which has been very seriously damaged by this treaty. In the low country, I am told that for every 6 to 8 natives you remove from there, you have one white man less. If you take 6,000 natives away, 1,000 white, men automatically vanish from the low country. The mines down there are an important national asset, and the farms, the citrus and sub-tropical fruit industries, and cotton—all stagnant to-day. If the hon. the Minister is really going to do what he has bound himself to do under the treaty, and I presume he will carry out the treaty, then I predict widespread ruin. My object in re-opening this question to-night is to ask the Government whether, in spite of the blunders they have made, they cannot get it re-opened in some way or other. A weak man will refuse to acknowledge that he has made a mistake. We are all human and fallible, especially on the other side, but I hope the Government will be strong enough to admit that they have made an appalling blunder. Hon. members have questioned my figures. Possibly my figures may not be as accurate as a budget statement, but the results of the treaty are as I have stated.

Your figures are wrong.

For the sake of argument, say that my figures are faulty. My deductions are not faulty. The result of the treaty on the mines and on the farmers of the country is going to be as I have stated. I hope Ministers will not try to side-track what I have said by attacking my figures.

You attacked just now, don’t defend yourself.

I suggest to the Minister that he should not try to draw a red herring over the trail with regard to my figures. Will he confine himself to my statements as to whether the Government have given away valuable rights and secured nothing whatever in return? Let the Government show itself to be strong for once. Let them get up and admit they have made a mistake, and say they will try to re-open the question. Surely there must be some way of re-opening this question with our Portuguese friends. I have spoken at some length on the matter, because of its importance.

After the exhibition we have had from our hon. friend, who claims that he is leading in a struggle for reconciliation between the two parties, and that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) is only following in his wake, I would like to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) whether he is perfectly satisfied with the lead which he is following, this lead which is given by the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz), to bring the two sides together. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to analyze the speech which has just been made, in order to demonstrate what a wonderful pacifist the hon. member for Barberton is, but I may ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) whether he thinks that sort of speech is likely to lead to success in the attempt which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is making.

What is wrong with it?

Everything is wrong with it from beginning to end. If that sort of speech is going to pacify hon. members on the other side, I can give the hon. member for Barberton the assurance that it is not going to pacify anybody on this side. What he is going to succeed in doing, if he persists, is to drive us further apart. That is not the sort of speech that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) would like to hear if he is genuine, and I quite believe he is genuine in his attempt to bring about reconciliation.

Why don’t you try?

I have not claimed in this House that I am a great pacifist, or that I am out to bring the two peoples together, because I recognize that it is going to be a very difficult proposition when we get the class of speech that we have been getting this evening, and that it is going to be an almost impossible proposition so long as you have hon. members on the other side of the type of the hon. members for Barberton and Klip River. He is a gentleman who sees red the moment a Nationalist dares to stand up to address the House; a gentleman who sees no good in any hon. members on this side. I would like to ask the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) whether he has ever in his political experience acknowledged in any instance a good action this Government might have done. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) does get up occasionally to acknowledge that this Government is capable sometimes of some little good: but I have never heard from the hon. member for Klip River any acknowledgment on his part. Hon. members of that calibre are going to make the task of my hon. friend who sits next to him a very difficult one. Fortunately, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) is a young man and we do not know what time will show, but while he follows in the wake—while he follows the lead given—

I do not.

I understand the hon. member to say he does not follow that leadership.

I am quite content with my leadership at the present moment.

I do not know which that is, because there are so many leaders. I would like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) to know that I am very anxious to assist him in his laudable task, but I would like to know what he is after: if he is following the lead of the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) I cannot follow him, and I am afraid members on this side of the House will not be able to follow him.

We are trying to follow you at the moment.

I have not pretended to set a lead and I know far better than to attempt to lead the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). He is one whom you can never reconcile to anything South African. You cannot reconcile him to South Africa; you cannot reconcile him to nationalism. He does not believe in the nationalism of the country he lives in. That is what we charge him with. I am not going to pursue this lead given by the hon. member for Barberton to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), except by saying that this sort of speech that we have listened to from the hon. member for Barberton with regard to our treatment of the natives—I am sorry the hon. member for Mowbray is getting impatient.

No, I am trying to get you to come to the point.

Yes, the difficulty is to get to the point when you are led by hon. members on the other side, but when he was talking about the progressive legislation which is being passed by the Government—all this sort of talk will not do us any good and will not do the natives any good; on the contrary it will do an infinite amount of harm, because, even if it is not deliberately intended to do harm, it cannot fail to agitate the native mind out-side. We certainly do not mind hon. members criticizing our policy, but this sort of criticism—“ The old type of native is not receiving a square deal from this Government” —this will not temper the minds of the natives outside.

If I think it is true, do you object to my saying so?

I would not care to question motives, but I have my sincere doubts whether these sentiments expressed by the other side are not expressed with an eye on the votes. That is unfortunately the spirit in which we are being met.

Do not you believe that I am sincere?

I cannot conceive—if the hon. gentleman does want an answer—that the hon. gentleman could be sincere in some of his remarks—

On a point of order, is the hon. Minister justified in saying what he did? I believe from the bottom of my heart what I said, and I want to know whether the hon. Minister has the right to question my sincerity. I say that is a dastardly and a caddish thing to do.

I have not completed my sentence. The hon. member was trying to get a statement from me in order to make an exhibition. I said I could not believe the hon. member was sincere. I have not yet finished. I cannot conceive that he can he sincere when he used some of the remarks that he has made here this evening.

I again object to the hon. Minister’s remarks. I have given the hon. Minister and this House the assurance that I am speaking with a sense of responsibility and a sincere belief in every word I uttered, although the Minister may not agree. All I said I said from the bottom of my heart. I said that if he questioned my sincerity it would be caddish, but I am prepared to suppress this hypothetical epithet. I do not expect the hon. Minister to agree with me, but I do expect him to believe that I spoke with the utmost sincerity.

The hon. Minister should not impute bad motives to the hon. member; he should take his word.

The hon. member has asked you, sir, to ask me to withdraw. I do so on your ruling, sir. I have not been able to—

Withdraw.

I withdraw any imputation of bad motives. I said before that I am not going to assign any motives. I said before this that the hon. gentleman urged me on, and then he did not allow me to finish what I was going to say. I will leave the matter there now. All I can say is this. I can hardly understand an honourable gentleman of the position which is occupied by the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) getting up in this House and sincerely believing that we are out to exploit the native.

You cannot understand me.

The hon. member used the words “exploit the natives.”

You do not understand my motives.

I cannot understand a gentleman of the hon. member’s standing getting up in this House—

He has got no standing at all.

And saying that we are not giving a square deal to the old type of native. If he had said the agitating native, if he had said the modernized native, if he had said the detribalized native—

I said the native generally.

I took clown what the hon. member said. Is the old type of native giving us any trouble? Are any measures here directed against the old type of native? I think I had better leave the hon. gentleman [interruption], I can understand that hon. members are pleased to get away from the subject. I wish to make one or two remarks in regard to the Mozambique convention. I shall leave it to the hon. Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance who were actively associated with the convention that was entered into to deal with it more effectively. In passing I would say that the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) has made the same error that was made by his leader this afternoon. His leader disclaimed all knowledge of the treaty which existed during his regime. He said it was better to have gone on without a treaty. I concluded from that and the correction made to the Prime Minister that he had quite forgotten. I can quite understand that the hon. member may have forgotten. He had forgotten all about it evidently and gave no sign or knowledge of it until he was reminded of it by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Barberton had entirely forgotten again that this curator to whom he takes strong exception, is not a new establishment.

No, but he is doing new work.

He was inside our territory. That was not the exception taken this evening. The statement made this evening by the hon. member for Barberton was that we allowed such an official inside our territory.

No, no.

I never said that.

They run away again.

Twisting.

I should like to ask the hon. member one or two questions if he will do me the honour of replying. He asks us what is the use of this treaty? I ask him would be advocate this Government renouncing that treaty?

We cannot renounce, you made it.

Would you like to get out of this treaty? I cannot get a reply from him. I ask whether this particularly bad treaty we have is one that the hon. member would advocate us renouncing. Would be advocate cancelling that treaty by mutual consent?

You were such fools as to sign that treatly that you cannot renounce it.

Supposing the Portuguese Government were satisfied to agree to the cancellation of that agreement?

It depends upon what you want to agree to.

Supposing they agreed to the cancellation and we go on, as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said this afternoon, without any agreement at all? [Interruption.] They disagree again.

Do you approve the policy of repatriation?

I cannot answer all these questions at the same time.

You cannot answer one of them.

If the hon. member will reserve that question for a time I will reply to it. The question I want to ask is supposing that whereas this treaty which was in existence during the time this Government was in office, had expired and no treaty had been entered into at all, what right would we have had, or what right would the mines have had, to recruit in another country’s territory? The question is what right would we have had to recruit in Portuguese territory?

Mutual interest. We have no right.

Mutual interests without an agreement? My question is does the hon. gentleman wish to infer that these astute gentlemen, and I say that with all respect—

You are not referring to the Government are you?

Would they have been able to allow us when we declined to make any agreement, to enter their territory and recruit natives for the mines? They are cute business men.

If they wanted business, yes.

If there was no treaty at all there would be no business done, and the mines would not have had labour.

You fellows cannot play poker

I admit that I cannot. I take off my hat to the hon. member for Barberton. I have not a poker face, I cannot say one thing and mean another. I want to deal with just one or two points raised during the debate. One was raised by the hon. member for Barberton this evening in regard to the Pretoria Steel Works. I am not going to say anything about the Pretoria Steel Works beyond this that they will be established in South Africa, they will work, and I should like to remind the hon. member for Barberton of what was said in England on this very question of steel and iron works by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin. This, I think, will be very interesting in view of what the hon. member for Barberton has said in regard to steel works in South Africa never going to pay.

State steel works never will pay.

Are they purely state works? The hon. member, if he does not want them to be a purely state concern, has the opportunity of advising his friends to put money into the concern, if he objects to a state industry.

How many of you have taken shares in the industry?

This is what Mr. Baldwin said on the question of unemployment on a motion introduced by him on the 13th March, 1930—

I think this is quite enough, and that I need say nothing more about the Pretoria Iron and Steel Works. I would like to pass on to another matter, and that is the cost of living. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said to the Minister of Finance this afternoon that the Government has raised the cost of living. The Minister of Finance asked in what respect, and the leader of the Opposition replied: “By increasing the burdens on the people.” Let us examine that. In 1924, the burdens on the people were £23,500,000, the total state expenditure, and they are now £31,000,000. Now let us look at the index figures. I am not going to take the 1920 figure, for that would be very unfair, but I will take the 1925 wholesale price index of all goods— South African and imported—which was 1,436, as compared with 1,289 for last July, 1,277 for last October, and 1,305 for last December, or an average of less than 1,300.

The figures have been rising the last six months.

No. In 1928 the figure was 1,354, and since 1925 the figure has decreased from 1,436 to an average of 1,300. As to retail prices, the average for food, fuel, light and sundries in 1924 was 1,453. Last December, the figures were 1,413, and last January 1,410. “The Economist” stated last December, when discussing the cost of living that wholesale prices have decreased substantially, and the present level is only between 13 and 14 per cent, higher than it was in 1913.

Does that apply to South Africa?

Yes. In 1924, the last year the South African party held office, the wholesale price index was—

What does The Economist, which is published in England, know about South African conditions?

I would recommend the hon. member to study The Economist, In 1924 the wholesale price level was 28.7 per cent, higher than in 1913.

Those figures do not agree with your official year book.

If the hon. gentleman will kindly allow me. If my information is wrong, I shall be the first to stand up in the House and ask for a correction.

That does not tally with your figure of 1910.

I want to deal with this question of the cost of living, as it applies in South Africa. We are charged here with foolishly sending up that cost of living by our tariff and protective legislation and the like. What is the position? I am quoting from the monthly supplement of The Economist of December 28th, 1929—

What is your deduction?

My deduction is that compared with Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the United States of America, we are not doing so very badly; so, so far from this Government having sent up the cost of living, I claim it has succeeded in effecting a substantial reduction since 1924—

It sounds like Bruwer.

Supposing it is. I shall not lay my personal notes on the Table—not for the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) or anybody else. [Further quotation from The Economist read.] I would like to deal with only one more question, and that is with regard to the diamond cutting industry. Of course, no one regrets more than we do, as we all do, that in conjunction with other commodities, the diamond market is not so active as it was, because our diamonds, form a very important portion of the production of our country. Diamond production is not the only industry which has suffered as the result of the depression; wool, copper and other products have suffered infinitely more than the diamond position. The diamond position is not what we wish it to be, but it is not amongst the worst. We would like the prices to be stabilized like that of gold, but we are doing the next best thing, and I am glad to be able to say there is no danger in the arrangement which has just been concluded that the price of diamonds will be affected, if at all, certainly not seriously. The diamond market, so far as we can say, is going to be stabilized. The most important consumer was, as the House knows, America, which took 75 per cent, of the world’s consumption of between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000. We hope, within a few weeks or months, I do not want to be over-sanguine, that the question of the tariff will be settled in America. Everybody, the whole of the diamond trade, is anticipating that, and I think there is a reasonable hope that the diamond market will open up again; perhaps not to its full capacity, but showing an improvement, certainly, on the present position.

With regard to the cutters?

The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) said these people were induced and enticed to come to South Africa. If they were, they were certainly not enticed by the Government.

Did they apply for information through your agent at the Hague?

They may have; if they did, they got correct information. I do not think there is any imputation on that side of the House that these people were misled on the part of the Government, and that we gave them false and wrong information; that we induced them to come to the country on a misrepresentation of fact.

Your optimism.

What optimism when we established the industry here? I do not think that merit’s a reply.

I thought not.

I mentioned here the other day that there was only one factory in the Cape Peninsula that had closed, and that temporarily, and was re-organized, and another was about to close. The position is, from the latest figures I have, there are nine other cutting factories in Johannesburg that have either temporarily closed, or have not started operations yet. The biggest of the temporarily closed factories is the Belgium Diamond Cutting Works with 33 cutters and 20 apprentices. The one here, it is hoped, will very soon be in operation again. During the three months, January to March, 36 cutters left Johannesburg and 11 left Cape Town, and passages have been booked by 11 others from Cape Town. The number unemployed on the 9th March was 34 in Johannesburg and 11 in Cape Town. The trouble is that these men are paid very high wages. The companies that got these men oat have been paying them from £30 to £100 per month, and these wages are two-and-a-half times as high as the wages paid in Antwerp. According to the latest advices the diamond cutting employees in Belgium number 23,000, in Holland, mostly in Amsterdam, 6,200, in Germany 1,000, in France 800, and in the United States 300, while we have been employing 340 cutters with a similar number of apprentices. That is the position, and I do not think that it is extraordinarily bad considering the depression we are going through. The Government is still of exactly the same conviction that it was when these factories were started. We still want a reasonable proportion of the diamonds produced in the Union to be cut in South Africa. I do not think we have ever claimed that the whole of the work should be done here, but we certainly want a reasonable share of that work, and I think from the reports we have had that we have made very good progress. I have had very good reports with regard to the South African apprentices, to the effect that they show an aptitude which is above the average, and that we have South Africans who have qualified who are equal to the men that come here. We are turning, out quite a good article, and from that point of view there is no reason why the industry should not be firmly established. We are as anxious as ever to promote and to develop this industry in South Africa, but we can only do it on sound lines, and we are out to give the local cutters the full benefit of the 10 per cent, export duty.

Do you realize that that means a contribution by the state of £25 per week per cutter?

That export duty is a very substantial contribution. I do not suppose that my hon. friend is taking exception to it. The 10 per cent, was put on for that purpose.

That is, the contribution by the state?

Yes, that is the remission of revenue for the stones cut in South Africa, but we are still out to foster this industry only on sound business principles. It is our intention to sell the stones at such a price that the local purchaser, as compared with the overseas purchaser, will have the whole benefit of that 10 per cent, and, so far as the Government is concerned, of that 10 per cent. only.

What does the state get for that £25 per week per man?

It gets an industry started in South Africa.

How many apprentices are there?

340. This industry is assuming far larger proportions than my hon. friend seems to have realized. We are cutting a substantial proportion of the world’s diamonds. That is what we are doing, and I hope the agitators who have come to the Government and asked us to sell them stones on credit, will realize that the Government can only establish the industry here on sound business lines. That, after all, is what hon. members on the other side of the House have been clamouring for— the establishment of industries on sound business lines. We shall deal with the industry as sympathetically as possible, but, so far as the finances go, only with that 10 per cent, export duty in their favour. I hope that we shall have no more speeches of the sort that we have had from the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) in his attempt to reconcile the two sides.

The hon. the Minister has quoted certain figures in respect of the cost of living, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I think if he will examine those figures again a little more carefully he will find that they are slightly misleading and altogether unconvincing. It is true that the figures he quoted showed a very slight decline, but he included wearing apparel, whereas the Leader of the Opposition was referring to the cost of living, and the cost of living comprises light, fuel, food and rent. Now the cost of living figures for 1923, the last year of South African party control, as shown by the published index figure, then stood at 1,309, whereas for 1929 you will find that the index figure has risen to 1,336. That entirely supports what the Leader of the Opposition said, and, moreover, if you take the average during the time the Pact has been in office, you will find that it is 1,334. I think the figures of the hon. Minister were anything but convincing. Coming to the debate, a challenge has been thrown across the House on several occasions that the South African party is not genuine as to its economic policy; that we have a strong leaning towards free trade when the occasion suits us, whilst posing as protectionists. That challenge was again thrown across the House by the Minister of Labour. We are glad to see him come back to life, because we have regarded him for some time as an extinct volcano. Now, if the Minister of Labour looks at the record of the South African party he will find that its economic policy was one of the most striking in effect in its history. Output from industrial undertakings under the South African party rose from £40,000,000 in 1916 to £98,000.000 in 1921. Then there was a slight fall due to the depression, and after that the South African party went out and the Pact came in. Notwithstanding the prosperous times which the Nationalist Government has enjoyed, it has taken them all their time to increase that output by £2,000,000. That seems to be a complete answer to the challenge regarding the South African party economic policy. In 1924 the South African party went out of power, and I want to quote an authority which I believe will be accepted by every hon. member of the House. There was no one who had a greater influence in financial debates than the late Mr. Charles Fichardt. Had he lived he would have been Minister of Finance today. I want to read what Mr. Fichardt said in the debate of 1923—

In this respect he quoted statistics. In 1919 he said the capital sunk in industries amounted to £37,000,000 which grew to £42,000,000 in 1920, and reached £44,000,000 in 1921. The Europeans employed have increased in these years from 53,000 to 72,000. Mr. Fichardt showed a still more striking state of affairs. Up to 1919 wages amounted to £10,000,000; in 1924 they had reached £15,000,000. Mr. Fichardt emphasized that industries had developed under the South African party to an amazing extent. He then said—

I think that is a sufficient answer to the challenge that the South African party economic policy is not genuine. So much for the past. What of the present? How are we going to improve matters? Nothing is to be gained by belittling the depression which has fallen on the country to-day. The Minister of Finance is under no misapprehension. In his budget speech he admitted that the depression was due to lack of purchasing power due to the decline in value in produce. I do not think this House appreciates what this depression really means amongst the farmers at the present moment. I give the quotation of prices to-day compared with prices farmers were receiving twelve months ago. Maize ex elevators is 7s. 6d. a bag to-day, which is nearly 50 per cent, below last year. Potatoes in bulk are down to 4s. a bag; rather more than 50 per cent, lower. Wool is now selling at 6½d. to 8d. a lb. Last year it was 1s. 6d. to 1s. 8d. per lb. Mutton has been selling as low as l½d. a lb. at Durban abattoirs, and all beef is down on the market and other articles on the farm are down in the same proportion. To put that in another way and to bring it home to the country and to the people of the towns, particularly, what it means, the aggregate income of the farmers up to 1928 was on the border of £90,000,000 per annum. These figures which I have quoted show that the articles and the produce which realized that £90,000,000 have dropped 50 per cent. I do not want to exaggerate and I would rather under-state the case than over-state it. There was an aggregate income then of £90,000,000 up to 12 months ago, and if you allow a drop in values, of only 25 per cent., you find that the farmers have lost in their income this year £22,000,000. That means £22,000,000 less to be spent by the farmers this year than last year. That is considerably understating the case, but it won’t be long before the townspeople begin to realize that that £22,000,000 is not in circulation and that there is a depression of a very serious character, which is at last reaching them. I go still further. I ask why is it we are suffering under this depression at the present day? I should like to ask hon. members to cast their minds back during the last five or six years that the Pact Government has been in office. When the Pact came into office, and the South African party went out, this country was at the commencement of establishing of very profitable trade in the export of meat. The South African party Government had put on as an experiment, a bounty of ½d. per pound on all the meat exported, and this was having such a favourable effect that, in a short time, the export of meat had risen to £60,000 and was on the up-grade. Then the Pact came in and a new Minister of Agriculture came in. He knew his job and responsibility, or so he gave us to understand, and possibly he had very definite ideas of his own as to how the country should be managed. He announced early in his career that he intended to do away with the bounty. One farmer representative after another got up in this House, and impressed upon him that the doing away with the bounty, which is only a small matter of £12,000 per annum, would undoubtedly kill an incipient trade, but if he retained that bounty, the trade would gradually establish itself and, as the result of the establishment of the trade and a definite output, an unlimited supply of beef would be ensured and the quality of cattle would gradually improve. The farmers themselves, finding that they had an unlimited output overseas, would, without any pressure, have introduced a better type of bull, and the quality of the article would gradually improve and would establish its market. The Minister was blind to all entreaty. He cancelled, as soon as possible, the ½d. per pound bounty, destroyed the trade, and it has never recovered. That is one of the biggest blunders and the greatest blow that the farmers of South Africa have ever received from the Pact Government, and they have received a good many. The position, had the ½d. per pound continued, today would have led to development on natural lines, and it would have been the saving clause to-day in the depression which has fallen upon the farmers. Why do I say that? The reason is this, that here we are to-day with a plethora of inferior beef cattle on our land, and at the present moment there is one of the biggest beef shortages that the world has experienced for the last 50 years. America, which ended up the war with 73,000,000 Head of cattle, attracted by the profits which were to be got from transferring their lands from cattle grazing to sheep, reduced their numbers in 1926, down to 60,000,000. It did not end there. The grazers turned their land from cattle to sheep farming, and to-day their flocks occupy the land which was previously occupied by cattle. According to last year’s figures, they have reduced their numbers still further to 57,000,000. The United States have fewer beef cattle to-day than they have had since 1878. For 50 years they have never been so short of beef as they are to-day. What is the consequence of that? They have turned to Canada and they have absorbed the whole of the surplus beef cattle of Canada. Canada, which used to send her beef to Great Britain, is no longer exporting. Nor has there been sufficient for America. She has gone to New Zealand and has absorbed the whole of the surplus beef cattle there. She is turning her attention to Australia. This has had such an effect upon the English market that England has had to reduce her numbers by 300,000 animals during the last 2 years, for home consumption, and the price has risen 19½ per cent. So here we are in this extraordinary position, that owing to a Minister who knew nothing of his job, we have lost the opportunity to-day of being the world’s suppliers of beef. Instead of being on the verge of bankruptcy, through having had the misfortune of a Pact Government, at one of the most critical periods in agriculture, the farmer, instead of losing £22,000,000 of his income, would have maintained his position notwithstanding the fall in the price of wool. We know that one might as well argue with a stone-wall as argue with the Minister of Agriculture. We have tried it for the past six years. I do not know of a single case in which we have created the slightest impression on his mentality. Then again, if the Minister is going to persist in sending home his sour oranges, in spite of the advice he has received, he will destroy one of the most promising industries we have established in England, an industry which is threatened by the keenest competition in the world. I am perfectly certain that he will do it. He will do it against the advice of his technical officers and hon. members of this House. He will do it against his own export board and his own regulations and he will send home this inferior type of orange. This is not going to do us any good. It is exactly on all fours with the policy of the Government in respect of the development of our export trade. Take another thing. That is the stupidity with which we went to work in connection with the three per cent, imperial preference in our tariff. The fact that it was an imperial preference was sufficient for the Government to see red. They said that it must go, without any thought of the consequences, or without any regard to what would happen. So the Pact Government wrote a letter to the various dominion governments throughout the empire informing them that in future this three per cent, would not be allowed. Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia at that time, replied promptly, that in view of the fact that he had discovered that the maize in South Africa was cultivated by coloured labour, he had come to the conclusion that it could only be admitted in future into Australia on payment of 7s. 6d. per bag duty. Up to that time we had been doing a good export trade of 500,000 bags per annum, and it was increasing. The great virtue of that trade was that Australia preferred our maize to the maize grown in any other part of the world. The result was that they always paid 1s. 6d. per bag over the world’s prices. So South Africa always got 18d. per bag more ex elevator for grain going to Australia, and in one night that trade was killed by the Government. This is how we shall be situated. Notwithstanding that 7s. 6d. duty per bag now being paid, an order came the other day for 5,000 bags of maize from this country to Australia, and the Australians are going to pay that 7s. 6d. duty. Of course our farmers are only getting 7s. 6d. a bag. I put it to this House that had that duty remained as previously, not only would those 5,000 bags have probably have been 1,000,000 bags to-day, or nearly so, but the South African farmer would have got the difference between 15s. or 16s. in Australia of the extra imposed in response to our representations. These are two definite acts on the part of the Government which, had they never come into power, would never have occurred, or had they acted differently, would have saved us, and to-day, instead of the South African farmer being in the depths of depression and selling his mealies at 7s. 6d. a bag, and not knowing what to do with the surplus cattle or sheep, notwithstanding a drop in the wool, we should be living under prosperous conditions in this country. The world requires our goods, but we have not got the intelligence to get into the market with our stuff. Here is the Empire Marketing Board. The fact that it is called the “Empire Marketing Board” is sufficient to damn it in the eyes of hon. members opposite. The Empire Marketing Board advertises our goods, and it does all it possibly can to assist us to get into the markets. Here are the markets. Here is Great Britain requiring meat and Australia requiring maize, and there are other parts of the empire too, which require our goods. In every instance, we are finding ourselves dropped out by our own obstinacy, our own stupidity and our own crass ignorance. Let us take, for a moment, the possibilities which might accrue if we had the courage and the wisdom to deal with the Empire Marketing Board.

The hon. member should not deal with the Empire Marketing Board as a special motion in regard to it has been before the House earlier in the session and the question has been disposed of.

It is settled but it is not being used. I want to point out how it may be used to give it practical effect.

The hon. member cannot argue the merits of the Empire Marketing Board.

May I not mention the word?

Yes, in passing.

This institution has been established for the marketing of our goods, and if we like to take advantage of it will be of material assistance.

If the hon. member persists in discussing the Empire Marketing Board, I shall feel compelled to ask him to resume his seat.

I am quite prepared to resume my seat if I cannot point this out. Under present conditions we have the machinery necessary for getting into the market. I am trying to show that the depression is due very largely to the Minister of Agriculture, and the policy of the Government generally. If I have shown this that the withdrawal of the bounty was the death of the export trade in meat, and if I have shown that the withdrawal of the 3 per cent, was the ruin of our maize export business, I have demonstrated what I set out to prove—that the responsibility for the depression in the farming industry is due very largely to the lack of foresight exhibited by the Government, and the Government stand convicted in the eyes of every farmer in this Union and they are gradually learning to appreciate the fact.

I think that if there is one member who is very much indebted to you Mr. Speaker then it is the hon. member who has just sat down, because you prevented him from proceeding. He was trying to prove many things, although he had had many opportunities of doing so, but if he had succeeded in proving that this Government had caused damage to the farmers by taking the bonus away from them and if he had succeeded in proving that the three per cent, on the maize trade with Australia had been removed for reasons connected with the present Government. If he had succeeded in that he would have effected a good deal. I admit that he wanted to prove all this, but he missed the mark very much. He knows very well that the farmers have not suffered a penny damage owing to the repeal of the bonus. I challenge him to give a single case where he can prove that the farmer had any benefit from that bonus when it existed. With reference to the tax that Australia puts on our maize, the Minister has already pointed out that Australia did so because as they say our maize is produced by native labour. The Minister of Agriculture has quoted speeches Here which show that they expressly said that that was the reason and nothing else. Not only the hon. member, but the whole of the Opposition are glad that the time for punishment is now passed. About another quarter of an hour and then that unpleasant time will be over. But when I enquire what members criticized the financial policy—I do not say they did so, but they tried to in any case—then I find there were really only three members who did so. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was one of them and the future Minister of Finance another. I do not say that he will be the Minister of Finance in the future imaginary Cabinet, because my imagination does not go so far, but I will call it a castle-in-the-air cabinet. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has also made an effort but he came badly out of it. I made an interruption the other day to a speech of one of the hon. members, and asked him where he could suggest economy. The hon. member immediately twisted my words. I who have long been sitting here and have seen that unfortunate policy in the Opposition through which they are sitting on that side will surely not go to them to ask them to show us how to run the financial affairs of the country, and the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) would not have expected such a stupidity from me. The Opposition was, however, so weak that even their newspapers said so. In the “Notes of the House” which are written by one of the most capable men it is even admitted. I say one of the most capable men, because even when the Opposition made the greatest blunders those who are not well acquainted with things in view of those articles will still think that there is some truth in the argument, but even he cannot correct the blunders this time. Nevertheless he assisted the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a little and said that he inflicted hard blows. As for the finances I will leave them for the Minister’s reply, and I only want to ask him to be a little merciful with the younger members. He must not hit too hard, especially not the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) who is always taking steps because I fear he will never again rise from his seat if the Minister of Finance hits him too hard. I should like to hear it again in future, but as the Cape Times said—I cannot put it so prettily—we get pretty phrases from him. It is very refreshing and pleasant even if it does not amount to much. As for him, I see that he said on Saturday at a meeting that he has now fallen off the fence. My hon. leader has made a mistake about this, which I almost made myself as well. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has, indeed, fallen off the fence, but he has not yet reached the ground, he is still floating about in the air, and we do not know whether his head or his feet are on top; we do not know where he will land, and whether he doesn’t possibly want to get over the fence

To you?

No, not that, because if the hon. member wants to come to us, he must take up a definite attitude. I did expect a great deal of him, but since I have known him I know that it is impossible for him. The hon. member is not at home in his party, because be constantly talks of the unsound division of parties in the country. What then is the fault of his party, why is it unsound? During his election campaign he said that he was joining that party because he wanted to put the party right from within, what then is wrong internally? In the country the hon. member makes a great fuss, but here he is quiet. We, however, want to know from him what is wrong with the Nationalist party, and what is wrong with his own party. He said that he had fallen on to the side of the South African party because that party was for cooperation between the two races. When did he discover that? That party always said that since 1910 it stood for co-operation between the two races. He did not believe them at that time, or was it necessary for him first to go to England to find out if that was their ideal. No, but he first discovered it when he landed here, and when it was said to him, I do not know by whom, that the South African party would win the election, that was when he fell off the fence. I do not want to say anything which is not correct, and, therefore, I hope that the hon. member will take the first opportunity to tell us what the position is in connection with the matter I referred to. The hon. member has not yet completely fallen off. He is still hanging by one hand to see if there is no better opportunity. The first blow was that the expenditure on the other place is so high and that we do not get value for our money. When did he discover that? The second is, and this is the hardest blow he struck, and will strike for a long time, that the maximum number of this House ought to be reduced from 150 to 100. The hon. member wants to limit it, but it is strange that he only wants to limit to 100. I should have thought that if he were here alone that would be sufficient. Then it would have been good economy, and, according to him, all the brains necessary would have been here. But it is very cheap of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to speak about jobs for pals. He said that his party in the past never appointed their fellow members, and he said that when this party did it they were ashamed. I think that is an easy way of abandoning the point. We can commit the greatest offences, and all we have to do is to feel ashamed. The hon. member says that if his party were to do it if they came into office again—and that possibly is why he said it—that he would resign his membership of the party. Well, I want to make an offer to hon. members opposite. I will give them £10 for every Nationalist that the previous Government appointed on any board or commission, or to any office, provided they give me £10 for every Sap. that this Government has appointed. Yes, the hon. members opposite have reason for feeling ashamed. This Government almost made the mistake of only appointing a Sap. as administrator, when they offered the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) the reappointment as administrator of the Transvaal, notwithstanding the fact that he was a member of the South African party. Let the hon. members mention one administrator who was a Nationalist and appointed by the South African party. When that question was put to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at Heilbron by my hon. friend (Mr. M. L. Malan), his reply was: “Yes, the administrator of South-West Africa, Mr. Hofmeyr.” That then was the member of the Nationalist party whom they appointed. But were Nationalists appointed on the boards and commissions, on the Public Service Commission, on the Railway Board?

We did not enquire what party a man belonged to.

But their instinct was so remarkable that they never appointed a Nationalist. Does the hon. member remember why the late Sir Andrew Stockenstroom resigned? The hon. member will have forgotten.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed on 9th April.