I wish to emphasize at once what has already been said by my colleagues who have taken part in this debate before me, namely, that the Government heartily welcomes any sound criticism and criticism of a constructive nature as regards the Government’s policy on this budget. We have listened attentively to the criticism that has been levelled against us during this debate, and I have not heard of a single instance where criticism has been indulged in, and where proposals have been made that are better than those made by the Government, especially in connection with the assistance to the farming population. We would definitely welcome anything where members could show that we have made a mistake, and where it could be shown that our scheme could be improved upon, but so far no criticism has been put forward showing us where improvements can, in reality, be effected. In the criticism that has come, especially from our friends who live in towns, that the farmers are receiving too much assistance, hon. members have forgotten or are not aware of the condition in which the farming population of South Africa finds itself. I should like to try, this afternoon, to submit a few facts to the House in the hope that hon. members who like criticizing the farming population, will in future first of all investigate matters so that they may be sure that they are justified in levelling their criticism. In the first place, South Africa is a country which agriculturally is a poor country. This is a statement that can be made with truth. If it were not for the fact that we have the gold mines and other sources of revenue, I would say that our future is by no means rosy. South African soil is poor, and consequently all kinds of means such as the provision of fertilizers have to be resorted to in order to increase production, so that the farmer may be enabled to get some sort of return from his soil. Consequently, if the farmer does not spend a great deal of money for the purpose of increasing his production, it will be practically impossible for him to make a living on the land. Allow me, for instance, to quote the case of wheat production. Cost of production varies in accordance to districts, but those costs, in our country, vary from 5s. to 15s. per bag, while in other countries thousands of miles can produce wheat, as is the case in Canada, and can supply that wheat here at 11s. to 12s. per bag, a good profit being secured even at that price. Consequently, if criticism is indulged in I believe that those who make that criticism are not taking account of the fact that we are a very poor country so far as agriculture is concerned. And the same applies to fruit farming. While a certain amount of profit is made on fruit farming, this goes hand in hand with extraordinarily high cost of production. At this early stage I want to warn fruit farmers that steps will have to be taken to see to it that our markets, especially so far as fruit is concerned, are not taken from us. On account of the competition with which we are faced, we have to see to it that only the best of everything is placed on the market, and in regard to certain products such as grapes, for instance, we run a risk of being driven from the market by competition if we do not introduce a system of grading our fruit. The same applies to wine, and the Government is considering what steps should be taken to ensure our markets being retained and expanded. But apart from the poverty of the country, you also have to cope with climatic conditions, of which hon. members have not taken any account either. The one year I have to come to the House with a Bill to assist people on account of floods which have visited certain parts of the country, and the next year I am forced to place legislation before the House to assist farmers on account of the severe drought by which they have been hit. Those are matters which have not been taken into account by hon. members who have criticized us here. The farmer is not in the same position as the workman or the official who, no matter whether there is difficulty or not, gets his salary or his fixed wage at the end of the month. The farmer is dependent on climatic conditions which sometimes threaten to drive the farming-population off the land. But there is a third circumstance which makes matters very difficult for the farmer, and that is that we, in South Africa, are visited by all the plagues of Pharaoh, and a few hundreds more, which do a great deal of damage to agriculture. One year the caterpillars come and destroy the great bulk of the crop, and that which is left is eaten up by the locusts, and whatever is left by the locusts is destroyed by hail. All these are things which people who are not acquainted with farming fail to take into account, and it is for that reason that those people are inclined to reproach the farmers that run all to the Government for assistance. This year we have passed through a drought such as we have never known in the history of South Africa, and if the Government had failed to take steps to save the farmers, the practical farmers on the plains of the Free State would have gone under. Who could have thought five years ago that those farmers would have been forced to approach the Government for help? Who could have thought that those farmers should have come to ask the Government: “Save us, otherwise we shall be lost.” Who could have thought that the greater part of the farmers of the Transvaal would have had to come to the Government, and the same applies to a large portion of the farmers of the Cape Province and Natal. The major portion of the agricultural population in all the provinces is in distress. We must not lose sight of the fact that the farming population, which has always tried to stand on its own feet, and to keep its own house in order, is in distress to-day, and it is for that reason that I so deeply deplore the fact that day in and day out I have to hear the cries of Jeremiah. I am convinced that when the farmers are asking for help, they greatly appreciate what is being done, but seeing that the Government has announced that it intends appointing a commission in connection with the co-operative system and the credit societies, and the public will receive an opportunity of giving evidence before that commission, there I feel that hon. members are anticipating that commission when they plead for writing off the debts of co-operative societies and of credit societies, and when they plead for this, that and the other to be written off. I know that if the farmers are able to do so, they will always pay their debts. If hon. members were to plead for time to be given for payments to be made, I would greatly value such pleas, but here they are anticipating a commission and we are just hearing one cry of “Write off, write off,” and nothing else. I am afraid that if they carry on in that way, and if they do not try first of all to give those people time in which to pay, and to wait and see whether we can get the money back, the time may come when we shall really believe that those people are of opinion that they will never have to pay off their debts. I hope that that spirit of pessimism will never be calculated in this House. No, the Government is doing everything in its power to help the farming population, which has suffered so severely from this great depression, which has suffered more than any other section of the population; and for that reason the Government has also come forward now and has done as much as possible for the farming population. But we can only do this on economic and sound lines. We must not come forward with arguments here which will have a demoralizing effect on the farming population, and it will have detrimental effect on them if we are always raising questions about the writing off of debts here. We should not continue in that strain; rather let us strengthen the hand of the Government and teach our people to be as independent as they can be, and to look after themselves. We are aware of the fact that economic conditions in the world are very difficult to-day. This is not merely the case in our own country, but it is so throughout the world. As a matter of fact, if we look at other countries, we notice that conditions there are even worse than what they are here. Consequently, there is no need for us to be downhearted and to sit with folded hands and weak knees. It is in times like the present that it is particularly necessary for us to help our people, to encourage them not to become downhearted, but to maintain their independence as much as possible. In the Transvaal we were used to being hard pressed, and in the past we have suffered many hardships. At one time we used to find on occasions on returning to our homes that not a single head of stock was left alive. But we set our hand to the plough, and we know that conditions in South Africa have the habit of righting themselves very speedily. As I have said, we are faced here to-day with a serious economic position, which has come to us from the other parts of the world, because the other parts of the world finds itself in even a more precarious position. We must not lose courage. This, however, does not mean that I wish to raise hopes that matters will right themselves very quickly, and that prices will very soon improve. Our hope, however, is fixed on our Ministers who are taking part in the World Economic Conference. We hope that the plans which will be arranged there by the statesmen of the world to see whether something cannot be done to raise the level of prices of farming products, and to improve economic conditions, will be crowned with success. We hope, even, that they will be successful in getting war debts reduced, so that the purchasing powers of the world may be increased in that way. I do not propose going into all the various points that have been raised during this debate. The best opportunity to do so will be when my vote is being dealt with in Committee of Supply, and I shall then have something to say in connection with the points that have been raised here. There are, however, a few matters on which I wish to say something now. My hon. friend, the member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) has raised a question in connection with maize farmers, I do not think that the maize farmers can ever accuse the Government of not having treated them with the greatest sympathy, with greater sympathy than any other Government has ever done. My thoughts carry me back to the year 1925 when we wrote off £250.000 on behalf of the maize farmers. I look at the budget, and I see that an amount of not less than £560,000 is being written off in respect of money which would have to be paid by the maize farmers. So far as the maize farmers are concerned, the Government has undoubtedly treated them with the greatest sympathy. Now the hon. member says that the Government must see to it that the Land Bank will be able to give a larger advance to the maize farmers, because, according to his contentions, it is the advance given by the Land Bank which determines the price of mealies. Is that really the case? It may have been so in the days when there was an ample supply of mealies, and when there was a big surplus in the country. But what is the position at the moment? The Land Bank has given an advance of 5s. to maize farmers by means of the co-operative societies, while we know that the price of mealies to-day is round about 9s. and 9s. 6d. per bag. This, therefore, shows that the price of the mealie market is not dependent on the advance given by the Land Bank.

The advance is 5s., and that is the price which members of the co-operative societies get.

That is the advance. But what about the amount which they get afterwards, once the mealies have been sold? If they get an advance of 5s. and the business of the co-operative societies is of such a nature that they cannot sell the mealies so that they are able to pay out a subsequent amount, then indeed there is very little hope for co-operation.

That was the case last year.

But my hon. friend must not forget that the world price of mealies then was 3s. 6d. per bag, and that there was a surplus of 5,000,000 bags in the country. This year conditions are entirely different. There is a carry-over of only 1,500,000 from last season, and the mealie crop is estimated at 10,000,000 bags, so that we shall have to be careful to come out with our mealies.

Is not that the very reason why a bigger advance can be allowed?

The hon. member must bear in mind that the Government and Parliament purposely passed the legislation as regards the advances from the Land Bank, namely, that the advance may be 60 per cent. of the market value of the product, and every time the Government has put its nose into the business of the Land Bank as regards advances that should be made by them, it has been to the detriment of the taxpayer, because the Government was obliged to write off. This is a matter which has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the law, and which must be left to the negotiations between the co-operative societies and the Land Bank. The Government must not interfere and must not dictate to the Land Bank that it must do this or that. If the Government were to do this, the Land Bank would tell us that it is not prepared to do this and that we must guarantee it against losses if we put our nose into its business. Losses are suffered, and the exchequer becomes responsible. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will not insist on the Government taking steps to interfere in the matter of advances. Parliament deliberately passed the law laying it down in what circumstances the Land Bank would make advances, because if those conditions arc not laid down in the law, and if it depends on the attitude of the Government, the Government may easily be accused of being influenced by gifts and favours. There is one other point which 1 want to refer to, and that is that the mealie co-operative societies entered into a contract with the mining industry three years ago to supply mealies to the mines at 10s. 6d. per bag. When the price of mealies was 4s. and 5s. per bag, it was very nice to get 10s. 6d. per bag, but the co-operative societies arc not prepared now to supply mealies to the central agency to enable that agency to supply to the mining industry. What will be the effect of that? The effect will be that those people who acted on the advice of the central agency and who undertook that those quantities of mealies would be supplied, will be landed into difficulties. I want to express the hope, however, that our co-operative societies will act as they have always done in the past, and will see to it that the necessary mealies is supplied to the central agency, so that the terms of the contract can be complied with. I hope that it will never be said of our farmers that they have not complied with obligations that were placed upon them. I hope that those people will carry out their obligations, and will not disappoint the confidence that is placed in them. Now I just wish to touch on a few points that were raised by my excolleague, the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). He particularly criticized two points of the budget, and there are a few points there where I cannot agree with him. I am sorry that my hon. friend is not here at the moment. I wish, in all modesty and friendliness, to reply to his criticism, in the same as I have just replied to the criticism of the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste). One of the points is “Yes, but the people do not really mind if there is a deficit. In the course of a week or so they will forget all about it if the budget does not balance.” Is that really so? In the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, when the old South African party Government could not balance its budgets we went from platform to platform and we said, “What is going to become of South Africa if the country cannot even balance its budget?” I think that that is one of the things which helped the Nationalist party considerably in those days to come to the head of affairs. If we should go now and not balance our budget, what then is going to become of the future of our country? The result will simply be that we shall be on the down grade with the brakes loose, and we shall not know where we are going to end up. The probable finish will be bankruptcy. And it will be the same so far as the farmers are concerned if they cannot balance their budget. The farmers have two sources of revenue—their products and the loans which they can contract. If the farmer’s budget does not balance, he has to borrow every time, until he has borrowed himself into bankruptcy and he cannot borrow any more. And the same thing applies to the Government if it does not balance its budget. It can borrow, but it cannot continue borrowing. My hon. friend will remember the difficult years of 1931 and 1932, when we could not balance our budget. If it was not necessary to make our budget balance, and if the people felt that there was not need for us to balance our budget, why then did we have to take such drastic action in those years, so that we had to reduce the salaries of civil servants, and had to dismiss a number of people. If that was not necessary, why then should we have acted so drastically in those days? No, do not let us allow that sort of opinion to get fixed in the public mind, because it can only lead to this, that the public will not worry whether its own budget balances or not. Rather let us encourage the people, business men as well as others, to see to it that their budgets balance. I now come to the second point raised by my hon. friend. He says that so far as the budget itself is concerned, he has no fault to find with it. None the less he has two points of criticism, and two very strong points of criticism. One of those points of criticism is that if the Nationalist party Government had remained at the head of affairs, those undesirable speculators of the days before we went off the gold standard would have been heavily taxed on the money they made by their speculation. We consider that we would be able to do this; that is so, but when we investigated matters it became clear that those speculators conducted their business by means of other business, and that it would be very difficult to discriminate between which money was used for legitimate business purposes, and which money was not. We would have punished a great many people who possibly would not have deserved being punished, while the great majority of the speculators would not have been caught. Now we come to the other objection raised by my hon. friend. My hon. friend says, “Yes, the estimates of revenue are practically the same as those which were framed by the Nationalist party Government.” I quite agree with him, because my hon. friend knows—he was still with me in those days when the estimates were framed—and those estimates were, with very little amendments, included in our new estimates. He raised an objection, however, to one matter, and that is that the profits that were made by the mines as a result of our departure from the gold standard, were not, to a larger degree, appropriated by us. He has possibly forgotten that so far as that percentage is concerned, he was entirely at one with me and that he knew what that taxation would have been if the Nationalist party Government had remained at the head of affairs. He knows that if the Nationalist party Government had remained at the head of affairs, the taxation would have been exactly the same as it is now. I further want to say that we must be careful not to act too drastically with the goose that laid the golden egg, because if we do not feed that goose properly she will stop laying her eggs.

We feed her.

The hon. member said that we feed her. He gives her very little food. One thing is certain, and that is that if we had not had the gold mines we should not have been able to give that assistance which we do give to the farmers. Let us look at the large amounts which the gold mines annually bring into the exchequer. We are grateful for the fact that the gold mines are in the Transvaal. Then there are a few other minor points which my hon. friend has raised. The one is the question of seed wheat. I want to remind him of the fact that this was a policy of the Government in 1929, and my friend was in agreement with him then that if we were to give wheat to the people this should be done through the co-operative societies. Now my hon. friend says that it is a great educational work and that it will take years before our farmers in the north-west will be so educated that they will establish their co-operative societies. In 1932, however, there was no objection from the northwest against farmers getting seed wheat for their co-operative societies. Those matters should not be raised here simply with the object of raising a squabble against the Government. I don’t say these things merely with the object of squabbling with my hon. friend; I do so with the best intentions and merely so that we should not come forward with other matters to-morrow when we are no longer in positions of responsibility. I then come to the next point raised by my hon. friend, viz., that a commission should be appointed to investigate the problems of the north-west as the problems of the north-west are entirely different from those of the rest of the Union. Never during the eight years that we have sat here together have I heard from him that such a commission was necessary to make a special investigation into the north-west. We are aware of the difficulties of the north-west, and it is for that reason that everything possible is being done by the Government to help the north-west. Under the Drought Relief Act of 1927-’28, we did a great deal to help the northwest on to its feet again. The ability of the north-west to recover is so good that within a short while the farms there will be overstocked with stock, and if we again proceed now to help the north-west and to improve conditions there, measures will be taken to see to it that the position will not again become so serious as a result of the over-stocking of the farms in that area. Several other objections have been raised, and one of those objections is that the Government must attend to the carriage of forage. We have had droughts in the past, but the extent of the present drought is so great that it is impossible for the Government, on an economic basis, to attend to the food for all the stock in the drought-stricken districts. We have hardly sufficient mealies in our country, the price of lucerne has already gone up, and it is impossible, under the circumstances, for the Government to look after all the stock. The Government, however, has gone very far in order to help the farmers. While in 1927 we carried stock at half rates, we have gone a great deal further this time and we have reduced the price to one-quarter. Furthermore, whereas in the past security had to be provided for the repayment of railway costs, the stock is now carried free on the mere signature of the owner, and he himself and his herds can be carried on special ticket. Furthermore, the carriage of cattle food has also been made much cheaper, and where freight motors are available, the Government pays 25 per cent. of the tariff at which the food is carried. Consequently, we have gone a great deal further than in 1927. Before I sit down I want to speak a word of warning. I have already warned the farmers, through the press, not to send their stock blindly to the trains. I am receiving telegrams from magistrates in districts to which such large quantities of stock have been sent that they are already overstocked. This will merely have the result that farmers in those districts will also get into difficulties. Where, consequently, I may have to take steps in regard to the transport of stock to such districts, I hope that the farmers will be sensible enough not to insist on sending stock to areas where no more grazing is available. In the districts of Barkly West, Kuruman and Mafeking, we have rendered available all the farms falling under the Department of Lands, free of charge for this purpose. The main objection in those districts is the scarcity of water, and I am negotiating, at the moment, with the Department of Lands, with a view to opening up bore-holes, as soon as possible, in those districts. I want to say, however, that in the north-west the farmers do not pay for such bore-holes, while in other parts of the country, whether they are dry or not, the public pays for those bore-holes. We see, therefore, that where people are faced with extraordinary conditions, special assistance is rendered to them. Several other points have been raised, such as foot-and-mouth disease, but I do not propose, at this stage, to answer the remarks that have been made, as it would probably be better to deal with these matters when my vote is under discussion. I merely want to say that I am doing all in my power to help where I can do so. In times like the present, however, it is very hard to be Minister of Agriculture. It is all too easy to attribute all the difficulties which the farmers are experiencing to the Minister of Agriculture. None of us has forgotten the cry of “crucify him” when the measures to eradicate scab were introduced. Yet, everybody is pleased to-day that the country is free of that scourge. And the same applies to the measures against foot and mouth disease. We cannot allow the whole trade of the country to stand still in order to give relief to certain districts. Then I want to ask hon. members not to make their complaints more severe than is necessary and not to exaggerate their difficulties. We realize what the difficulties are; the condition of affairs is very serious, and if anybody sympathizes with the farmers, then I do, because I am a farmer myself, and consequently if I did not do everything in my power to help the farmers, I would be doing harm to myself. It is for that reason that I do all that is possible to help our people, and the whole Government takes up the whole attitude. But we can only do this in a sound business way, otherwise the situation would become fatal. I hope that the feeling of pessimism will not become overpowering, because we must remember that the night is darkest just before the dawn, and in the same way we must expect that possibly in the coming summer we may be able to cherish the hope of getting magnificent rains, which will have the effect of the veld of the Free State once again being turned into a flourishing land, so that man and animals will again lift their heads and the mealie fields will produce large crops. As hon. members know, we have never experienced a time of two successive years of such severe drought as we have had now. Allow me to repeat here what one of our great men of the Free State, Jan Brand, said: “Let everyone do his duty, and all will be well.” Let the Government, let the members of Parliament, let the farming population all do their duty, and I am convinced that the words of Jan Brand will come true, and all will be well.

I am sure everyone in the House is very gratified indeed to hear the splendid speech of the Minister of Agriculture, a speech which will convey a message of hope to the farmers of this country. The budget before us has been criticized in many ways, and with the exception of the budget of the hon. the Minister of Railways, I think it has been viewed from every point of view. Before I say anything about the budget of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, I would like to say, as a representative of an almost purely urban area, that I welcome the proposals of the Government. To my mind this is the first of the beneficial fruits of the coalition Government. I feel that no party Government, however strong, would have dared to have put such far-reaching legislation into effect. As far as the measures for helping the farmer are concerned, I am sure that they constitute a move in the right direction, and in my opinion, will tend very largely to prevent the regrettable drift from the country to the towns. It will also mean the beginning of the end of dear money as far as farm bonds are concerned, and will place farming in a better economic position, and also give our agricultural industry that much-needed confidence which is so essential for the welfare of South Africa. Naturally, if the farmers prosper, industry and commerce and every other section including the railwaymen, will benefit, and we shall have a much more desirable state of affairs throughout the length and breadth of our country. Like other members, I regret very much that a more comprehensive programme of public works for the relief of unemployment has not been thought of. If this had been done, it would have absorbed a great many of our unemployed, and it would also have given the public those conveniences which are so necessary, and to which the taxpayers are entitled. The question of unemployment is no longer a local or provincial matter. It has become one of our most acute national problems, and it must be tackled at once by the Government in no uncertain way. Otherwise very serious consequences may follow. Many of our public buildings, such as court-houses, post offices, etc., are a disgrace, and everywhere we hear complaints of the inadequacy of our public buildings. As far as the railway budget is concerned. I must confess that I am bitterly disappointed. I thought that with a new Government, a new Minister and a new general manager, we would have had some new ideas as to how to alleviate the appalling conditions prevailing in the railway service to-day. The Railway Administration seems to have got into the slough of despond and do not seem able to rise to the occasion. Their one idea of meeting the depression is, it seems, by curtailing the wages and privileges of the men by dismissing as many of them as possible without any regard to the misery and privations these measures will bring about to hundreds of men, who deserve better treatment at the hands of the State. If we turn to the estimates placed before us we see that provision is being made this coming year for a total staff of about 70,000 men. At one time, I believe, there were about 105,000 men in the railway service. We also see, if you take one or two items which I shall mention, where the chief brunt of the retrenchment lies. If you take maintenance you see that the cost of artizans and apprentices is to be £44,900 less this coming year than last year. From the running staff estimates you see that £84,600 is to be saved on fewer drivers, and £32,500 is to be saved at the expense of the artizans. If you take the mechanical department, £200,800 less is to be spent this year than last year on the daily paid staff. Taking our railways as a whole, there is no doubt that they have not done too badly since Union, and as instanced by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) the other day, they are in quite a sound financial condition and compare very favourably with any railways in the world. From this budget the only thing that the railwaymen can look forward to is the fact that a commission of railway experts from overseas is to be appointed to go into and examine the whole position. If this commission is to consist entirely of overseas experts, men who know nothing of local conditions, I am afraid it is doomed to failure from the start. We must have some representatives on that commission who have some knowledge and experience of South African ideas and conditions, and I hope that every opportunity will be given to the staff of all grades to place their views and give evidence before the commission. The work and the findings of this commission will take many months, and I want to ask the acting hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Stuttaford) if he does not think and realize that immediate action is necessary as far as the staff is concerned. Does not the Minister know that for four years our mechanical workshop staff has been on short time, and thus been prevented from earning enough to keep body and soul together? Does not the Government realize that thousands of men in their employ have sacrificed everything—their little property, life assurance policies, savings and so forth, and they are now sinking and drifting hopelessly into debt? I could give hundreds of individual cases, but I will content myself with mentioning the position of those men who have been degraded through no fault of their own from the rank of artizan to that of civilized labourer. Many of these men have long and meritorious service to their credit, they have been reduced from 18s. a day plus bonus work to a bare 7s. per day, and I want the House to realize the feelings of these men when they read in the estimates which are laid before us that highly paid officials who are already in receipt of good salaries are to receive their increments as usual this year. I am not against any official getting all he is entitled to, but I ask, is it equity to take away two-thirds of an artizan’s income, and, at the same time, give to an official who is already drawing £2,300 per annum another £100 per year increase.

A disgrace !

If our railways are overstaffed, let us face the position in a humane manner. There are hundreds of employees who are nearing pensionable age, and who would, for a consideration, gladly accept their pension, and if this were done, it would improve greatly the lot of the younger men; and bring about a more desirable state of affairs, as far as the mechanical workshops are concerned. In spite of the fact that all our workshops are on short time, the cutting of piece work schedules continues, and at the present time we are compelling the men to turn out work of which no decent artizan can be proud. Bonus work, under proper conditions, is an ideal system, but with the army of supervisors and bonus inspectors, with their stop watches, it has become a curse, and the conditions prevailing to-day are little short of slavery. From the estimates it is interesting to note that last year we had 36 bonus inspectors who cost the country something in the neighbourhood of £14,000. This year, we are to have four, according to the estimates, which will cost the country something in the nature of £12,000—£11,920 to be exact. For the sake of the railways and of the men, I do hope that the amount is wrong and that the number is correct.

What page is it?

Page 63. Now I know that it is easy to criticize, but I want to show that I am also prepared to advance some constructive criticism, and I would suggest to the Acting Minister of Railways and Harbours: do away with your 48 hours a week, and introduce a 44 hour week; close all your railway workshops on Friday night, abolish piece work and abolish the differentiation in the rates of pay; let full time working (44-hour week) be resumed. If these suggestions were carried out it will give much-needed relief to the mechanical staff. As far as revenue is concerned, we must take our courage in both hands, under present conditions our railways will never recover. We must reduce rates and fares, and sell transportation just as we sell other goods. We must induce people to travel. We must give the public value for their money, study the wishes and requirements of our customers, remove all vexatious regulations and restrictions, regain the confidence and co-operation of the staff; and before long there will be a decided improvement from the working as well as from the revenue point of view.

Before I say a few words on the general budget I should like to say something in connection with our railways and in connection with the railway estimates. As one who for years has taken an interest in our railway policy, and our railway administration, I must say that the railway budget is not too encouraging. That is not the fault of the Minister, seeing that the railways are suffering from a condition of depression and that matters are not going too well with them, the railways are suffering tremendously as a result of two factors, namely, natural conditions and the financial depression, but in the second place they are suffering as the result of the revolution which has taken place in regard to the system of transport. First of all, it was the motor car which attacked the railways and measures were taken to fight the motor car. Now, however, the donkey wagon has come in again and is proving itself a doughty rival of our railway system. We had an accumulated deficit at the end of the financial year of £3,694,000, i.e., more than three-and-a-half millions. For the current financial year the Minister calculates that he will have a surplus of £136,114. I must say that the Minister of Railways is very optimistic if he thinks that there is going to be a surplus. He estimates that he will have an average weekly revenue of £425,000. Last year he estimated that he would have a similar average revenue, and I then warned the members of the House and the Minister that he would not get that average. His average weekly revenue was only £394,000; in other words a deficit of £31,000 per week. This year the Minister again estimates for a weekly revenue of £425,000, and I imagine that everyone of us who is familiar with the conditions should know that he will not reach that average figure. I regard it as a foolish hope to anticipate that there will be a surplus. I would rather have seen the Minister estimate for a deficit, and I would rather have seen him expect a smaller weekly revenue—I would have preferred it if he had told us that he anticipated a deficit rather than that he should have to come here and tell us that his expectations have not been realized, and that he has a deficit. I am also disappointed that there is no provision in the budget to rectify certain matters. There are many points in respect of which representations have been made to the Minister in the past, points in regard to the staff, which have not been dealt with. I take, for instance, the question of housing, especially of our railway labourers in the rural districts. I can assure the Minister that a great many of the labourers in the rural areas live in very small houses, which are most uncomfortable. I hope that the Government will render more money available for the housing of the railway labourers, especially at stations in the rural areas. Another matter in respect of which the administration was asked to make some provision is that those labourers should not be obliged to pay house rent while away on leave without salary. Something novel, however, appears in the estimates in regard to which I want to say a few words, I am referring to the proposal that a commission of enquiry shall be appointed to make an investigation into the whole of our railway system. To my astonishment the Minister announced that he was going overseas and would appoint a commission there to come and make an investigation into our railway affairs here. That announcement was made, but the House was not informed how many members there would be on that commission, or what it was expected that the expenditure would be in respect of that commission. It was not stated what the terms of reference of the commission would be, and whether it would make an enquiry into the financial or the technical operation of the railways. I can easily imagine that such a commission will come here and will find a great many faults in our railway policy, and that it will make recommendations that will be totally unsuitable for our country. The members of that commission may possibly be able business men, and they may make recommendations, possibly very good business recommendations, but what would the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) say for instance, if they should recommend that it is a waste of money to have railway workshops in Salt River, and that the workshops should be centralized, say in Bloemfontein? The hon. members for Bloemfontein would welcome this, no doubt, but there would be a great upheaval if such a policy should be given effect to. If an enquiry is to be made into the railway policy, then at this early stage I can say what one of the recommendations is going to be. The commissioners will say that we have a large field of cheap labour in our natives, and that our white men must be replaced by natives. Will the Government, however, be prepared to accept such a recommendation? Let us furthermore look at our branch lines The commission will say that we have a large number of branch lines in the country that do not pay, that we must abolish those lines and pull them up. We know that there are many unpayable branch lines, but they are needed for the development of the country. We can mention numerous instances, but I am of opinion that the country will not accept recommendations of that nature. The commission will make recommendations in regard to matters of policy, which the Government will never give effect to. We have had experience in the past of such commissions which come from abroad—we have had a commission like the Wage Commission, on which, it is true, three South Africans also served. The rest of the commissioners came from overseas, they made recommendations, and they cost us a lot of money; but where are those recommendations to-day? They were consigned to the waste paper basket. The three South African members put in a minority report, but the whole thing was futile. The former Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Bellville (Col. Creswell) at that time, after that experience, made the remark, “never again.” Another instance, where we had foreign technical experts, was in connection with the grain elevators, which resulted in a scandalous failure. Our own experts issued a warning that the recommendations were wrong, but no notice was taken, with disastrous results. In regard to electrical matters too, we have had experts from abroad, and our own experts again issued warnings, but the foreign experts knew better, with the result that in many cases money was wasted because the advice of our own experts was not taken. Why is there this lack of confidence in our own experts, seeing that in the past we have found that their advice was a great deal better than the advice of the experts from abroad. I fear that in this case the stable door has already been locked, because the Minister of Railways is already on his way to Europe, where he will probably appoint a few Englishmen and a few Germans who will have to tell us what we shall do. I want to make a final appeal to the Minister of Railways to see to it that although it has been decided to get people from overseas, a few South Africans shall be placed on the commission, men who are experts on financial and technical matters, in order to try and give the right perspective to those people who come from overseas. That is my great objection against the railway estimates, which I want to say a few words on, although I fear that it will not help a great deal, as the matter has already been decided on. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the general budget, and the assistance that is being given to the stricken section of the population. In all that we may look at the matter from the right point of view, there are three points that should be taken into account. One of those points is the saving of those who are now threatened with immediate ruin. The second point is the permanent relief of the load of debt which is burdening that section of the population. The third is the restoration of those people who long since have fallen by the wayside. Without entering into details, I want to test the Government’s scheme from those points of view. All of us are very grateful to the Government for the help that is being given, and our criticism is well meant, and is given in good faith. The first class of person is that class which, as I have said, is threatened with immediate ruin. I fear that the Government’s scheme will not have the effect of saving large numbers of those people. There are many instances where bonds on farms have already been called up by insurance companies and other bondholders. Farmers are still living on that land, at the mercy of such companies which are waiting until times shall improve in order to sell that land. Let me take the position in my constituency, for instance. I know of many instances where the companies have already taken over the farms, and where they are only allowing the people to remain there until they shall have sold the farms. There are also instances where bonds have been called in because the bondholders were in fear of the measures which the Government might introduce. The Government will find that a large proportion of the farmers are no longer the owners of their farms, but are merely tenants. The figures of last year are not available, but a few years ago 41 per cent. of the farmers were tenants, and only 39 per cent. were owners. To-day we may reckon that the relative figure is still more unfavourable. The assistance which the Government will give will not help them, because they will have to continue paying their rent. There are many other cases for which provision is not made, but possibly these matters may be better gone into when the necessary legislation is being considered by the House. I am only mentioning a few of those instances here. There are a number of people who have unsecured debts, and who because of their unsecured debts are being threatened with being sold up. Those people will not be helped in any way by the Government’s proposals, and this strengthens me in my arguments, that those who are in danger of going under will go under in spite of the good help which has been offered by the Government. For that reason I again wish to submit the scheme for consideration, which I submitted last year. As provision is being made that a judicial manager can be appointed for companies which, as a result of these difficult times, have got into difficulties, it appears to me that it is no more than just that we should make provision for the appointment of a judicial manager, under whose protection it will be possible to place a farmer, if he should get into difficulties as a result of these difficult times. Such a judicial manager will then be able to see to it that that man will pay whom he can pay, and if he cannot pay the judicial manager can decide whether or not he shall be sold up. The judicial manager, who may be a local commissioner, can decide whether a person should be sold out. I am supported in my convictions by what is done in other countries in this respect. I have secured information as to what is done in Alberta in Canada, and there they have passed a measure which goes in that direction. I should like to quote this to the House—

That is what is being done in other countries, and that is the scheme which I have proposed here, either by means of a local board, or by means of a central board, for people who are really in danger of being sold out and who may possibly be protected until times improve, when they can again get on to their feet. My second point was that of permanent relief, and in that respect the Government’s scheme, in spite of the good points that are in it, also falls short. It is not a plan for permanent relief. It is regrettable that the Government was not able also to tackle that side of the problem. This possibly may do something that would stand over, and we hope that the Government will give its attention to the question how permanently to relieve the burden which the farmer is bearing. Then there is a third aspect from which I want to consider the matter, namely, the restoration of those who have fallen by the wayside. For them no provision is made. In the last few years people have fallen out, they have dropped by the wayside and they have gone under. They have to roam about, and many of them have become bijwoners, managers of farms of companies, or they live at the mercy of others. For them no provision has been made to get them back on to the land, and I consider that it is the duty of the Government to help those people so that they may get on to their feet again as farmers, so that they may again carry out the work which was their life’s work until the time of depression arrived. We must enable them again to secure land so as to carry on their life’s work. The result of the neglect to provide for them is that the position of those people is becominug more and more serious owing to the fact that they are daily drifting away to the towns and villages, where they are swelling the ranks of the unemployed. The hon. the Minister of Labour yesterday addressed the House, and I had expected that he, as Minister of Labour, would have told us what the Government intends doing in connection with the unemployment in our towns, and especially in the villages and in the rural areas. The Minister of Labour did not say a word about that. He spoke about agriculture. But surely the Minister of Agriculture is here for that purpose, and we are bitterly disappointed that he, as Minister of Labour, did not say a word to us as to what the Government proposes doing to cope with unemployment in the rural districts. I am especially referring to the villages in the rural areas where unemployment has become a tremendous problem. The farmer is blotted out; he is being driven off his land and he is drifting to the towns to make a living. There he is unemployed. Then we have another class, viz., the tradesmen and the skilled workers who cannot find work in the rural villages. For the unskilled labourer there may still be an opening on the streets, but for the tradesman and for the skilled worker there is practically no opening in the rural villages. Then there is another class of unemployed whom I feel very concerned about, and that is our learned young sons and daughters, people who have been attending our schools and colleges, who have secured a degree or some other distinction, and who then have to sit for years waiting for work. There is nothing for them to do, and in many instances they have a large debt on their shoulders in connection with their studies, while there is no opening for them. I hope that the Minister of Labour will give us some information at a future date in connection with this matter, and that he will inform us what his department intends doing for that class of people in the way of finding employment for them. I associate myself with those who have expressed their thanks for the measures that are taken. Those measures will give a great degree of relief to many, but we cannot be blamed for raising certain other aspects here, and for pleading for other matters deserving the serious attention of the Government. We hope that this may be done in the future.

The accomplishment of coalition between the two leaders and the consequent disappearance of the party caucus muzzle, has had two important results, one of which is good, namely, the absolute freedom of criticism now enjoyed by members, and the other bad, namely, the reckless irresponsibility exhibited by some members, who have tried to serve merely sectional interests in total disregard of the wider, national interest. Such recklessness and irresponsibility as we have had, for example, from the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) is to be deeply deplored. While I am, therefore, grateful for the new freedom of criticism which we possess in this House, I shall, nevertheless, try to speak with a proper Sense of restraint and responsibility. At the outset I have to express my very deepest disappointment with the first budget of the Coalition Government. I can certainly not agree with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that coalition has been fully justified by this budget. I can see justification for the coalition in so far as the first main objective at which it aimed has been achieved, namely, to ensure racial peace and harmony, but I cannot see how this budget can be said to be one single step nearer to the realization of the Coalition’s second main objective, namely, the economic rehabilitation of the country. The Minister of the Interior has stated that this is not a farmers’ budget, not a mines budget, but a national budget. Well, I agree with him that it is not a mines budget. We hardly needed the assurance of a Minister to that effect. But the budget is undoubtedly a farmers’ budget. Every farmer who has spoken so far has admitted it, and has expressed gratitude accordingly, while those who are not farmers have one and all attacked the budget on that very ground. The budget is, therefore, a farmers’ budget, and being a farmers’ budget it is manifestly not a national budget. The Minister has admitted that 13.8 million pounds will come from the mines. Out of that amount no less than £10,000,000 will go in one form or another to the farmers. Not even the Minister has attempted to maintain that that colossal sum of £10,000,000 will have the effect of rehabilitating agriculture and bringing it back to prosperity. It is patent that this colossal sum has to be spent merely to tide them over for the next 12 months. The main fallacy which underlies it is the belief that South Africa is an agricultural country, whereas the fact is that we are first and foremost a mining country, and then not an agricultural but at best a pastoral country. And this, sir, is not my opinion, but that of an expert, of an authority on these matters, namely, Professor Leppan, who is Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Pretoria, and a well-known writer on South African farm problems. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) made the mistake of suggesting that One-third of our national income was derived from mining and that if the indirect resources were taken into account, it would probably be found to be 50 per cent. Professor Frankel in his evidence before the Low-Grade Ore Commission three years ago stated that one-half of the national income was directly or indirectly derived from the gold mines, and that half of the population of the whole Union was directly or indirectly dependent for their livelihood on the gold mines. That was three years ago, sir, but in these days of the gold premium the figure would probably be nearer 60 per cent. than 50 per cent. I therefore support the suggestion of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) of a thorough investigation into the position of our farmers. What does this budget provide for the thousands of unemployed in the towns? A mere paltry threequarters-of-a-million as compared with the £10,000,000 to the farmers. Surely a totally inadequate amount. What does this budget provide in the way of remission of taxation with respect to those classes who pay at least 75 to 80 per cent. of the taxes, the townsmen? The answer is none whatsoever. On the contrary, an additional tax, small though it may be, is levied on them in respect of cigarette tobacco. The twopenny postage remains in spite of the fact that the post office made a profit of nearly £500,000, while the additional tax on tea, rice and fish is now made permanent. Sir, this fact that the burden of the towns has not been eased in any way, but on the contrary been rendered more onerous, coupled with the inadequacy of the amount set aside for unemployment, will cause the most profound dissatisfaction in the towns, where there are many thousands of workless and hungry men and women. The working people in the towns have hailed this Coalition Government as the first glimmer of light in their dark and gloomy position. It has been a remarkable fact that in such predominantly workers’ constituencies as Roodepoort, Turffontein, Troyeville and Germiston, the official Coalitionists were allowed to go in unopposed because of the hopes of the working people. But I fear that they will be sadly disappointed by this budget. I appeal, therefore, to the Government to make provision for more money being expended in dealing with unemployment in the towns, even if the money has to come from loan funds. I think, too, that the Government might have dealt with the farmers in a wiser manner; if, instead of giving this sum of £10,000,000 direct to the farmers, the Government had considered the raising of the prices of farmers’ commodities, and the extension of the internal market for farmers’ products, they would have taken a step in the right direction.

The fees of the lawyers have been raised by law.

The lawyers are a necessary class of the community. I would also like to mention the Mozambique Convention. Under a clause in that convention the pay of the Portuguese native is deferred, and he is paid when he gets back to Portuguese territory. These Portuguese natives have been free spenders in the past, and were large buyers of nuts, meat and snuff, tobacco and other things, all farmers’ products, but now that their pay is being deferred, those commodities are consumed by them on a very much smaller scale. Under the convention power is also given to the Portuguese authorities to levy customs duties at the border of a prohibitive character, and these duties also prevent the native from purchasing commodities at Johannesburg. I hope that when the convention comes up for revision in September of this year, the Government will extend the field for employment in the Union by removing those clauses, which have had the effect of preventing the purchase of goods by these natives, such as are manufactured in our clothing factories at Germiston and elsewhere. I come now to the railway budget, and I wish to say that there, too, there is on the whole cause for deep disappointment, although we all realized that the railways would be faced with an accumulated deficit somewhere in the neighbourhood of that actually realized. That disappointment is the greater if one compares the Minister’s budget statement with the speech which he made during the election in support of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) on the 11th of May. The Minister there showed special concern for the artizans and running staff. This is what he said—

That statement undoubtedly raised the hopes of these men that some concession, however small, would be made to them in the direction indicated by the Minister. In that they have been sadly disappointed. When the Minister comes to make a statement to this House not a word is said respecting the artizans and the running staff, who are in exactly the same position as they have been. I hope the Acting Minister will tell us that something will be done for those men who are now working four days a week. I hope something will be done to alleviate the position. The Minister made another very satisfactory statement in that speech at Pretoria (West), very satisfactory from the railwaymen’s point of view, but to which no reference was made in this House. This is what he said—

That policy enunciated by the Minister of Railways that the railways have to be run strictly in accordance with the Act of Union and on business principles, is a policy for which we have clamoured for a long time. I should like the Acting Minister to tell us that that is indeed the policy of the Cabinet, and that it will be fully carried out in the future. Another very satisfactory statement was made by the Minister in the same speech to the effect that he regarded the position of white labourers as a first step in a railway career, and that he hoped that in the distant future, taking into consideration medical and other benefits, they would earn 10s. a day. I am not now pressing for an immediate rise to 10s. a day, but I wish the Minister to consider the position of these men, in connection with their leave. I have here a petition from them which is as follows—

Surely if a man is in the permanent employment of the railways, it is just that he should get at least six days’ leave on full pay per annum, and I wish to appeal to the Minister to make this small concession to these men, seeing that it is nothing more than their just due. I come now to the final point that I wish to raise in connection with the railway budget, and the one point upon which I can congratulate the Minister. That is, his promise to have a commission appointed to go into the whole position of our railways. I am glad also that the Minister is going overseas for men to be appointed on that commission—men who will command respect and who will inspire confidence; but I think the Minister is making a mistake if it is his intention not to have South Africans on that commission as well. I hope he will appoint at least two South Africans on that commission, one of whom to be regarded as representing the interests of the employees especially, and the other to represent industry and commerce. I do wish to appeal to the Minister in this respect. If he does not see his way to appoint these two men as represented, I would ask him urgently to consider seconding one of the officers of the railway administration, to serve, if not as a full member of that commission, then at least as an assessor member. I believe it is important and essential that we should have at least one local man, some South African, to be on that commission. I would also urge on the Minister that the terms of reference to that commission should be of the widest possible nature. I wish to support the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), that men of all grades in the railway service should have the fullest opportunity of putting their evidence before that commission. I trust, when the Minister comes to reply, that he will give assurances on these points which will set at rest many fears which are felt about this matter.

I hope the Government will realize that although the budget is being much criticised it is constructive criticism which may be useful to the Government. Unfortunately there is a tendency with some to put the countryside and the towns up against each other. Any help to the farmers is criticized by them, and it is deplorable because the interests of the towns and the country are inextricably connected. By pleading on behalf of the countryside we are assisting the towns, and vice versa. And, as a representative of a constituency with a majority of urban voters, I ought to represent urban interests, but I shall not forget also to maintain the interests of the countryside. It is said that the assistance to the farmers is too great because only one section of the people is assisted by it, but this is no new policy. The Government has already for years been engaged in assisting our own manufactures by way of protection. Even this budget makes provision for greatly assisting low-grade mines. We went so far in the past in abnormal times that farmers were prohibited from exporting their produce because we had not sufficient. I am thinking of maize. If a great national danger were to threaten South Africa to-day and even if the farmers could get very high prices for their maize and wheat overseas, the Government would intervene and see that those products Were kept here if we required them for our own consumption. It is not a new thing for the Government in times of serious economic conditions to go out of its way to assist the farmers or any other section of the people that are specially suffering. Assistance to the farmer in such circumstances is assistance to the whole community, and we in the towns get the same benefit from it as the man in the country. It is said that the farmers are to blame to a certain extent—owing to their lack of business knowledge and poor farming methods—for the position in which they find themselves to-day. In order to judge of this I have tried to ascertain the position of the farmers in other countries. Let us take a country like Denmark, one of the best organized countries agriculturally, and where agricultural organization and methods have practically reached the zenith of perfection. We know that it is a land where co-operation has reached the highest point. Yet we find that in Denmark, where rural unemployment formerly was 1.2 per cent., it increased in 1932 to no less than 41 per cent. of the working people employed on the countryside of Denmark. Forty-one per cent. of them were unemployed and this shows us what the position was in a country like Denmark which had attained the zenith of agricultural organization and co-operation. This unemployment shows that the farmers there are in the same parlous condition as the farmers here. Take a country like Germany: In 1929 Germany was still importing over 100,000 people on to the countryside for work. In 1932 Germany not only stopped this import, but there were even hundreds of thousands of people on the countryside in Germany without work. Go to America, Canada and all those countries. We will find everywhere that farming is in an extremely parlous position. It is, therefore, the duty of this Government, it is the duty of any Government, to take steps to assist that section of the population which is suffering very badly to-day owing to these abnormal conditions. The State must extend a helping hand to assist them to keep on their feet. I would now like to say a few words in connection with unemployment. During the course of the debate severe criticism has been made of the Government about the way it has provided for relieving unemployment. It was said that the amount of £900,000, which has been put down is far and away too small to meet the conditions of unemployment in our country. I do not so much find fault with the amount put down as with the way in which we are trying to give work to the people. Last year £600,000 was voted for that purpose and I think that we could have assisted many unemployed with that, but the way in which the work was given to the people is what I object to. We have the unfortunate position that the responsibility of finding work for the unemployed is the duty of the Government. The responsibility, therefore, rests on the Government, and on the local bodies such as the town councils and the provincial councils; that is the position. The town councils, with some exceptions, refuse to assume the responsibility of finding work for the people. They think the responsibility rests on the Government. The provincial councils say that they have not funds for the purpose, and it is a fact to-day that to the extent of 90 per cent. the responsibility of finding work is assumed by the Union Government. The question actually now arises whether it is not time to have this question of unemployment investigated and then we shall have to decide in what way the work is to be given to the people, so that the various authorities can know precisely how far their responsibility can go. The way in which we find work by means of the Government office or by means of the other bodies is, in my opinion, not the best one. Let us examine what takes place. The unemployed go to the labour office and their names are registered there as unemployed. Every morning in the week they have to go there to find out if there is work for them, and they stop there from nine to ten, eleven or twelve, to find out if their turn has not come. If they stop away one morning and their turn comes then it lapses, and then he has to wait for a month or two months before his chance returns. The labour office accordingly practically compel the unemployed every morning, for two or three hours, to remain at the office to see if work cannot be found for them. What is the result of this? We have people in Bloemfontein who come in from the settlements, four or five miles every morning, to see if work can be found for them. They remain there three or four hours and then have to return without work. What effect does this have on these men, who are practically accustomed in this way to stand for hours to get work, and who anyhow have to return home to see their wives and children suffering hunger. In Bloemfontein there are people who are hungry in consequence of unemployment; the children, the women and the men are suffering hunger. The great supply of work in the Free State is on the roads. There are about 9,000 people working with a subsidy from the Union Government and the provincial council. Here again the position is as follows. The person is sent 20 or 30 miles to go and work on the road. He gets 4s. a day, and his wife and children have to be left behind in the slums of the town. There she cannot get a little room under £2 a month, and has also to pay for light, fuel, water, etc., while her husband is getting 4s. a day; that means £5 or £5 10s. a month with which he has to maintain two households. He has to provide for his own requirements on the road, and maintain his wife and children as well in the miserable room in the town. It is impossible for people to make a living in those circumstances. The question now is, why should those poor people who are looking for work be given work in such a way as to prevent them from maintaining their families? Would it not be better to acquire a piece of ground alongside the road near the places where they have to work, so that little houses can be built to accommodate their families as well as themselves? I think it could easily be done, if we introduce the same system on our roads as is in force on the railways. There we have a ganger and a number of labourers, who look after a definite piece of the railway line. We can do the same with our roads, and give a definite piece of the road to a ganger, with white labourers. At present the position is that an individual gets work on the road; after two months he throws it up and comes to the town. He then looks for work again, and if we go to the labour office, they tell us that he is a person who has got work and who has left it. He is accordingly not assisted, because they say he is lazy and they cannot give him work. But is that man actually lazy? Is the position not that he was employed in circumstances under which he could not make a living? He cannot make a living. He works so far from his home, that he seldom hears how his people are getting on. Now and then he sends them a little money, and in the long run he gets so desperate that he gives up his work to go and live with his wife and children in the town. I think we should institute a systematic enquiry into the question of unemployment, and try to meet these people we want to give work to, so that they can get work of a knd which will enable them to make a proper living. In Bloemfontein we give food to the people whom we cannot find work for. I consider the supply of food to anyone, who is prepared to work, and healthy enough to work, as one of the things undermining the character of the people, and the sooner we abolish it the better. I have spoken to people who say they do not want to receive the food: they are too ashamed to take food for which they have not worked; they would rather work for the food, and I therefore say that we ought rather to give every able-bodied person, who wants to work, employment rather than food. There are, of course, the old people, and there are the people who are physically incapable of working. This class of person we can give food to, where necessary. As to the old age pensions, I want to say a few words. I am speaking of Bloemfontein. This House, a few years ago, made an amendment in the Old Age Pension Act. I was one of the persons who welcomed that amendment. According to the old Act, there were many boys and girls who were quite able to provide for their parents, but who neglected their duty, and threw the duty of providing for their parents on to the State. We then decided that a commission should be appointed to make enquiries at every place as to what people required the pension, and in what cases the children were able to maintain their parents. I am taking the position at Bloemfontein. There the enquiry is left to the magistrate. Now, we know that the magistrates are constantly changing, and that the new individual does not know the people. He naturally hands the matter over to the police. There are actually cases where people whose pension has been taken away from them, and whose children are to-day just as dependent as those who are in great need. I ask, as that amendment has been made in the law, can we in the towns not try to appoint a commission, consisting of bodies, charitable bodies, who take an interest in the people, to investigate the cases, and where necessary, to try to give assistance to the people who require it? I just want to mention these few points, because there are several members who want to talk before the debate is closed. In regard to railway matters, I just want to say a few things which I cannot omit. We cannot find much fault with the budget; we must only remember that, in years that are past, and during the depression which the railways’ have gone through, great sacrifices have been made by railwaymen. I was one of those who said that we ought rather to ask certain sacrifices of the people employed than to throw many of them on to the street. I feel, however, that we were for four years making “cuts” off those men’s Pay and I think the time has come that we should try to give back to the people what we have taken from them. I want to say that we should start with the low-paid men. I want particularly to refer to the man who has suffered all the cuts and has even been reduced a grade. You have, for instance, to learn to earn £30. His salary is reduced, and ultimately, he is lowered in grade. Then, in the workshops, there are people who work short-time, and I want to ask that more working hours should be given to these people, because many of them cannot exist on the small income they have, in consequence of the short-time. Do not let the people work short-time any longer, but let them work till Saturday morning. Then I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Strauss) said when he advocated that the white labourers going on vacation should be paid something. To-day they get no payment when they go on leave, and further, they have to pay house rent, and such like things, in addition. The late Minister of Railways promised us that he would make the concession that the white labourer need not pay house rent when they went on leave. If it is possible, and the railway business justifies it, I want to suggest that we should go further and give the white labourer going on leave full pay. I must find fault with the administration on one point, viz., that a commission is being appointed over seas to come and enquire into our affairs. I thought that we had had enough experience of overseas commissions that are appointed to enquire into our affairs and that we would not do such a thing again as to appoint people from overseas. There is the case of the failure of the grain elevator in Durban erected by people from overseas. The matter was enquired into by a commission which uttered the following warning—

There we have a commission which investigated those matters. That commission has very clearly shown what we are to expect from commissions appointed overseas. The Minister says he is now appointing the commission overseas because it must be impartial. What do we want to investigate? If we want to inquire, e.g., whether branch lines pay, or we want to enquire whether the railways are being run on business principles, then we all know what it is, we all know what the position is in South Africa. Why then should we appoint people from over seas if we have people here, if we know what to do? If we want to know what goes on in the workshops and appoint a commission to enquire into the question whether the work can be done more economically, etc., then 1 say that our own people are good enough to do so. Some years ago the Minister sent our most capable men overseas, to England and elsewhere, to visit the big workshops there and to find out how they did the work. I, therefore, feel that we have people in our own country that can enquire into the matter. Are the railways in South Africa possibly an exception in alone showing losses and deficits? If that is so, then we could understand people from other countries coming here to show us how we should run our railways in an economical way. But there is no railway system in the world which is working without losses to-day. If we take any railway system, whether it be England, India, Australia, America, Germany, or France, they all have deficits. We know the reason, it is the competition of motor lorries and cars, and also the bad economic state of affairs. I, therefore, cannot see why we should import experts when they cannot, themselves, run their railways without deficits. I want, even at the eleventh hour, to ask the acting Minister to abandon that commission of foreign experts.

I rise to add my contribution to this debate, not as a watchdog to show my teeth to the Government on the budget proposals, but rather to offer such criticism as was invited by the Government through the Minister of the Interior. That invitation seems to me to carry with it the hallmark, not so much of courage as of wisdom, and I suspect that it was inspired by a consciousness of the goodwill and the confidence which the Government enjoys from the population outside at this time of political and racial peace for which all sections have been wishing so long. In fact the safety of the Government is such that I had foreseen a difficulty for them for the present. Their immediate difficulty to my mind is to discriminate as to who are their actual opponents and who are their actual allies, think that the members of the Government can with truth declare that they have allies in front of them, allies at the back of them, and that they have allies even at the flanks of them.

And on went the six hundred.

Except for an unweaponed attack that was made, before this House was assembled, on the front benches, we have experienced in this House no real attacks on the Government, and I believe that the spirit of coalition has permeated the atmosphere in this historic chamber and has succeeded in dispelling from it, let us hope for all time, that spirit of bickering and bitterness which in the past has been so unworthy of the dignity of this House. The Government will not take it amiss if I impress upon them that there is danger ahead for them in the very safety of their position. I say this because Ï believe that the responsibility of a Government to its people is commensurate with the degree of confidence that it enjoys from the people and the confidence of the people in this Government is well-nigh absolute. The Government’s responsibility to give a fair and square deal to all sections of the population also becomes absolute. Because of its position of safety, I submit that this Government is peculiarly able to give all sections that fair and square deal. It is with justice and reason that if any demand is made from any section of this House for relief, then they do so with as much right as any other section. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) stated his view to be that coalition implies equality of sacrifice, but he has uttered only a half truth, for coalition, to my mind, implies equality of relief and not only equality of sacrifice. If it implies only equality of sacrifice, who has to make the sacrifice? I submit that the Government can demand only sacrifices from those able to make them. When the Government decided to call upon the mining industry to make its sacrifice, I expect the Government satisfied itself that the mines were able to make that measure of sacrifice which they were called upon to make by the Government. To come to the question of equality in relief. If one closely analyses the matter, from that standpoint, one is grievously disappointed. When one wants equality of relief, then I say that if the Government is aware of the position of all sections in this country, and one assumes that it is, then the Government will afford relief, even if it cannot do it in a positive way, as it is doing in the case of the farming population, then it will give relief in a negative way to commerce, industries and professions. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour suggested that when a member rises to apply for relief, on behalf of commerce, industries or the professions, we are endeavouring to emphasize the conflict of interests between town and country. I believe the Minister strained the position when he suggested that. What I wish to emphasize is this—the principle of equality on which coalition stands. The Government has given relief to the farmer, and as the representative of one, if not the most, important primary producing area in the Union—Worcester—I wish to express to the Government my very sincere gratitude. I want to say that the budgetary proposals of the Minister of Finance have my hearty blessings and full approbation; but I believe that there is danger in the application of the form of the relief proposed to be given by the Government. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) I think it was, has already enlarged upon it, and I foresee this danger as emphasized by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), a distinct danger of carrying into practice the proposed relief, as stated in the budget. The Government will probably find snags and difficulties, and there will also be difficulties and probably injustices if one analyses the mentality of the average old South African farmer. Those of us who live amongst them, have business with them, and manage their affairs, know that the average farmer of this country considers the title deed of his land as being in the nature of something sacred, and he would have to be in a corner, financially speaking, before he would submit to a mortgage being placed upon his farm. He would rather utilize to the utmost all his credit then have an endorsement placed on his title deed. I know in my district many farmers who own land to the value of £10,000. They carry a slight mortgage of £2,500. Those farmers are moderately comfortably off, but they are going to obtain relief through the reduction in the mortgage rate of interest. I don’t grudge him that. I say let us give it to him by all means. But you get another farmer who has no mortgage. He owns a smaller proposition, but he is heavily loaded with debts, and that poor man, because he has considered his farm as something sacred, and because he is unmortgaged, will get no relief at all. That is the snag in this thing which may cause an injustice to be done by the Government, and I would ask the Minister responsible for the proposals of the Government to see that provisions are made which will obviate any possibility of such an injustice being done.

He can take up a bond.

My hon. friend says “he can take up a bond”. My hon. friend does not realize that the Minister’s proposals will not meet such a case as that of the man I have referred to. When my hon. friend makes such a remark it shows that he does not understand the Government’s proposals. I would like, in conclusion, to address a few remarks to the Government in regard to the other side of the picture, namely, relief for commercial men and industrialists. I think that the Government has a glorious opportunity, and especially the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, to manifest to all sections of the people of this country, that they mean to carry out the true spirit of coalition, and that they intend to exercise he principle of equality in relief. I would urge upon the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that he could, without loss of revenue to the Government, go back to the old penny postage and abolish the charge of the extra tickey on every telegraphic message. I hope that the Government will ensure for themselves a long and useful period of office by giving effect in their policy to the true spirit of coalition.

I, for my part, am very glad that the Government is welcoming criticism. Two Ministers have already expressed themselves that they are glad that hon. members are criticizing the budget. I am, however, surprised at the last speaker, the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. J. E. J. Krige) that he has not left it at criticism, but has even wanted to show his teeth. The Minister of Agriculture also said to-day that the Government welcomed criticism. I was, therefore, a little surprised to learn from him that he was so much put out at the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) having offered a little criticism. 1 would have preferred him to be more concerned about the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), or that he had addressed himself to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) because he voted against the Government in the first division in the House. It is, however, a very nice spirit the Government is exhibiting in welcoming criticism. It is a much finer spirit than what many of the over-courageous followers of the Government showed at the time of the election when they followed us from platform to platform to find out whether we were 100 per cent. coalition. They followed us with a thermometer to decide whether our coalition temperature was precisely 100 per cent. It could not be above or below 100 degrees.

That of some was 120.

Yes, the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) subsequently stated that he was 120 per cent. coalition. One had to be precisely 100 per cent. coalition or you were no good. It is those same people who come to the House and threaten to vote against the Government and are already doing so. I was not one of those who quickly shouted “Hosanna” about coalition, but I do not so soon shout “Crucify Him”, as people who were 100 per cent. coalition. I am going to vote for the budget of the Secretary for Finance. I, for my part, am very glad that the Government in its budget scheme has accepted in principle the first part of the Van der Horst scheme. I will, however, venture to express my disapppointment here that the Government cannot accept the rest of the principles of the scheme. As the Government starts by accepting the first part of the scheme it is for us to be very thankful, and we are very thankful, but what we feel is that the people in the country expected more from this coalition Government than what they received from the Nationalist party Government. Now the Minister of Agriculture tells us this afternoon that this budget is just the same as it was prepared by the Nationalist party Government. The people expected more and that is why it put a coalition Government into office, but we get precisely the same thing as the Nationalist party Government would have given us if it had stopped in office. The Minister of Agriculture himself says that, and we accept it as the truth. The budget makes provision for temporary measures. We have had temporary measures in the past and the farmers were thankful. They are also thankful for these temporary measures. What the people, however, want is permanent help and now that there is a coalition Government they hope that they will receive permanent help. That certainty, however, they have not got. The Minister of the Interior allowed it to glimmer through clearly that it was not certain that the mines would be able next year to pay the same contributions as this year. The farmers know that they are being assisted in the present budget, but will they be assisted next year, and the year after?

What certainty have they that it will not be so?

I prefer to put it positively, what certainty has the farmer that it will be so? They want certainty. If the Van der Horst scheme is accepted it will give certainty for a period of years. What we would like to have is some permanent help which will give their independence back to the farmers.

What do you mean by permanent help?

I mean help which will put the farmers of South Africa on their feet and give them back their self-dependence.

What is that help?

That help is precisely what I said just now: the Van der Horst scheme and the whole of that scheme. I want to ask the Government if it is not possible, when it introduces another budget next year, to meet the expectations which are cherished. The expectations from the coalition Government are great, and I assisted in arousing those expectations with the people because they were aroused in me. I told the people: “You are now getting a coalition Government and we expect many things from that Government”. We expect of it that it would try and make South Africa sound so far as its farmers were concerned. We expect from the Government that it would try to create means of livelihood for our people, new means of livelihood which will make a civilized way of living possible under very difficult circumstances. What provision does the budget make to create means of livelihood for our people so that the people can follow a civilized way of living? I would like to see the Government come forward with a scheme which was much more comprehensive than the one we have before us now, with a scheme which would in the future give the farmers the assurance that it would not merely always be thrown at their heads that they would always be the hewers of wood and drawers of water who were receiving alms from the Government, but that for them there was a day when they would get their self-dependence back. If the farmer of South Africa has one good characteristic then it is his feeling of self-dependence and I am astonished that we have not exploited that spirit more. I ask that they should be given that self-dependence. Then the Government has before it the report of the Carnegie Commission. I looked forward so much to the budget in which some of the Carnegie recommendations would be incorporated. I ask the Minister of Labour what is proposed in it, what is he going to do for those 300,000 people of whom the Carnegie Report speaks? Those people consist of children of the people who trekked away from the ports in order to open up South Africa and to do pioneer work, to open up the way to the wealth of Johannesburg and Kimberley. The children of those people, however, are not the possessors of the wealth that was found there. They are on the way back to the towns whence their ancestors trekked as pioneers. But how are they coming back? Their ancestors had the pluck to trek into the wilderness, they are coming back without courage. Those who are stopping on the countryside are pining away. Those who are coming back to the towns are returning like soldiers after their defeat. They are coming back like soldiers who have lost a fight on the battle field. They are not able to make a living there for themselves in a town where the watchword is £ s. d., in a town where Mammon worship often counts more than nobility of soul. I ask the Minister of Labour what the intention of the coalition is in this respect. I would so much have liked to see the Government immediately make a start in explaining the coalition programme. We did not conduct the election on a programme, but on good feeling and goodwill, and we want to give the Government a chance, but it is time that they put a fully worked out scheme for the future before us.

Suggest something.

I will do so. I want to suggest something to the Minister of Labour, but before I do so I want to say something else. Tn 1,000 years more or less who knows how long the mines have been worked out. Every grain of seed which is thrown into the earth is productive, and produces more wheat; every grain of gold which is taken out of the earth makes South Africa worth a grain of gold less. When the wealth is exhausted there are certain people who have become rich partly on starvation wages of our people, who will not stay here. Where will those people be? They will then be far over the sea, but we shall still have the poor people. Let then the Government put its hand deeply into the pockets of the mines. The complaint is made that the mines have to give so much, but they are still only giving some of their overplus. I do not know a period in the history of South Africa when the farmers could give anything out of their overplus. But the mines get £19,000,000 more yearly and the Minister of Finance said himself that none of that really was due to the mines. They are, therefore, only giving of their overplus. All the years since 1911 the mines have lived well. In 1923 they paid less taxation than in 1911, but the rest of the population paid £10,000,000 more in 1923 than in 1911. The Minister of Finance says that the £19,000,000 is not due to them. I cannot understand why additional millions should be left in their pockets as a present. We could do very much with it. Now I come to the recommendation as I promised to do, I want to ask the Minister of Labour if there is not a secondary industry in South Africa which is awaiting development, and which will give work to thousands of people? I am referring to the great possibilities of the fishing industry in South Africa. I cannot understand the position. We are successors of the two great nations which were both great seafaring nations. The Hollanders and the English in the old days had already made a great deal of the fishing industry. We are descended from them, and I ask if it is not possible for the sons of the countryside, the descendants of the seafaring nations, who can no longer remain on the countryside and who are prepared to do any work to be given an opportunity to develop the secondary industry of South Africa, and to make a success of it? Why then can Canada develop such a great industry in much more unfavourable circumstances and get £2,000,000 yearly out of fishing? Along our coasts we have fortunes. There are potential fortunes a few miles from the coast. I have been told that a few miles out to sea there is an area 1,000 miles in length where the fish team to any extent you may wish. It is not developed. We are apparently still sticking to the protocol of Jan van Riebeek when he recommended the people not to waste their time fishing. It seems to me that we are trying to do the same. We import 400,000 lbs. worth of fish per annum, while we have these treasures alongside of us, while at the mouth of the Orange River there is a great fishing bank which has not yet been touched, while outside of Durban there is a great fishing bank which has not yet been touched. In South Africa we catch 16.000,000 lbs. of snoek annually, and our market for that kind of fish is totally undeveloped. It is merely a small inland market and a small market in Mauritius, I want to mention two kinds of fish. I have been assured that stockfish is the best for the export trade. It is a fish with soft, tender flesh; what are we doing with this fish? We are allowing it to be exterminated by the seals. Why? We find it by the million along the west coast, but we are allowing it to be exterminated for the sake of a few thousand sealskins, which, by the way, we have been unable to sell for the last three years. It looks very much as if the cart has been put before the horse, at any rate it is a strange way of encouraging the fishing industry. There is yet another kind of fish which we find in abundance along our coast and that is the sardine. Yes, it is strange, natives and also the white population eat a good deal of that fish, the little sardines, but we forget that we have that fish here. Every year we import 340,000 lbs. of them from England, Norway and other countries. From Norway alone we import every year £100.000 worth of pickled fish, and here we have all kinds of fish in abundance along our coasts. There is a little fishing done along our coasts, but it is only a trifling part of the fish there are. We could just as well catch those sardines and manufacture them as California and Japan do. In Japan it is the chief article of export, but in South Africa we do not touch it with a pole. I want to ask the Minister of Labour to consider if it is not possible to kill the penguins and duikers along our coast which are so destructive to the sardines along the coast. It will possibly be said: “What about the guano they provide,” but they only provide 10,000 tons of guano while our imports of fertilizers from abroad run into 200,000 tons a year. Therefore, the penguins and duikers do not assist much in that department. It is calculated that around our coasts there are about 20,000,000 fish-eating birds which destroy 7,000,000 tons of fish annually. As there are 20,000,000 of them and they only yield 10,000 tons of guano, it is calculated that we only get 1/1,000 per cent. from every bird, yet for that we are protecting birds that are destroying our sardines. If we rather gave up the guano which they produced and instead of it worked up the offal produce of fish then we can obtain the same result. The farmers on the west coast are beginning to realize this. They feel that we shall benefit more by tinning the fish and by the use of the offal for making fertilizer rather than purchasing this bird guano at £7 a ton, inasmuch as the fertilizer made from the offal of fish gives the same results. I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture here for the proposal to have an enquiry made into the working of the co-operative societies in South Africa. I would like to ask him, however, this afternoon whether he will not now, seeing that by the appointment of a commission he admits that co-operation has not worked well in the past, help us to assist those people who have borne the burden of the wrong system of co-operation? There are people who in consequence of that wrong system have carried other people who remained outside, and they became the victims of the wrong system. The Minister admits the fact—and it is well known. Will he not now prepare a scheme to assist the people with the 8s. per bag they have suffered as damage in consequence of the system which was in force? There was over production in 1931. In the meantime wheat was imported. The cooperative societies got 1,500,000 bags under their control while 4,000,000 bags were reaped.

How many?

1,500,000 out of about 4,000,000 bags which were reaped. Of this the societies sold a portion at 22s. 6d. a bag, but then the new harvest came. They still had to dispose of about 1,000,000 bags and for that they received 17s. 6d. a bag. They, therefore, had a direct loss of 5s. a bag. Then there remains to be added the losses through storage charges, interest, depreciation, and costs of administration which, taken together, is calculated at at least 3s. a bag. We find therefore that the loss is 5s. a bag, plus 3s., i.e., 8s. a bag. This loss on that quantity of wheat amounts to about £400,000. And now the Minister comes and gives £120,000 to help in paying off the advance by the Land Bank. What he forgets is that the State has got about £225,000 from the customs duty on the wheat that is imported. Is it not fair for us now to take that amount and give it back to the wheat farmers? The Minister of Agriculture has already told a deputation of wheat farmers that it cannot be done. He says that there is no money for it. I have already referred to the little present of £2,000,000 which has been given to the mines. I will tell the Minister where he can get another £1,000,000, or is the Minister not anxious to know where he can get another £1,000,000. He can simply put a tax of 10 per cent. on the money that exchange speculators sent overseas before we quitted gold. It was surely the view of the previous Government that a tax should be put on those people who speculated on the exchange, or was it not? Now we have a coalition Government and we surely expect more from them than from the old Government. They come, however, and do not impose that tax. They put a premium on disloyalty and they encourage the people when South Africa is again in financial trouble once more to exploit the country to fill their own pockets. When our country was in difficulties those people took money and sent it overseas to make profits at the expense of our country and the Minister of Finance and other Ministers inveighed against the actions of those people, and now I am surprised to see that the promised tax is not imposed, and that a premium is being put on disloyalty to South Africa. I will now sit down, but I cannot do so before I have said a word to the Minister of Railways on the composition of the railway commission which he has announced. The Minister of Railways is at present on the water, and my words cannot reach him, but I would like to use the word to him: “Et tu Brute.” I am opposed to his importing men from overseas to constitute that commission. It is a thing which conflicts directly with the principles of the party to which the Minister and I belong, and which we should guard in this House. The appointment of a commission from overseas conflicts with the principles which I was sent to this House to guard, the principle of “South Africa first,” and the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Railways were both sent here to guard that principle. The introduction of men from overseas to serve on that commission is an insult to the sons of this country who have studied overseas as well, and obtained degrees which are just as good as those of engineers abroad. To me it is somewhat of an indication of lack of self-confidence in South Africa to go and import people from overseas for such a task. If the Minister were to propose to bring in a technical person who had outstanding capacity to give evidence, it is a different matter, but to appoint the whole commission from abroad is a thing I cannot support on principle. I would have thought that the Railway Board had had enough of engineers imported from overseas for work in connection with the railways. Let us just think of the experience with Mr. Littlejohn Philip. I can tell you beforehand what the recommendation of the commission will be. The commission will recommend that our railways cannot be worked economically if the policy of civilized labour is not abolished. If it recommends that then the Government will tear up the report and throw it in the waste paper basket in order to appoint a commission of Afrikaners to make a fresh report. But I am one of those who have not given up hope in spite of the disappointing hint of the Minister of Railways in which I miss a little self-confidence. I still believe that we in South Africa will be so proud of our own people, of our own identity, and of what is our own that we shall yet one day get so far as to open the sessions of this great House in a South African way, that we shall do it every year in accordance with our own South African method of life, and with our own South African clothing. Who knows perhaps we shall yet get far enough some day to have our highest court in South Africa so that we need not go for our court of appeal where the judicial procedure is different to our own. We have only to be self-confident. Perhaps we shall yet some day get to the length that we consider the great sons of South Africa as great enough to permit of the highest state office in South Africa being filled by them. It only needs a little self-confidence. I want to imagine that we in South Africa will get to the length of outliving our own national life and our national ideals. But the proposal of our Minister of Justice is in my opinion most certainly not an encouragement in that direction.

As an independent member and one of the great minority in this House, it is not my intention to-night to endeavour to take up a great deal of time, but I do want to register a protest against the way in which this budget has been put forward. As you know I am one of the Reef members, and, incidentally, a farmer; but I do feel that the mining taxation, as put forward to-day, is far too heavy. I consider that hon. members of this House who have not been to the reef and to the mines have no idea of the difficulties or the troubles with which we are faced. Now, what I am asking for is this. The farmer has been given a considerable amount of help and is going to get a lot more help. But we on the reef have our troubles as well. Those troubles in the first place are in connection with miners’ phthisis. We have a great many miners’ phthisis sufferers, and we have people very closely connected with the phthisis sufferers. I am referring to the small holders, of whom a great proportion are phthisis sufferers. I consider that if this money is going to be taken away from the mines, then the miners’ phthisis sufferers and those small holders should, in some way or another, receive relief as well. Small holders are closely akin to farmers. They have holdings from five to ten or twenty acres, but under the Government’s relief scheme, they are not going to receive any help whatever. We are not asking for very much. We had a deputation waiting on the Minister of Mines the other day, when he undertook to do whatever he could to help these small holders to retain their holdings. Well, I hope that the Minister will do his utmost to do so, and that some money will be placed at the disposal of these people so that we can, in some way or another, save them, to all intents and purposes, from themselves. As you know, the miners’ phthisis sufferers to-day are almost unemployable, and I do feel that in those circumstances they should be kept on the land, and helped to help themselves. We are asking for money merely to help the holders. I think some scheme should be devised whereby they should receive this help. I want the House seriously to consider the matter, for if the proposed taxation is not lightened some members for Rand constituencies have received requisitions, asking them to vote against the budget, and we may have to do so; I for one, shall certainly do so. But if the position is met on a fifty-fifty basis, and not on a seventy-thirty basis as analysed by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé), then I think that every member of this House will vote for the budget. We are merely asking for justice, nothing more and nothing less. We do not want the issue to become a provincial one, but we desire a broadminded South African policy, whereby we help one another to help ourselves.

We have heard a tremendous amount of criticism of the budget, but we farmers should definitely express our appreciation to the Government for its attempt to save those whom we represent. Some people feel that enough has not been done by the Government in this direction, but at least the Government have broken new ground, and no one can say it has not kept its election promises to give assistance to the farmers. The Government is helping the farmers without destroying their credit, and without striking such a blow at the source from which they borrow that they will not be able to borrow again in the future. Let us face the fact that the majority of our farmers cannot pay the present rate of interest on the bonds on their farms and if they are forced to do so they will lose heart and give up hope. God knows that our farmers have shown their courage in hanging on as they have done under the dreadful conditions that have prevailed in the Union for some years past, but there is a limit to everything, and at long last the breaking point has been reached. No one living in the towns can realize the demoralizing psychological effect of long continued droughts. The farmer sits waiting for weeks and months, and sometimes for years, for the rain that never seems to come. His water supplies decrease to vanishing point, his stock grow thinner, until finally with a gesture of despair the farmer with the little money he may have left, buys feed for his stock, but as the rain still refuses to fall his stock perish. On the other hand, even if a farmer can produce anything to-day he will, owing to the great fall in the price of agricultural produce, have to sell twice as much as he did before, and even then he cannot meet his liabilities. Struggle as he may, and work as hard as he can, his debts mount up until, finally, he realizes that the burden has become so heavy that he can never get clear. Fortunately, the Government has come to the farmers’ aid. This move on the part of the Government will give the farmers new hope. They will strive to pay three-and-one-half per cent. interest and will be encouraged to hang on until the tide turns. They will then once more go forward, and once again become the real backbone of the country. On the other hand, if you push the farmers too far they will give up hope, and not only will they themselves be ruined, but their creditors will lose everything. I wish to reply to a few criticisms that have been made in the course of this debate. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) attacked the Government for not taxing the exchange speculators, but the Government did not do that because the task was an impossible one. You would catch the small exchange speculator, but not the big one. To employ his fishy simile, you would catch the sardine, but allow the whale to escape. The big speculators could make it impossible for the Government to find out how much money they sent overseas to reap the benefit of the exchange. You cannot tax income until it has been made; and till the money has been brought back to South Africa no profit has been made; I will give a simple example to show how a man could bring money, sent overseas for exchange speculation, back to this country without it being discovered, and so obviate the risk of it being taxed. For instance, he could buy bearer shares in London or goods and bring them here and sell them. Naturally the Government do not merely want to catch the people who sent £50 overseas in order to reap the benefit of the exchange and to let the big speculators who deal in tens of thousands escape scot free. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) has said that the Government is helping the farmers indiscriminately. Well, to a certain extent, his remark was fair, but when he suggests that only a very small section of the farmers need help, he is on wrong ground, because it is not so. He quotes the trust companies’ pamphlet as the source of his information, but surely he knows that the trust companies have been carrying a large number of farmers for a period of years. These companies have called up a small number of bonds only, and the hon. member uses this as an argument that very few farmers are unable to pay their interest. On the contrary, it shows how serious the position is, because the companies know that if they call up their bonds the money will not be paid, the farmers will become insolvent, and the companies will have to take the farms over when fences and buildings will rapidly depreciate, etc. The trust companies take money from their depositors, and lend it to the farmer on bonds. If the depositors call for their money, the companies will either have to go insolvent or call up the bonds, when the farmer will go insolvent. The hon. member for Gardens has used a most erroneous argument, and one that defeats itself. I admit that a certain number of farmers would be able to pay their interest, but it should be borne in mind that the Government have not had an opportunity, during the short while they have been in power, to ascertain who can pay and who cannot. The position is so serious that it is a question of emergency, and it is better to help a few people who do not require assistance than to allow the whole farming industry to collapse. Next year, no doubt, a proper system will be worked out, to see that no person who does not require assistance will not receive it. Every conscientious farmer has been selling his movables and his stock and plant to try to meet his liabilities. He has been meeting his current liabilities out of capital, and if you do not afford the farmer relief you will have him sitting on his farm unable to earn a sixpence, with no stock and no plant to work his farm. Again, the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) hurls at the House this £26,000,000, but he makes no attempt to discriminate between urban and rural liabilities. He says that the paper from which he got his information, the green book of the trust companies, did not analyse the position. It is surely wrong for him to use such an argument when he cannot analyse the figures he submits. It is wrong to base an argument on information which you have not got. He mentions the £120,000 given to the wheat farmers, and refers to it contemptuously as a dole. Now surely he knows that to prevent the collapse of the whole of the industry certain responsible farmers joined cooperative societies on official Government advice and they lost from £500,000 to £750,000 in selling through the wheat pool, instead of selling outside, as other people did; this £120,000 is merely to clear off part of the debt due to the Land Bank borrowed for advances to farmers who held their wheat off the market and so prevented flooding it. These people are jointly and severally liable and if portion of the small advance made had to be paid back it will mean ruination to thousands of solvent farmers. If you call that a dole, the hon. member is absolutely wrong. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens (Mr. Coulter) draws a parallel between the mines’ premium and the farmers’ premium, and suggests they are getting a premium. This is a half truth. With regard to gold, we all know it has a fixed value, and if you reduce the gold content of currency by say 50 per cent., then 113 grains of gold fetches two paper pounds. Is it suggested that farmers who sell in the internal market, wheat, garden, etc. farmers have a premium? And yet they produce millions and millions of produce which is sold here. The South African pound in South Africa remains a pound, and the South African farmer selling in South Africa gets the same price for his wheat in South Africa as he did before we left gold, that is, if he is lucky. How can there be a premium there? It is admitted that a farmer who exports gets a premium, that is, he gets more in exporting wool under our present currency than ne got when we were on gold; but what price does he get? Even if he got half a dozen premiums, the price he receives is still below the cost of production. If he could give us our 1928 prices again, and on that we got a premium, we would be glad to hand the whole lot back to the Government if we could get the price we got some years ago. And that is exactly what happened during and after the war, when everybody, including every farmer, paid an excess profits duty on his income. His income was based on what he made in 1913-’14; and on everything he made in excess of that he had to hand an excess profits duty of 50 per cent. over to the Government; but would the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) suggest we are making excess profits to-day? In the United States of America in vast portions of the rural areas, the ordinary law no longer operates. We have read of judges being dragged from the bench and hanged. People are getting desperate. If our farmers are forced too far in sheer desperation they may do anything. A farmer will see his stock die and his farm become dilapidated; but he will not sit still and see his children die of starvation. The Government are abiding by the principle that a creditor must pay his debts, and they are assisting the farmer during a difficult time to do so. They say you pay three and a half per cent. and we will contribute 1½ per cent. to bring it up to 5 per cent. But once people get out out of the habit of paying their debts; once the principle is put aside they might refuse in future to do so; a bad habit becomes second nature. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) and others said that it was not fair to assist only the farmer. But the farmers do not hoard money. In many instances they will not even handle the money, but it will go to their creditors; and I wonder how many of those creditors live on the platteland. Most live in urban areas. Most of the money will go direct into the pockets of other sections of the community and will be reflected in the business and commercial section of the country as a whole. Ask any business man and he will tell you that immediately the farmer gets a decent price for his products, it is at once reflected in the business of the country. Business becames brisk in the towns and unemployment drops. This assistance is one way of putting money into circulation. It will mean saving farmers from losing their land and their self-respect and from drifting to the towns. It is handing the farmer a lubricant to grease the wheels of his own business, and finally it will help to lubricate the wheels of the whole business community. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) went further. He spoke of giving the farmers £10,000,000, and he suggested it was a dole, but what does the dole cost in other countries where it is having a demoralizing effect and is drying up the very sources of business? But here you are helping a hard-hit section keeping them on the land, keeping them working, and putting them in a position where, when things improve, they will be self-supporting once more. The difference between this scheme and the dole is simply the difference between taking from a man, who owes money, his implements and tools, and selling them, to pay his debts; placing him thereby in a position where he is unable to earn a living, even if he could get work, and with that money paying him a dole to keep him in idleness, instead of letting him retain the wherewithal he can earn a living with when the tide turns and he can once more obtain work. Here an attempt is being made to keep the farmers on the land and in work, and giving them every chance to be self-supporting and to stand on their own feet when prices improve once more. It is absurd to suggest that in helping the farmers you are helping only one section. It would be just as absurd to say that if a man should be bitten by a snake, and venom serum is injected into one arm you are only trying to save that limb, whereas, in fact, the serum goes into the blood stream, circulates right through and saves the whole body. Here the money will go into circulation generally throughout the community, and will indirectly assist all sections and keeping the wheels turning till we have prosperity once again. I just want to say one word on a very important matter, which I hope to have an opportunity of saying more about later, and that is the question of the wheat growers. I won’t go into the matter fully here because the debate is closing and others want to speak. I am indebted to the Minister of Agriculture for his courteous reply to the questions I asked about the commission to investigate the wheat industry. But I see this commission is to go into the whole cooperative movement, mealies and wheat and all the rest of the products handled by the farmers’ co-operative societies. I feel the ground to be covered is too great to allow of a thorough investigation of the wheat industry because the commission will not have the time to do so. I feel it is such a very important matter and there is so much at stake that the Government should spend a little extra money on appointing a separate commission to inquire into the wheat industry only. We shall have to pass legislation in the near future if we are to save the wheat farmers. There is not the slightest doubt about that, but, unless you have the necessary information, it is impossible to pass any legislation whatever, because legislation which might be useful in one set of circumstances might be useless and even dangerous in another set of circumstances. For instance, we want the commission to find out how much wheat is likely to be produced in three or four years’ time. It is discovered that the production would be 100 per cent. more than to-day, totally different legislation would be required from that which would be necessary if the surplus was only 20 per cent. above the present consumption. Because if you worked out a scheme whereby you could export a certain amount of wheat, if there was a surplus in any one year, and if that amount of surplus was only say 10 or 20 per cent. of the total consumption. Then you could so arrange matter as to sell the wheat through one channel, and hold back a certain amount of the purchase price of that sold at the internal price, and pay out to the growers of that wheat which has to be exported at a lower price in order to bring these two prices to the same level; but if you are going to have a surplus of four or five times as much as you can consume, then a totally different form of legislation will have to be introduced, and the legislation passed to deal with a small surplus will be absolutely futile in the second set of circumstances.

If any proof were ever necessary of the desirability of forming a national or people’s government, then this budget has supplied it. Although we all admit the critical position of the farmer, and that we are going through exceptional times, I yet want to ask some impartial observers—I will even say ask any opponent of the Opposition— whether it would have been possible for any party Government to bring up a budget such as this before the House, and get it through the House. It may be that another Government might have introduced one, but it never would have been able to put it through. It is in this connection that I want to say a word to the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). To a great extent I agree with him when he says that all these proposals could have been contained in the budget of the late Nationalist party Government. I am thankful to think that we might have got such a budget from the late Government, but would we, as a Nationalist party, have got it through the House? I think that I can speak with a certain amount of authority in this matter, as one of the whips of the late Government, and I say it would have been impossible.

How so?

I am surprised to hear that from the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), but I will answer his question. Just before the new Government came into office what was the position in the House? We could not allow a member of the Nationalist party to become ill. We found that we were dependent on the votes of a few Labour sympathizers, and we had to flatter them in order to get their votes. Then we had the members favouring Mr. Roos. We did not know how they would vote. Then we had the fact that, humanly speaking, some of the members would become ill.

The Roos people would always have assisted you to get a budget through which was a good one for the farmers.

If they got instructions to vote against that budget, then they would certainly have done so. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) would possibly not have voted against us, and he never said so. But the other members of the Roos party told us that they would vote against us if they were instructed by Mr. Roos to do so. If Mr. Roos then had wanted another Government, and it had suited him to instruct thém to vote against us, where would we have been? While it is a budget which we certainly might have expected from the Nationalist party, we must be thankful and appreciative that we have the South African party supporting us.

Is this an apologia for coalition?

The hon. member for Ladybrand does not agree, but he, nevertheless, got in with the assistance of the coalition vote. Notwithstanding that, he wants to criticize the coalition. That is where the unfairness comes in. Let us be honest about such things. Let us honestly support the Government or oppose it. Do not let us come to this House with the assistance of the coalition vote and then attack the Government from the rear. We have had criticism here which was not fair, but which was calculated to discredit the coalition Government. I am thankful and glad that we have a Government formed in this way.

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

At the adjournment I was trying to explain in what way a budget like this could never have been put through in this House by a party Government. I just want to say that, as a Nationalist, I feel indebted to the members of the South African party who are assisting us to-day in this way, seeing that in many cases though representing towns and villages, are mainly concerned with the interests of the countryside, in putting through this budget. Then I also feel that we are particularly indebted to our two leaders for what they have done in this respect by bringing the two parties together. I want to say that it is not only the two parties in Parliament that have been brought together, but I feel it is going much further. The people have come together and they will not fall apart again. The old party system is dead. The more we work in that direction to produce peace and to bring the two sections together the more we shall be working in the interests of the country. As for the railways, I want to express my personal appreciation that we now have a Minister of Railways who comes from an inland province. This is the first time since Union that there is a Minister of Railways coming from the interior, and we have always felt that as the inland provinces make the greatest contributions to the railways, they are entitled to have a Minister from that part in view of the policy of the railways. As a Transvaaler I want to express my thanks at our having such a Minister. As to the commission which is to be appointed, I want, in the first place, to say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in thinking that it is merely on inferiority complex influencing us in not appointing the commission from amongst our own people. I feel there is no one in the country, whose opinion is worth taking notice of, who has not as yet expressed his views about the railways. They have already expressed their opinions on the matter, and they are, therefore, prejudiced. I feel that it is in our interests that the people who are coming out and have to form a judgment should not be prejudiced, and people in our country will not be prevented from taking part in the commission. They can appear as witnesses and express their views to the commission. It is not a new thing for us to have a commission from overseas doing good work. Various commissions have already made reports in the past which are not open to any complaint. There was, e.g., the Kemmerer-Vissering Commission who reported on the monetary policy, we did not complain then. We found recommendations in it upon which we acted, and the report is one we are proud of. I consider that the commission which is now coming here will go to work in the same way as that commission did. There are many things to be investigated, e.g., the capital of the railways; how much capital still is invested in the railways, and how much ought to be written off. But as we are going to have that commission, I hope the Government will draw the special attention of the members to the second part of the clause in the Act of Union which states the object of the railways. Hon. members tend to stress the first part, which says that the railways must be run on commercial and business principles, but they forget the second part, which, I consider, as much more important. It reads as follows—

That is the most important part. We cannot only proceed from a business point of view. This is a young country which can be developed by the railways, and their policy, and I hope the Government will bring it to the attention of the commission that they ought to act in accordance with it, and take due notice of it. As some one coming from the north, I may possibly express my thanks to the Government for the reduction of the railway rates on livestock by 50 per cent. To us, who often live far from the markets and get very low prices for our stock, it is a great concession, but I want to point out to hon. members that it is the Treasury which pays that difference in rates. This will possibly yet have to be followed in many other respects. But I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to one thing in connection with the transport of livestock, viz., that the railways should try to co-operate in order to get the stock to the market more quickly. In the north we are still handicapped by the unfortunate east coast fever regulations, with the result that the stock, after arriving at the Johannesburg market, must be slaughtered within 24 hours. They cannot be kept there to let them recover from the journey, and first to be fattened a little. Although the passenger trains go fairly fast, it sometimes takes the goods trains three days before the stock reaches the market. Perhaps it would be possible to run special livestock trains. I can understand that it would not be possible every day, but if certain days could be fixed, then the farmers could concentrate on them, and it would help them considerably. It happens now that a farmer loses from 10s. to £1 per animal, because the value is reduced on account of the long journey and the immediate sale being necessary. As for the budget, I think the House and the country can be congratulated on the particularly fortunate position that we are able to have such a good budget. The accumulated deficits will be wiped out, no extra taxation is being imposed, and millions are being employed to save the farmers and to solve the question of unemployment. I do not believe that any country in the world can compare with South Africa in this respect. I think that we are especially lucky in being in such a position. During the past it was my duty to reply to the criticism of the Opposition, but, fortunately, it is not necessary to-day. The Opposition we have—I say it with all respect—is one that we need not treat too seriously, nor do they expect it of us. But while, the budget is now being constructively criticized from both sides, some of the Government supporters are possibly going a little too far. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. It was, I think, when the first Union Government was formed. Mr. Merriman was the representative for Stellenbosch, and he criticized the Government very seriously. The cartoon represented a football match and, as a supporter of the Government, Mr. Merriman also wore the Government colours on the football field, but he always kicked the ball in the wrong direction, until Gen. Botha asked him: “Are you playing for our side or for the other?” This we feel to-day in connection with some hon. members, and I want to ask them whether they are honestly for or against the Government. We feel that hon. members can rise and suggest certain things and also criticize, but as this Government has had such a short time at its disposal because it is only a month since the election was on, and it has already done so much, we must try to create satisfaction among the people and must not say that the Government ought to have done this or left something else undone. We must try and give the Government a chance, and I think in the short time at its disposal it has already done a great deal. I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) is not at the moment in his seat, because I strongly object to his criticizing the Government for giving its special attention to the farmers. I say he was not the least entitled to make that criticism because he also is a supporter of coalition, and he knows that that was one of the points of the agreement. If, then, he entered Parliament as a supporter of coalition, then he should also support these proposals, and if the Government had not brought them forward it would have been his duty to criticize them for it. I am particularly sorry that he, as an old member, should say that he did not yet know whether he should vote for or against the proposals in support of the farmers. He will then have to decide very quickly, because the Gardens constituency sent him here to support the Government, and not that the Government should support him. I hope that hon. members will all realize that it is absolutely necessary that we should assist the farmers who are suffering badly owing to causes over which they have no control. I want to say at once that we, in the small towns, feel how dependent we are on the farmers. When the district suffers badly, then the whole village suffers. If, therefore, we do anything in the interests of the farmers we are doing it in the interests of the whole country. One of the hon. members representing Port Elizabeth asked what was done for that town. I want to ask him what would become of Port Elizabeth if the midland farmers were not assisted, because Port Elizabeth practically exists merely on the midlands. I hope that hon. members will realize that it is in their own interest for the farmers to be assisted, although they, themselves, represent villages and towns because these in turn are dependent on the farmers. Seeing that the Government is engaged in doing as much as possible to lighten the conditions of the farmers, I think it would possibly be desirable to make an appeal to the general public to follow the example of the Government, and to be as conceding as possible to the farmers. I think that if we make an appeal to the merchants, attorneys, doctors, etc., that the general public will listen to the appeal of the Government. What I want to speak about specially to-night is the position and the actions of the commercial banks towards the farmers. I want to say at once, and I do not hesitate to say it, that the commercial banks are not doing their duty to the country. We find more and more that we are in a very unfortunate position because the commercial banks do business with every man, woman and child, directly or indirectly, and they therefore have it in their power either to make or mar the country as they please. They have a monopoly in this country. They have our people in their hands to ruin us if they choose to do so, and it is a pity that the whole of our banking should be in the hands of such an exotic monopoly. I do not hesitate to say that there is a monopoly, because, although we have three big commercial banks, they co-operate. They jointly fix the interest, and we are almost unable to transfer our account from one bank to the other. The worst of all is that it is an exotic monopoly, not one of the directors of those banks has his office in South Africa; they are overseas, and the management and policy of the banks is thus decided overseas. It is an overseas banking monopoly that we have here. What then can we expect from it? When the interests of our country conflict with the interests of the shareholders of those commercial banks, what are we to expect? Will they act in the interests of the shareholders, or in our interest? It is impossible to expect that they will act in the interests of our country. They prefer the interests of the banks themselves. I am glad to hear that an enquiry is being made into the co-operative societies and the credit associations. We heard from the Minister of Agriculture that the system of credit associations would be abolished, but what is being substituted for it? I am not advocating greater facilities being given to the farmer to incur debts. Too much credit in the past has, in many cases, been ruinous, but unfortunately the fact is that in our young country and the local circumstances the temporary help must be granted to our people to continue their farming, and why can a proper enquiry not be instituted into the agricultural credit system? I think that on enquiry it will be said that the commercial banks could undertake some such thing. In England a similar commission was appointed, and it was recommended that the commercial banks could start such a credit system. In South Africa, too, the commercial banks could do it if they will accommodate themselves a little more to South African conditions and be sympathetic towards the farming community. When we are concerned with the commercial banks we need not be afraid that capital will be frightened away from our country. They have no capital here. The capital with which the banks carry on business here is not got overseas, but in South Africa itself. The Standard Bank recently had more than £50,000,000 at its disposal; that was money received from deposits in South Africa. They even go further and use the money which is lent to them in South Africa on overseas securities. Take once more the case of the Standard Bank, the capital of the bank is really £2,500,000. The full capital is £10,000,000, but of that only £2.500,000 is paid up, and that money is not invested here. The big buildings the banks have put up have been erected from the profits they have made; their great reserves have also been built up out of profits. It is sound business to build up reserves, and I do not criticize it. We find that the Standard Bank, e.g., has a reserve of £4,000,000, while the paid-up capital of the bank is only £2,500,000. It has been built up out of profits. Then we also find that the furniture and movable assets have also been paid for out of profits, and, over and above all this, they regularly pay a dividend of 16 per cent. As the banks are doing such good business here, then it surely is their duty to do a little more for the country where they make their profits. Let us now examine how they deal with the farmers. It is a pity that there are more farmers ruined by the commercial banks than have been kept on their feet by them. The farmer gets a promissory note at three months. Formerly, it was for four months, but now the time, as a rule, is three months. The commercial banks know that the farmer cannot pay within three months. In that time he has no harvest, and after three months he usually has to renew the bill. The farmer has to find a surety for his bill, and sometimes two sureties; the interest he pays is 8½ per cent., but when he has paid the renewal fees to the banks and stamps, then he is paying nearly 12 per cent. After three months he has to come again with his surety for a renewal, and sometimes it is two, as I have said, and it means that they have to leave their farms four times in the year. In my district it takes some farmers away from their farms for three days. On the average we can say that the farmer and his sureties have to be absent from their farms 14 days in the year in order for the bill to be renewed. Why cannot they make the bills available for a longer period for the farmers? They are, anyhow, satisfied with the securities, otherwise they would not advance the money. They merely feel that it is not the usual business they are accustomed to in England, and accordingly they do not effect a change here either. Further, we find the position that the local bank managers are afraid to report that an individual is not able to reduce his bill. The farmer gets notice to reduce his bill, and if he cannot do it, then there is a threat that the surety will have to pay up. The farmer is honourable and he does not want his surety to get into trouble. Before he permits it he prefers to sell his oxen, and even his plough, in order to reduce the bill. These are all matters in the interests of farming, and all these difficulties are caused although the banks at this very moment have a superabundance of capital. I see the following in this morning’s paper—

Just imagine the banks say that little business is being done. Do they expect an application for overdrafts with the interest they are charging for them? Why do they keep the interest so high? The interest on farmers’ bills, or on overdrawn accounts on the countryside is not reduced although the banks themselves pay less than half that figure to-day on fixed deposits. In this connection I must contradict the Minister of Finance. The interest may have been reduced on first-class commercial securities that the bank has, but on the bills of the farmer the interest has not been reduced a single penny. While the Government has appealed to the rest of the country to support farming because the farmers have been hard hit, we find that the commercial banks are not supporting the farmers. Therefore, I think that I have every right to say that the banks are not doing their duty towards our country. The commercial banks have been excluded from the operation of the Usury Act. We know that under that Act the amount owing, together with the rate of interest, must be shown on the acknowldgment of debt. The banks need not do that and actually do not. The amount is not shown on the bill, and the interest is fixed from time to time. I think it is desirable to bring the banks under the provisions of that Act as well, so that the farmer can know what he is owing and what intrest he has to pay on it. What will be the position of the banks in connection with bonds and interest on bonds? They do not claim that the money is advanced to the farmer under a bond, but the bond is taken as additional security. Then they fix no interest definitely, but it is fixed from month to month. I hope the Government will also take the position of these farmers into consideration, that in cases where no bond is passed they shall also come under the proposed Act so that the bank cannot fix the interest from month to month. In many cases the banks have a power of attorney to pass the bond, and I hope the Government will see to it that in those cases also a high rate of interest shall not be allowed. I am glad to learn that the Land Bank will have more funds available to provide for the needs of those whose bonds are called up in consequence of these proposals. But I am afraid that the £4,000,000 will not be enough. I am afraid that the people will be afraid of the legislation and will call up bonds for the additional reason also that they know that money is available for the Land Bank to take over the bonds, so that they can get their money back. Now, however, I want to bring something specially to the notice of the Government, and I hope that effect will be given to the hint. We find now that with the encroaching legislation and especially the difficult conditions the farmers have to cope with, and the fact that the Land Bank will to-day take over bonds now in force if the mortgagees are not prepared to wait any longer, that the tendency will be for many institutions and persons who have advanced money to farmers to choose to have their money repaid and I am afraid the £4,000,000 will be insufficient by a long way to provide for the requirements. Now to prevent people who would otherwise be inclined to leave their investments provided they can get reasonable security that their money will be safe, I want to suggest that the Government should seriously consider laying down a fixed basis of valuation, and I suggest that the Land Bank be used for that purpose. Let anyone who wants it apply in the ordinary course of business to the Land Bank, and let him give all the data, and let the Land Bank value the land in the ordinary way, and have the application dealt with and then issue a certificate that, according to the Land Bank, the advance value of the land is so much. I do not think it will be difficult for the Land Bank in such cases to guarantee the amount, but I think that if anyone is fortified with such a certificate, that his mortgagee will not insist on his repaying the money, and in that way the Land Bank will not be called upon to take over all the bonds. I am otherwise afraid that no one will any longer advance further money to-day on farm property and those who have such bonds will call them up. We heard from the Minister of Finance that more than £100,000,000 was invested in bonds, and if the people call up those bonds there will be great difficulties. It is considered to-day that interest at 5 per cent. is a fair rate. That is the basis on which it is laid down in the budget, and I think it is a fair one. Now I want to know whether if it is applied to the farmers it can be generally fixed that the interest on all bonds must be 5 per cent.? We have already passed a Usury Act and I hope the Government, seeing it has now taken the first step, will go further and fix the general rate of interest on bonds at 5 per cent. If we do not do that then farmers will get into difficulties. We shall then have the unfortunate position that people who want to advance money will not do so to fanners. They will say that if they advance it under mortgage to farmers it will only produce five per cent. and they can get more in the towns. They will therefore prefer to invest their money in the towns: Then I am very glad to learn that the Land Bank will be prepared to take over bonds even above 60 per cent. of the value of the farm. I want at once to say that the Land Bank in the past was particularly conservative. I want to add that we ought perhaps to be thankful that it was so. We know that the Land Bank in the past did not take improvements into account, but only the agricultural value of the farm, and the bond could not be more than 60 per cent. of that. I hope, however, that they will also take improvements into account now. I want further to mention a few points about the interest reduction of farmers who are not only bona fide farmers but who are lessees. The rent of a farm is usually based on the interest which the man has to pay on the bond over the farm. I hope that when there is a lessee on the farm who is a bona fide farmer that he will be assisted. In that way the lessee will be greatly helped in paying his rent, just like the farmer who owns land and has a bond over it is helped to pay his interest I just want to say a few words also in connection with the Lands Department. I think we are greatly indebted to the Minister, and I think the whole country is very grateful for the work done by the previous Minister of Lands. We hope that his successor will acquit himself of his task in the same way. Notwithstanding the efficient way in which the previous Minister administered the department there are yet a few anomalies I want to point out and which I hope will be remedied. Many of the settlers bought ground when it was much more expensive than now. They possibly made a mistake in buying ground at those high prices, but the department also erred because it sent its appraisers and then valued the land before the people bought it. As it is realised to-day that those people can never pay those amounts, why should we allow them to stop there and choke until they are ruined? If the person cannot pay and the department knows that the land was valued too high, then it should meet them. But we find another unfortunate circumstance, viz., that when one man goes under there the land lapses to the department which then again values it at the same price as before, and then grants it to a second person at the same high price. It is an unfortunate rule which the department is following here because a second man is now being ruined there. In Heaven’s name, let us not do such a thing as to value the land so high again. Before it is re-issued it must be valued by the department which ought to make its own valuation at the real value it has to-day. Then it is said that the farmers in general are being granted a concession of approximately 50 per cent. of the interest which they have to pay. The farmers have generally to pay 7 per cent. interest, and now it is reduced to 3½ per cent. I want to ask what is to become of the poor settler who is also in difficult circumstances and who is doing pioneers’ work to all intents and purposes? Those people have to pay 4 per cent. and they ought to be met in the same way as the other farmers, and their rents reduced by 50 per cent. I just want to touch upon one or two more points. There are especially two points I feel sorry about. In the first place, it is the amount of £1,900,000 which was intended for the loan account, and which is now going to be used for current expenditure. We find that it may be said to-day that circumstances justify it, but I feel that as we have the mines to-day and we know that they are a disappearing asset, we should not use money from the loan fund for current expenditure. We must only do that if we have the best reasons. I hope that this amount will not remain, but that next year we shall be able to put the money back again in the loan fund. As we are now to convert two big loans, viz., the two loans of £13,000,000 and £25,000,000, we know that the commission which will convert those two loans for us is usually paid out of the loan fund. I hope that the amount will not be paid out of loan monies because the two loans are now practically before their expiry being replaced by new loans in order to save interest.

I think we can congratulate the Minister of Finance upon his ingenious budget. He has dealt effectively with the Van der Horst scheme and also with the Roos proposals, and I do not think that in future the country will hanker much after these proposals. The budget is a white man’s budget, and the non-European does not come into it at all. I do think that he should have been given some consideration, seeing that the non-European constitutes a very large section of the population of the country, and is certainly suffering from a great many hardships. The budget is a farmer’s budget, and the farmer is the blue-eyed boy of 1933-’34. We do not begrude the farmer all these things that are given him, because we realise that no country can flourish unless the farming population flourishes, and I, for one, believe that most of the farmers will pull through on the assistance given them. They can borrow money for improvement over a period of 50 years at 3½ per cent.; and they are asked to repay 75 per cent. of the capital only. Their interest is reduced, they are given subsidies on rising markets, the Land Bank is at their disposal, they are relieved of various responsibilities in regard to agricultural credit societies and their railway rates are also greatly reduced, and furthermore, let me remind the House that two years ago they were also given assistance to the extent of about £5.000,000. But I do contend that although all of us are sympathetically inclined towards the farmer, the basis on which he is being assisted is not scientific. I contend that there are farmers in this country who can pull through without that help. There may be only a few of them, but still they are there. Let us admit that the large bulk require help and should be helped, but then there is another section who also have to be helped, but to whom help will not be of very much use, and those are the farmers to whom the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) referred. We have a certain class of farmer, who if he lives to be 100 years, and if you help him all his lifetime, will at the end of his life still be unsuccessful. Tn support of that contention I want to refer to the Carnegie report on the poor white question, and I want to refer to that volume written by Mr. Wilcocks, where he says that experts are unanimously of opinion that unscientific farming methods are an important cause of the impoverishment of farmers. In discussing the psychological causes of backward farming he says that agricultural experts and progressive farmers are unanimously of conviction that in-efficient farming methods have been and continue to be an important cause of impoverishment. Previous studies of the poor white question have repeatedly emphasized this point contend that these proposals are unscientifically based. He then says that farmers are often at long distances from the centres of civilisation, and that of course is another cause for their difficulties, and that the old traditional methods can easily persist undisturbed. He goes on further to say that the old extensive methods were still followed as a matter of course as long as they were the only ones with which the farmer was really familiar and that there are still many farmers who continue tö live under conditions of isolation. He says that in the outlying districts you have .67 of a farmer to the square mile. That is another of the difficulties, the difficulty of isolation. Then he refers to the rainfall. He says that the average rainfall for Stellenbosch is 28.5 inches, whereas for Willowmore it is only 9.6, and Willowmore is not a bad district at all. And then he refers to the losses of small stock in the Willowmore district, and gives the figure of 38.3 per cent. in 1927. These are difficulties with which the farmers have to contend, and he goes on to say, finally, “We do not mean to object to all assistance, but what we do object to is the giving of any assistance to those who could make their way successfully by their own efforts, and we also object to the giving of help without any return from those who are in a position to make it.” In certain areas, in the north-west for instance, people are living in drought-stricken parts, and the question so far as those people are concerned is undoubtedly one deserving of special consideration, not only in regard to themselves but also in the interests of the taxpayer generally. Now with regard to the general taxpayer, I feel sorry that so little relief is being given to him. He has been given slight relief, so far as surtax is concerned, to the extent of £200,000, and then of course whisky is reduced by 2s. 6d. per gallon. I should like the Minister to have made a gesture in regard to the penny postage and various other taxes, and perhaps also in regard to the return to the 1s. telegrams, but I presume that the town dweller has to be satisfied with the fact that no additional burdens have been placed upon him. In regard to the gold-mining situation and the taxation proposed by the Minister, I feel that that proposal is ambiguous, and we shall all be glad to hear what the Government has to say about it. In this respect may I just say that the Government is certainly right, and the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) is also right. It may be paradoxical, but the Government calculates £9,500,000 on a premium of £19,000,000; this is 50-50, whereas the hon. member for Springs bases £9,500,000 on the profits of £14,000,000, which is a very different matter and that is 70-30. His calculations are also correct. We are anxious to hear the Government’s explanation in regard to unemployment; the Government has made fair provision only, but what I did expect was that some provision of a national character would have been made in regard to unemployment, I did expect something in the nature of a scheme of unemployment insurance. I expected also to hear that something would be done for the commercial community, and a scheme whereby the people who dwell in the towns would be able to obtain money at a cheaper rate to build their own homes. These matters we are dissatisfied about, and we hope that the Government will give its consideration to these matters in the near future. Now I want to deal with two points, namely, unemployment, and the diamond industry, and so far as the diamond industry is concerned I may say that I speak as one who is indirectly interested; as one of many thousands of people. I notice that the Minister in his budget speech, said that he was expecting an export duty of £100,000 on diamonds this year. He also said that in 1928-’29 he got £1,200,000 from diamonds, which means that he is expecting one-twelfth of what he got in 1929, which also means that he is expecting £1,000,000 worth of diamonds to be exported. Now if he exports £1,000,000 worth of diamonds, more than half will have to come from the Cape alluvial fields, and that means that he does not expect much diamond mining activity in the current year. The position is not rosy, and I do hope that the Minister is wrong. I am not going to tell this House that the diamond industry has carried this country on its back for fifty years; I am not going to tell the House what a tremendous asset the diamond industry has been, that it has not only helped greatly to develop the whole of the Union but that it has helped to develop countries well-nigh as far as the equator, and there is not an industry which is harder hit than the diamond industry. Half of the population of the diamond fields are on the relief works, and the other half are on half-pay. Namaqualand and other parts are also facing difficult times, but our position is extraordinary. You have men in Namaqualand, for instance, who were born and bred in poverty, and I say this in no disrespectful way, but the people I am talking about helped to create the diamond industry. They are skilled men who used to receive £30 and £45 and £50 per month, but to-day they are either idle or existing on the meagre pay of a relief worker. These men, in happier times, assisted to make the diamond mines at Kimberley and also the Premier and Jagersfontein mines, but what a change is there. To-day they get only 5s a day, 25s. a week, £5 a month on the relief works. That is an impossible position for a man who has to live in a town and who has to pay not only rent but water rates, lighting bills and to buy food and clothes. I have seen these unfortunate people, who because they have been three months in arrear with their rent, turned out into the street with their few remaining sticks of furniture. They have no food, and many of them are half clad. The position is a heart-rending one, and I wish the Minister would give the matter his particular attention. The money to do what I suggest can be obtained to-day. For one thing, the Minister could allow the people on the relief works to work six days a week instead of five and thereby earn an additional 5s. A married man with a wife and five and six children to support cannot possibly keep body and soul together on 25s. a week. The outlook is grave indeed, for if the matter is not attended to promptly the day will come when we shall rue our neglect of these people; unless they are assisted they will sink to such a low level that it will be impossible for them ever to return to their former decent mode of living. With regard to the diamond industry, there is an internal set of circumstances as well as an external set of circumstances. Unhappily the external set of circumstances is militating against us, but the internal set of circumstances can be turned to our advantage. I am not asking for impossibilities or for the Government to spend tens of thousands of pounds in righting these internal conditions, but I do say, in all seriousness, that if the diamond industry goes to the wall the credit of the Union will suffer. It may be asked what I suggest should be done. Well, first of all it has been suggested that as Kimberley is the greatest diamond centre in the world, it is reasonable to ask that everything connected with diamonds should be centred there. For instance, it should be the only air port for the export of diamonds, and all diamond parcels should be registered and inspected there. When new licences are issued to diamond cutters, we would like that they be requested to carry on their operations in Kimberley, where the cost of living is low and there is plenty of sunshine, which is an important factor where the cutting and polishing of diamonds is concerned. Then, State diamonds should not be sold to the detriment of Kimberley. By all means give consideration to the cutters, give them the consideration they are entitled to under the Act, but no more; in fact the State should not encourage diamond cutting in this time of distress. Furthermore, the diamond cutting industry should not be spoon fed. Then, again, the foreign cutters should be given a fair chance. There are repercussions in the diamond trade and we may, if we are not careful, be subject to retaliation on the part of the overseas cutters. Do not let us forget that diamonds are cut in Belguim, and that diamonds are being produced in the Belgian Congo. A diamond sales office will be established at Kimberley, and we are very grateful to the Minister for this. We suggest that there should be a conference with the foreign diamond producers with a view to the control of the whole industry and also in regard to the disposal of the enormous stocks overhanging the market. With regard to illicit diamond buying, we have always felt that conditions should be made more stringent. Cases should be more drastically dealt with by special courts, and the accused should not be tried by a jury, but by a judge and two assessors, otherwise we shall never stop this iniquitous trade. I know of cases in which in some towns although there have been numerous prosecutions for illicit diamond buying, there has never been a single conviction. I instance a case in the Free State in which the accused was a Free Stater. The jurymen were Free Staters and they said, “Why should we get our brother into trouble even although he has taken diamonds from a wealthy corporation?” They found the accused not guilty.

How do you know what the jury said?

We sometimes do know what juries say and think. At all events, this sort of thing does happen and there should be a special court for the trial of I.D.B. cases. I would further suggest that the production of diamonds in Namaqualand should be slowed down merely to cover overhead charges, and that there should be a quota for the State diggings. These are not impossibilities which I ask for, and if these suggestions were carried out we should should re-establish confidence in the trade, and we should be able to carry on until conditions improve. I appeal to the Government to give its serious attention in this matter in order to avert a catastrophe of the first magnitude. Let the Government not forget that the diamond industry has been a great one, and has rendered signal services to South Africa for 50 years. Alas, the town in which that industry is situated has not had fair play. We have been stripped of all our former glory. Incredible as it may seem, practically all the Government offices have been removed, including the defence headquarters, the northern division of the Posts and Telegraphs Department, the district engineer’s office of the Public Works Department, the office of the Inspector of Mines, and the office of the Inspector of Machinery, while the Supreme Court has been reduced from three judges to one judge. These things have weighed us down, until it is said that now there are only two public institutions in Kimberley—the gaol and the office of the receiver of revenue. I may add that we ask for a centralized control of the South African diamond industry, including the control of Government diamonds. We desire that Kimberley should be the centre of the control of the production of diamonds, of the sale of diamonds, and of the cutting industry. We are entitled to that. The Government is restoring the farmers. Here is another case for restoration. We are entitled to consideration, and by helping Kimberley the Government will be helping not only an important industry, which in the past has greatly assisted in the development of South Africa, but it will also be materially helping the Union of South Africa, itself.

I do not want to enlarge on the budget as such; I will do so on a subsequent occasion, but I would like to take the opportunity of saying a few words on a matter which cannot easily be discussed in committee. It is, however, a matter which it is necessary we should debate so that we may be enabled to understand each other better in this co-operation in the coalition Government that has been formed. It is no secret that I, together with several others, objected from the beginning to the entering into coalition. Now I know that there are some who think that those of us who objected did so because we did not find any pleasure in co-operating with the English-speaking people in the Government. Let me say at once that that is untrue. We are prepared with the utmost keenness to work with the English-speaking people where we can do so on a basis of equality and mutual respect. There was, moreover, no wish on our part to continue the party struggle. It was not, therefore, from that point of view that we objected to the establishment of a coalition. It is well known how for years we have differed greatly on important questions, constitutional, economic and cultural. Consequently, there was great doubt amongst many of us whether it was possible to have fruitful co-operation, and to form a Government which would really be able to effect anything constructive in the country when there was such a difference in outlook on matters amongst the various members of the Government. The fear existed that we would either be constantly fighting or would so water down our views that it would act detrimentally on any constructive policy. We have been assured on various sides that a change of hearts has really taken place in South Africa. I am prepared to accept that that is so, even if it is true that in relation to some, I must say: “I believe, but I believe with difficulty,” but yet I accept it and I want with all my heart to put it to the proof. We on our side want to show that we would like to co-operate on a sound basis. I want to say that in the long run there will only be one way by which we will be able to keep many of these questions out of politics, and that is if we just give that proof of the faith which is now in us. I, for my part, will be very glad if we can get rid of our questions, such as the language question, out of politics. But there is one way in which it is possible, and that is if we really find deeds, that we can work together and respect each other. When we have those acts, and we feel that it is a fact in the public service that the officials are mutually treated on an equality, and that it is a thing of the past that one section has to complain that it does not get its rights, or that Afrikaans is tolerated in a cold and step-motherly way, then I hope that a new period has actually come about. I must say that it is a particularly pleasant sign in this direction that some of our Ministers, who are English-speaking, are showing that they are doing their best to meet their Afrikaans-speaking friends in the House by trying to speak Afrikaans. These words apply with reference to the friends whom we have always differed with on constitutional, cultural and economic questions. A difficulty which has always kept us apart, and in consequence of which we were afraid of coalition, was that we also believed that in economic matters there were great differences between our views. We were afraid that with the dominance of big capital, too much of a dividing line would be brought about between the rich man and the poor man. I hope the Government will convince us that that fear was ungrounded. I say this because from my heart and with all my power I want to co-operate to save our people from this parlous condition in which it is. While I am speaking about the relations with those whom we always differed from in politics I cannot omit to say something with reference to those who have always sat on this side of the House with us, and who differ from us on the question of coalition. There are people who think that because we differed greatly from each other on that question and that because in the fight over the question wounds were inflicted, we who were opposed to coalition are now simply sitting here licking our wounds like a wounded animal awaiting an opportunity to make a further leap as soon as opportunity comes. I can assure those friends that with regard to those who were opposed to coalition, whose views I personally know, that that is not so. I feel that it is in the interests of our people and their future that those who wounded each other in that struggle should set themselves to bind up each other’s wounds again. I know that the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) are big enough not only to feel the same way, hut also to act accordingly. I say these few words with reference to our mutual relations in regard to cooperation. I want to give the assurance that those of us who were opposed to coalition in the first instance have not the least intention of undermining the Government. We want to do our utmost to see what we can do constructively to assist our people out of this state of affairs. I do not want to enlarge on the budget itself, but just to emphasize a few things which are still possibly represented too much in a wrong light. More than once it has grieved me that it is often simply represented as if this budget is now merely a farmer’s budget, and the money is only being voted to help the farmers. I think that that is entirely a misrepresentation which is going out to the public. The money which is in the main being voted here with regard to interest, and even the money which is being given to the Land Bank, I practically regard as money which is being voted to prevent a national calamity, and not so much merely to assist one section of the population. Once for all it is unfortunate that the capital which is used in farming chiefly comes from the towns. It is one of the unsound things in our farming industry that the farmers cannot find the capital themselves. Therefore, the interests of the towns and the farmers are so closely connected together mutually that where the one is assisted the other is as well. If the debtors are assisted then in many respects the creditors are even more helped than the debtors. Therefore, there is no reason for feeling between the townspeople and the farmers. During the past few days doubt has been created on various sides as to whether the farmers are actually in such a parlous condition now. In this connection I would just like to refer to certain figures which were quoted in the House, and which are misleading. They were even quoted from the Government side. Figures were quoted of a number of farmers who went bankrupt during the last few years, and the figures are very misleading because the bankruptcies do not show how many farmers were actually ruined. The number that was ruined was much larger than the figures of the bankruptcies. Numbers of farmers are still in the position that they do not want to go insolvent, they are selling their stock and all they possess to avoid bankruptcy unless they are absolutely forced into it, and the Carnegie report confirms this. In that report mention is made of Transvaal attorneys of wide experience who say that only about half the farmers in the Transvaal who are ruined are made insolvent. I also want to point out that the figures of the trust companies with regard to the interest which is in arrear for the last few years, do not show the actual position of the farmers either. Numbers of farmers still had a little credit, and could still do something to pay their interest. They borrowed money when they were able to borrow to pay the interest, and even sold stock and things which they ought not to have sold. The figures as to the arrear interest must not be accepted as a true reflection of the position. I know the position of many farmers in the Free State, good farmers who are still landowners, but who simply cannot make money. Only recently there was a case of such a farmer who went to a storekeeper to buy a little seed for sowing; the shopkeeper said that he could only give two months’ credit, and that the seed would cost 14s. in all. Then the farmer, who was still a landowner, said that he had better first speak to his wife because the few pence they had got hold of were required to buy the food which they could not do without. He came back at night and said that he was very sorry, but that he did not see his way to pay the 14s. within two months. The farmers need the few pence they still make with fowls, or in other ways, for the necessary food to keep body and soul together. Nor can we forget the position of the natives on the farms. Little natives are walking about half-starved on the farms and the Government must think about that. I would like to call the Minister of Agriculture to account on one point, and he will understand, after what I have said, that I am not doing so to undermine the Government. I am very glad of the assistance which has been obtained through his intervention to enable the people to take their stock elsewhere on credit. It is clear that while they are still able to get grazing they do not have the capital at hand to send the stock away. My only quarrel with the Minister that he did not enable the farmers to do so sooner. A month ago I applied to the railway administration and asked them urgently, and made representations to them, but they replied that they would never be able to do it, that it was impossible. They then said that I had better approach the Minister of Agriculture, who might be able to do something. The Secretary for Agriculture then told me that the Minister of Agriculture had gone into the matter, but found it impossible to do so after all the Government had already done. I then had to tell the people there that the two departments could not meet them in the matter, and they had better make some arrangement themselves to send the cattle away. Now it is conceded that many of the people who a month ago could have obtained grazing cannot get it any longer now. Criticism has often been passed by this side of the House on the Land Bank and sometimes very sharply. I, therefore, want to take this opportunity to express the highest appreciation about what the Land Bank has done in these times. I, myself, made tracks in walking around the Land Bank in connection with all the cases I had to do with, and I must say that we never could have done without that institution at this time, and that they have shown the greatest sympathy in helping where it was practically possible. That some people have been pressed is understandable; it is often thought that the commercial banks can be looked to for assistance, but I believe that we could never find a solution of agricultural credit without the Land Bank. I think the Land Bank should be strengthened so that it can provide to a great extent for sound agricultural credit. I hope that it will not be thought that, inasmuch as £4,000,000 is now being given to the Land Bank, that now we can just sit down quietly. We must create a strong and sound institution on proper business lines which can provide sound credit for long terms. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will constantly use his influence with the Minister of Finance so to strengthen the Land Bank that it can meet the great needs for agricultural credit. It is often said that the budget does not go far enough, and does not really assist the farming population out of its distress. I think the Minister of Finance understands this better than anyone else. A crisis is prevailing, and we must try to do what is possible to enable the people to keep their heads above water, but I hope that, although we have to do with a thing which is only a temporary measure, that further attempts will be made to see that our people once again become free of debt and independent. We know that conditions at present are such that youths on the farms think that if they do not get an inheritance and have no capital it is hopeless to start farming, the result is that some of our best youths are going to the towns where they expect to have a better future. We must try by way of the Van der Horst scheme, or some other scheme, permanently to improve the state of affairs, otherwise I consider the future very dark. In these times when the mines are reaching the zenith of production, they are unable to create a condition of prosperity in the country. We are thankful for the assistance we get from the mines, but they are at their top point, and are not able to save us from the depression, and I trust that one of the things which the Government will consider most seriously will be what is to be done, so that the farming population shall once again be able to sing: “That free people are we.”

The present budget marks the gravest crisis that has ever confronted the farming industry of South Africa, and, unfortunately, the causes of the crisis are far too deep to be liquidated by the relief measures proposed by the Government. During the last debate of the preceding Parliament, I drew attention to cases in all the provinces of the Union in which farmers has been dispossessed of their land through their inability to pay interest on their mortgage bonds, and I appealed to the Government to prevent further displacement of farmers from the land. I appreciate, to the full, the measures which the Government have taken to rescue the farmers from further displacement from the land. But the Government must not lay the flattering unction to their soul that the present farming crisis has been overcome by their measures of relief. It is clearly acknowledged in the white paper that the depression in the prices of primary products is mainly responsible for the inability of the farmer to meet his obligations. But, judging from the Government’s programme, nothing is to be attempted and nothing done to cope with the most obvious factors that militate against the realization of fair prices by the farmers. These, I would say, are wasteful marketing, high transport charges, and the need for manufacturing the raw products of the farm into more attractive and saleable commodities. In these important matters we have a great deal to learn from other countries, and we have much in our own country to give us food for serious thought and cause for immediate action. No country in the world has been more deeply stirred by the plight of its farmers than has the United States of America. In recent years successive presidents have made the salvation of the farming industry their especial care, and if a self-supporting, self-contained country such as the United States, with an almost unlimited home market and a well organized farming population, finds it necessary to devise a new agricultural policy to suit the special circumstances of the time, then surely a country like South Africa should set about to improve its home and overseas markets, and take every possible step to make farming a payable enterprise. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) in his view that the contemplated measures of the Government are purely of an emergency character, and can do nothing for the immediate economic improvement of farming. In recent years the difficulties of the farmer in this country and in others have been attributable to marketing conditions. In the United States under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929, the Federal Farm Board, an entirely new body, was constituted as an organization which, on the grand scale, was endowed with powers to bring about a cure of all the ills afflicting the agricultural industry. The board was empowered, among other things, to make investigations and report upon—

I think I can, with the hon. member for Zululand, modestly claim that over a course of years we have constantly striven for the adoption of such a policy in the Union as the Federal Farm Board is enjoined to follow in America. The present crisis in South Africa has been caused in large measure by the unsaleable accumulation of cattle with which the Union is over-stocked. A crisis in the cattle industry was predicted by us as far back as March 17th, 1925, when, in this House, I introduced a motion—

In that connection I also drew attention to the “possibility of the utilization as a factor in the solution of the problem of the Watkins-Pitchford method, or any similar method of converting South African beef into a series of meat foods of acknowledged value.” By the Watkins-Pitchford method it is possible to extract from meat its essential nutriment in the form of a soluble powder containing all the nutriment to be found in meat. The nutriment from eight oxen can be packed in one hogshead, and formed or compounded into many attractive commodities in which it is intended to distribute the scrub cattle into the uttermost parts of the earth.

What will it taste like?

If the hon. member had been here some years ago he would have known that we then had a demonstration by Colonel Watkins-Pitchford which members of this House were invited to attend, and one and all pronounced the wide range of products displayed as most palatable. I want to quote from the report of the Board of Trade and Industries, which was appointed to investigate this matter as far back as 1925, to say what they considered the value of this Nutresco process to be. I shall only quote three paragraphs. The Board of Trade reported on the 3rd March, 1925—

Tn Clause 7 it is stated—

In Clause 8—

In Clause 9—

It is true that the Board of Trade and Industries was unable, at that time, to recommend the Government to agree to the financial proposals which were put forward by the promoters of the process, but there is no doubt that the feasibility of turning scrub stock into nutritive food products was acknowledged by the board, and the purity of the food products was testified to by Dr. Juritz in South Africa, and by such leading medical journals as the “Lancet” and the “Medical Press and News” in Great Britain. The whole proposition has undergone a change since then which I shall indicate in the course of my remarks. I am able to announce that if the Government will undertake to take up the process for the benefit of the people of South Africa, the inventor will consent to the process being vested in the Government upon reasonable conditions which do not stipulate for the payment of any consideration whatever. I want the Minister to reconsider his former attitude in regard to this process because it is a matter of great importance to the livelihood of the people of South Africa. At the time when the matter was brought before the House some years ago, the adoption of the process was supported by the then hon. member for Kroonstad, Mr. Werth, whose absence from this House is a distinct loss to Parliament. It was also supported by the present Minister of Railways, Mr. Pirow, and by the late Sir Thomas Smartt, and the purity of the product was vouched for by the analytical report which was laid on the Table of the House in response to a question by the then hon. member for Paarl. In the improvement in the cattle industry, the livelihood of the farmers is at stake and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter of the Pitchford process and to receive a deputation from members of Parliament who are interested in the cattle industry throughout South Africa. I want the Minister to realize how much the livelihood of the farmer is bound up in the improvement of our markets in South Africa. This is a matter which is more vital in many ways to the farmer even than the proposed subsidies towards his mortgage-bond interest. Because if our markets are put on a good footing, it will be unnecessary to pay such a subsidy for the well-being of the farmer. The farmers’ turnover in the public markets of the Union can be reasonably estimated at from £10,000,000 to £20,000,000 per annum, and a very large share of that wealth production on the farmers’ part goes either to the railways or to the municipal markets. From the gross amount paid for the cattle or produce the farmer has to surrender 25 to 64 per cent. to the railways or market authorities. For three years I have introduced a motion into this House drawing attention to the increasing difficulties experienced by the farmer in obtaining anything like a profitable price for his products, and in that connection I have repeatedly drawn attention to the high marketing charges and the high railway charges upon his products. Without delaying the House, I want to show how from year to year I emphasised the approach of the crisis which is now upon us. The last motion which I introduced was in these terms—

Now in that connection I want to quote very briefly some figures showing the extent to which marketing charges have taken away from the wealth production of the farmer. In one of the abattoirs in South Africa, the charges on any animal slaughtered are on this basis. First of all, four per cent. on the gross proceeds of sale. One would imagine that that covered the ser vices rendered by the abattoirs, that is the slaughtering and selling of the animal, but a persusal of the sales note will prove that that is not the case and that the abattoirs in question then proceed to duplicate their charges against the unfortunate farmer in this way. First of all, they charge four per cent. on the gross proceeds, then they charge 3s. for slaughtering accommodation, one shilling for selling, 3d. for weighing, 2d. for weighing hides and 3s. for insurance, which makes in all 10s 7d. per head on top of the four per cent. on gross proceeds which anyone would consider would cover the services rendered by the abattoirs. Then there are very heavy charges of a similar kind on the minor products which the farmer sends to be marketed, and the reasonableness of all these charges can best be tested by the manner in which the profits are disposed of. In that connection I want to draw attention to the money which was paid by the farmer over 19 years in one particular municipality. That municipality expended £42,270 in building a market hall. It received the land free from the Government so it had no expense in regard to the land. £42,270 was the cost of the hall. Over a period of 19 years, the farmer paid by way of rent £53,992. He paid by way of sinking fund £13,130, by way of interest £27,364, capital expenditure £17,188, depreciation £17,144 and interest £27,364. Loan costs were charged at £1,017, capital expenditure £17,188, depreciation £17,144, relief of rates £42,207. In all, the market charges to the farmer over a period of 19 years amount to £172,673, of which only £13,597 is shown as nett profit. On a market hall costing £42,270 he has paid rent, interest and towards relief of rates far in excess of the value of the building. I have appealed to the Minister of Agriculture from time to time for relief, and I maintain that if these charges were reduced, farming would become nearly a paying proposition in spite of depressed times. We now come to railway rates and I fully appreciate the position of the railways, but I want to review the history of the railway rates. There was a report of the Railway Tariff Enquiry Commission of 1930, which shows that the Act of Union contemplated the equalisation of railway rates by the provision of a proper fund. That has not been done, or else we should have been able to tide ourselves over these difficult time without all the trouble that we are experiencing now. But the history of the rates, the fluctuation of the rates is this, that notwithstanding the adverse effects of the great war, no general increase in the railway tariff took place until 1918, and 1920 is properly regarded as the peak year in respect of rates. That was the year in which I may remind the House that railway allowances were at their highest and the railway rates were at their peak, but it would surprise the farmers in this House to know that there has been no reduction except in a very small way for their products, there has been no reduction in the tariff that was placed upon the farmers in the peak year, i The tariff was revised in 1920 and the basis adapted to the agricultural position of the Union, to remove anomalies and to simplify the tariff. I shall refer to dairy products. The rates on dairy products stand at a 50 per cent. i increase as compared with pre-war rates. We find that if we compare railway rates on dairy products they are 50 per cent. higher than they j were in pre-war days. Just to illustrate how much the farmer pays, I would say that for j 48 gallons of milk, valued at £1, sent over any distance from one to 25 miles, the farmer has to part with 3s. towards the railway rates. Out of every pound’s worth of milk he pays 3s. for railage. In comparison with pre-war rates we pay 37 per cent. increase on tobacco, 120 per cent. increase on butter, 37 per cent. increase on cheese, and 12 per cent. increase on eggs, the only decrease being on vegetables and kraal manure. This is a very serious indictment; it shows that in the past there has been very little team work between the Minister representing the railways and the Minister representing agriculture. It looks, indeed, as if the Minister of Railways has worked his wicked will against the farmers, without let or hindrance from the Minister of Agriculture. The position briefly is, that if these rates were reduced, the Government would give much larger relief, and at less cost to the State, than if the subsidy on mortgage interest were paid. It is true that the marketing of the farmers’ products is regulated by the municipalities, which claim the monopoly for marketing. I have, however, seen the opinion of a very distinguished King’s counsel in the Cape, which expresses very considerable doubt as to whether this monopoly can legally be maintained. A great deal could be done by Government investigation of these matters. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is absent, for these things belong to his department. I am sure, however, that he will give due attention to these subjects, and I should be glad if he would agree to receive a deputation from members of this House who wish to impress on him the necessity of improving the cattle market. There is a need for adapting our maize products to more useful purposes than at present. Sufficient attention has not been given to that side of the farmers’ interests. In conclusion I express the hope that we shall see more activity being displayed in the endeavour to discover forms in which our raw products could be placed more successfully and more profitably on the markets of the world. The Agricultural Act recently passed in the United States of America aims at reducing from indebtedness by substituting Federal Land Bank bonds for existing mortgage bonds. It also gives the secretary for agriculture wide powers in regard to the limitation of production, and the taxation of manufacturers to compensate the farmers for such limitation.

I have listened attentively to the previous speakers on the budget and I am not going to weary the House at this stage by discussing the budget which the whole of the farming population have accepted with nothing but pleasure. Nor will I bore the House with a description of the narrow escapes which the whips of the previous Government appeared to have had from the Roosites. Nor will I bore the House by saying how the shadow of Table Mountain prevented the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) from seeing the distress in the interior. Nor do I want to talk of the crocodile tears which have been shed by the gold magnates, and which were swept away with the gold coloured pocket, handkerchief, which the Minister of the Interior told us about. I would rather say something about the measures which the Government intends taking in connection with the means that might help the farmers, viz., the co-operative societies. I am glad to hear from the Minister that he is going to appoint a commission, but I would like to hear from him if it is necessary to wait for its report. We shall have to wait for months and only be able to introduce legislation next session, too late for the next harvest. The co-operative societies throughout the country, the Land Bank, the grain elevators, and also the Central Maize Exchange have already asked for a series of years for the compulsory sale of produce through one channel. I make bold to say that if the grain exchange has still to wait for the report of the commission that co-operation will be put back in this country for at least a generation. I will go further and ask the Minister of Agriculture, before the co-operative societies collapse, to consider whether something cannot be done this session to bring about compulsory sale through one channel. I feel that if we even bring about the co-operative movement in the maize and grain industry to save the situation, it will be vain help unless very drastic steps are taken. It seems to me that some of the biggest farmers and even members of this House who are practical farmers do not know what co-operation means. Even members of the Cabinet who are farmers would rather see members of the co-operative societies establish a market for them subsequently to make an abuse of, by not becoming members of co-operative societies and then to make use of them to sell their produce. I think that at this stage the Government must seriously consider the introduction of compulsory cooperation.

It is with considerable diffidence that I desire to add my small quota to the various and wide opinions on the budget expressed in this House. We have heard of the dire distress, developing into hopelessness and helplessness, on the part of a large section of the agricultural community. I am in entire accord with the desire on the part of the Government to help the farmers, but there is one aspect that we must not lose sight of. In helping the farmer we must endeavour to strengthen those characteristics, such as grit and self-reliance, which are so essential in every walk of life. The farmer in South Africa has much to contend against, but there are certain factors over which he has a certain amount of control. In the good years he should endeavour to build up a reserve, be it even a small one, which would help him to weather those economic storms which the world has been experiencing during the past two years, and which seem to visit South Africa in periodic cycles. Take another aspect of the matter, namely, the marketing of his produce. The farmer, whatever his branch of husbandry, should study his market, particularly the oversea one, in an endeavour to meet the requirements of his customers in every way. Some farmers seem to think that after reaping their crops, or baling their wool, they have completed their work. I venture to say that that is only the first part of their work. Through their various organisations they should ascertain how far they have met, and how far they can meet, the requirements of their various markets. What we want to do is not only to help the farmers but to help them to help themselves. And now I come to the bone of contention, the mining profits. I have received a telegram from my constituents this morning protesting against the mine taxation proposals of the Government. We have heard various globular sums mentioned, by those who should know, in which the amount of taxation of the mines varies to the tune of £5,000,000. Apart from that the experts tell us that they differ considerably as to what the total amount, and the amount from each mine, will be. I say that a budget of this description is nothing less than a gambler’s budget, with the dice loaded very much against the gold mining industry. In dealing with any industry, and particularly the gold minng industry, there are three parties to be considered. First you have the employees, who must receive a wage commensurate with their standard of living, which will allow them and their families to enjoy the usual amenities of life. Then you have the State, which is entitled to a reasonable share of the proceeds of the industry. And last you have the shareholders. The shareholders are often looked upon and referred to as if they were an ogre endeavouring to grab everything possible. Such is far from the case. Many of the shareholders own but a few hundred shares, and their interest in the mines, although small, is often a vital matter to themselves. Unless you give an inducement in the shape of a possibility of a high return sometimes, money will not be forthcoming for a highly speculative venture such as gold mining. However, not desiring to be a destructive critic, I venture to suggest a scheme which I thing will place the whole incidence of mining taxation on a better, firmer and fairer basis than has obtained in the past. I would divide revenue from the mines into two categories—basic and direct. By basic taxation I mean claim licences, pass fees and railway rates. By direct taxation I mean taxation on profits. I think the basic rate of taxation should be reduced to a minimum. You have, e.g., a low-grade proposition such as the Simmer and Jack, which has over 900 claims worked out, and yet has to pay the Government £1 per month on each of those worked-out claims. Take another example, the East Rand Proprietary Mines, which has nearly fifteen hundred claims worked out, and yet has to pay £1,500 per month on those worked-out claims. Railway rates on coal are excessively high between Witbank and the Rand. Then you have the pass fees. On a large property such as the E.R.P.M., you have naturally more natives than on a small one such as the Modder Deep. Hence the tax on a low-grade mine such as the E.R.P.M. is actually greater than on a small but rich mine such as the Modder Deep. This basic taxation prevents the inclusion of low-grade ore into the payable category, and therefore I contend that by reducing the basic taxation all round much of the low grade ore would be placed in the payable category, and the life of the Rand would be increased at least half a century, to the enormous benefit of South Africa as a whole. But we must still find the money for the State. This I would propose to find by a sliding scale on profits. The richer the mine the bigger the percentage of profits, and the greater the contribution to the State coffers. You would not have the anomalous position of a rich mine paying a smaller percentage of its profits, although a larger amount, than a low grade proposition. And there is one other point I should like to mention. Next September the convention to the Mozambique Government is due for revision and renewal. In studying this document which I venture to say is not a very businesslike one from the Union’s point of view, we find that each native costs the mines 35s. per year, irrespective of any wages he may receive. Fifty thousand natives are at present employed, so that at a low estimate the mines at present pay £87,000 to the Portuguese Government, being one of the privileges allowed for employing their natives. And then Article 13 says—

Another £30,000 a year which could be spent in the country is sent over the border to be spent there. But Article 22 caps the lot. It says that fifty to fifty-five per cent. of the total tonnage imported into the competitive area shall be brought through Lourehco Marques. What have our Port Elizabeth and Durban friends to say to this—that more than half the goods to the Rand must be diverted from Union ports for the privilege of giving work to the Portuguese East African natives? And so as to make this business-like agreement more secure, we find in article 34 that if the railway rates are altered on traffic from Lourenco Marques to stations in the Union, such alterations shall be arranged in consultation with the C.F.L.M. Administration, with a view as to whether such rates shall be detrimental to traffic through Lourenco Marques. Now this matter is in our hands—not in those of the authorities of Portuguese East Africa. Due to the splendid hygienic conditions existing both under ground and on the surface, the health of the native mine worker is carefully looked after. Allow natives to be recruited from north of latitude 22 degrees, and the mines will get as many mine boys as they require. It has another advantage. We are endeavouring to increase our trade with the north. It is to the north we have to look, and here will be a potent factor in any negotiations which may occur with the Rhodesias in the future.

We have heard a great deal about farming interests and in the main the members here are farmers, but since the House has been sitting I have as yet heard nothing about the diggers. I am very glad that the Minister of Labour is in his place because I want to cross swords with him on behalf of the diggers because, when Minister of Mines, he abolished the diggers’ committee. There are many diggers in my constituency who are not gad-abouts and adventurers, but people who live there permanently and have their families and children there, people who live in nice clean houses. They are not people who gad about all day and are here to-day and there to-morrow, they are a respectable class of digger. Whether we want to or not we must take count of the digger. The diggers complain that their small parliament, the diggers’ committee has been abolished, and they now complain to the Minister on this one point which they think is of vital importance to them. I hope the Minister will discuss with the present Minister to restore that committee. When the diggers had their own committee they could decide who should come and dig there and who not. To-day they cannot do so. To-day anybody can come there to dig. He can go to any irresponsible digger and get a letter from him and then go with it to the office and obtain a certificate to dig. It is the irresponsible digger who takes up the illicit diamond trade and then competes with the professional digger. The Minister will say that there was considerable cost connected with the appointment of the committee, but I think that it can easily be done. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) spoke on behalf of Kimberley. He said some time ago that Kimberley had “crumbled.” I am pleading for Kimberley because my constituency, so to say, completely surrounds Kimberley. It is one of the strangest phenomena that a delimitation commission should so be delimited that it completely surrounds another. My constituency lies on three sides of Kimberley, and I have to drive 60 miles through Kimberley to reach all parts of my constituency. I am not only pleading for Kimberley but for my own constituency where there are nearly 4,000 diggers. They are not all sheep farmers and dairy farmers, but they are all agriculturalists. There are the people from Douglas who sell their produce in Kimberley. We are not to-day asking for financial help for Kimberley. Everyone has done so. We do not ask favour for Kimberley. It is demands that we make. No one can understand why diamonds are sorted in Cape Town to-day. Kimberley is the place where it ought to be done. Why are there diamond cutting establishments to-day spread over the whole country? They ought all to be in Kimberley. These are not favours that I am asking, but the people in Kimberley have also to live. The Minister of Mines issues the permits for diamond cutting establishments, why cannot he lay it down and say: “I will give you a certificate if you open your establishment in Kimberley”? It may be said that the man is putting up his cutting establishment in other centres because the cost of living is less there. As for that, Kimberley is the cheapest place in the Union. Only yesterday I saw an article in the Argus with the cost of living figures for various places and the figure for Pretoria was 300 higher than that for Kimberley. If all the diamond cutting places were centralised in Kimberley, then the illicit diamond trade can be eliminated. To-day that cannot be done, because you have cutting establishments throughout the country, and the illicit diamond trade goes on throughout the whole country. We have a detective department in Kimberley that knows its work and it would suppress the illicit diamond trade, but to-day it cannot do so. Then I cannot understand the Minister of Justice first of all giving an illicit dealer a warning and then arresting him. Just imagine a man steals a sheep from me and then I am to say to him, “I warn you not to do it again because then I will arrest you.” If there is one thing which the Minister of Justice should alter as soon as possible it is this matter. Another matter is the appointment of juries in illicit diamond trade cases. A jury has no sense in these cases. We want a clean life, and the digger wants it there also. He has a right to existence as a digger, it is his profession, just as the farmer exercises his calling. The man lives on the diggings and he does not go about indiscriminately. He is entitled to protection from the Government. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) said that the farmers had property by the quitting of the gold standard. I do not know what he farms with, but if he says that the farmers gain by the quitting of the gold standard then he does not know much about the question. I am a practical farmer and I send my sheep and cattle to the market. I sell everything I farm with myself, and I employ no man as a middle man. I have myself sent my wool direct to England. I therefore know what I am talking about. I can give you the assurance that since we quitted gold the position has become worse for the farmers. I am not now talking of the fruit farmers, but of the farmers in the north of the province. I can prove to you that the conditions of the farmers have not remained just the same but have got worse. The other day, e.g., I sent prime sheep to the market in Johannesburg for which I got 6s. each. Prices last year were never so bad as that. We are grateful to the Government for what it has done to the farmers and what it still intends to do under the new legislation. I am not one of the 123 per cent. coalitionists and I have never yet concealed it, but I must say that I honestly did not expect this Government to give us so much help. When the Nationalists were in office we had ten nationalists in the Government and now we have only six. I did not expect that the six would get so much and I must also thank the South African party members of the Government that they have assisted the farmer in his parlous condition. But these measures are only temporary and I am certain that the time will come that we shall have to adopt Dr. van der Horst’s scheme which will permanently assist the farmers. I say that it is a scheme that is sound to the core, just because we had that agitation by the companies. Even if we had got the scheme from any economist or other person which was sound, then we would have had that agitation. If it was not sound they would say nothing about it, but just because it is so sound they are using every endeavour to show that it is not sound. I hope that the Government will yet adopt it in the future. Before I sit down I want to say one or two things about the provincial councils. I am not here speaking of the Free State provincial council, because I understand that they only sit about three days, but in the Cape Province I may say that the allowance is very small; while a member of Parliament gets £700 a year the provincial councillors here in the Cape Colony are also entitled to get it, and if senators get £70 a month for their work then provincial councillors are worth £700 a month because they have to do much work. I am surprised that the National Government has agreed to the appointment of a new provincial commission. Their work will be nothing but patchwork. I am not criticising the personnel because so far as the Cape Province is concerned Dr. Stals will be appointed, and I do not think that a better man could be obtained in the country. Why cannot the previous provincial commission continue its work, seeing it has already done a great deal? If the intention now is to amend the provincial councils then it will be nothing but patchwork. The provinces are being administered to death. We have provincial councils, divisional councils and all kinds of other councils. This system is based on the “county council,” a system in England. It may be a good system, but it is forgotten that in a county in England the population is a million, while here we have a few hundred people in a divisional council district, and they have to bear the whole expenses of the administrative body. It would have been much better if the Prime Minister had insisted on allowing the commission that was appointed to continue because then we would have had something concrete.

I trust no exception will be taken if I venture on a little criticism of the budget proposals which are before the House. I represent a constituency which is largely agricultural, and the commercial interests are also fairly considerable. There are probably 400,000 natives in the area of the constituency. What I wish to say is that while appreciating the provision which the Government is making for the relief of farmers, I do not think it goes far enough. In my election campaign, I found it was very strongly felt by the electorate that they were waiting on the coalition and on the Government for something in the way of extraordinary relief measures which would go towards the establishment of the farming industry and the relief of unemployment on a much larger scale than is provided for in these budget proposals. I do feel that the provision for relief in regard to interest on mortgage bonds will be very helpful indeed, but I do question whether sufficient provision has been made in the way of loan money for the assistance of those who will need a great deal more support to weather the period through which they must go before there is any return of prosperity in the farming industry. I consider that bolder measures should be taken as there are a large number of farmers who will want far more relief than is provided by the loan proposals of the Government. They will want advances to pay the whole of their interest; they will have to be provided with implements and with seed and, if possible, they will have to be provided with stock to enable them to carry on their operations. I do feel the provision which has been made by the Government will be found to be insufficient in many quarters and they will not be able to support the farming community to the extent necessary if they are to get through the difficult times brought about by the conditions of the last few years and also by the abnormal drought through which the country has just passed. So in that way I do agree with those who have expressed the opinion that the Government has not made sufficient provision for assisting the farmers from loan money. It is not a question of a dole or a gift, it is a question of a section of the community, which through circumstances over which it has no control being in a position in which it is unable to carry on, getting a greater measure of support than is provided, in the way of advances for essential requirements. As to the commercial community, I think that they should also have something done for them. It was felt that possibly with the gold premium the Government would consider it necessary to do something for that section, and I think the Government might have done less in the direction of reducing the accumulated deficit, and have found it possible to give some relief in the way of reduced taxation for the benefit of the commercial community as well, especially by a return to the penny postage and possibly a reduction of other taxation. Something more might and should have been done for unemployment. The unemployment position is one which has grown very critical in this country, it is a position which the provincial authorities are no longer able to cope with; it has become a national matter which has to be taken in hand by the Government, so much so that greater measures of relief than are indicated should be provided now. I feel that this position is largely due to the drift that has taken place from the country to the towns. We know that this has been a very great factor in creating unemployment in the towns, and I feel that the remedy for the evil lies in measures under which people from the country who have drifted to the towns might be put back on the land. The conditions of these people are very deplorable indeed. There are Europeans who are no longer able to maintain a European standard of living, a standard such aS we consider essential for the maintenance of the prestige of the European population. Their standard of living has been lowered, and unless they can be taken away from the environment in which they are living, they may become a great menace to the future of white civilisation. More might have been done in dealing with this problem, and I hope that the Government will give consideration to the question of schemes and means whereby these people may be brought back to the land. I have a great deal of confidence in the agricultural possibilities of this country. We have been passing through a period during which we have been unable to make our agricultural industry a paying proposition, but we do feel that the conditions which are existing are so abnormal that a gradual improvement will take palce and that it will be possible for large numbers of those who are in such an unfortunate position in the towns to be brought back to the land and that measures will be considered by the Government in the way of land settlement and large irrigation schemes which will be more helpful and more comprehensive in their scope than those relief schemes which we have now. I am glad to see that a commission is being appointed to go into the question of co-operation which will be essential if the unemployment problem is approached by the provision of schemes whereby the surplus unemployed who have drifted from the country to the towns are put back on the land and it will go a long way to solve the problems with which this country is faced and I feel sure that works undertaken in that way can be maintained and carried on in such a manner that those who are placed on the land will be able to make a decent living. We have to look to the land to absorb those people who cannot be employed in industries; after all, our industrial undertakings are more or less in their infancy, and cannot absorb a large number of extra workers. Another point is the fact that Europeans are being employed to do work which, under normal circumstances, would fall within the sphere of the native. Certainly, we have to make provision for the European unemployed, but we must not forget that we are paying them a high rate for the class of work which circumstances compel them to do. This is uneconomic, and measures should be introduced whereby more suitable work and better conditions would be found for them. I represent a constituency in which there is a very large number of natives, and I fear that unemployment affects them just as much as it affects the European. In the areas falling within my constituency very great difficulty has been experienced in finding sufficient work for the native. The Mozambique Convention has been referred to by various members in the course of this debate. In my opinion that Convention should be terminated at the earliest possible moment. Our native labour is a national asset, and it is our duty to take the fullest advantage of it. Defenders of the Mozambique Convention maintain that it is necessary in order to enable the mines to recruit a sufficient supply of native labour. I have no hesitation in contradicting the assertion that natives from outside the Union are required by the Rand gold mines, for we have sufficient natives within the Union. The money earned by those natives should be spent in the Union, and should not go to adjoining territories, as it does at present. Native labour from outside the Union may be regarded as being slightly more efficient than Union native labour, and natives from Portuguese East Africa may remain on the mines for longer contract periods than do our Union natives, but all the same we have sufficient native labour in the Union to meet all the needs of the Rand mines and our own natives should have the preference. Then it should not be forgotten that the native territories are suffering from drought, just as are other parts of the Union and are also in need of assistance. To revert to the scheme for farmers’ assistance, the Government is coming to the aid of the farmers who own their own farms, but what about those who lease farms, many of whom really are in more need of assistance than are the men who own the land they till? Farm lessees have to pay rent, and I do not see why they should not be helped by the Government by having a portion of their rentals paid by the State, in the same way as farm owners are to assisted by the State in having a portion of their interest or mortgage bonds defrayed for them out of the public exchequer. I should also like to know whether the proposed form of relief is to be extended to bona fide native farmers as well as to European farmers. The natives themselves feel that they are just as much entitled to assistance as the Europeans are, and greater provision should be made for the relief of distress in the native areas, for in many parts owing to the drought there have been no crops at all. With regard to interest on bonds it has been represented that there are many bondholders who have been forced to pledge some of their farm bonds with third parties, in order to secure assistance. I feel that some provision should be made whereby these persons should receive equitable treatment. With respect to the question of the railways, there are a fair number of railway employees in my constituency, and I would like to say that I heartily endorse the remarks which have been made as to restoration of former conditions. I was told by one man that his earning capacity, which had been about £23, had been reduced to about £13 10s. It does seem to me to be very unfair and I wish to give my support to representations made on behalf of railwaymen, and to urge that they be placed on a more equitable basis. They have suffered just as much as others, and I feel that they are entitled to some consideration.

During the last few days a great many different opinions have been expressed with regard to the budget. It is only natural that the mining industry should figure largely in our budget, as it is from this source that our Government receives a considerable portion of its revenue. It is also from this source that the Minister of Finance expects to secure a few extra millions of additional revenue, which will enable him to wipe out the accumulated deficit of approximately £1,962,000 and in addition provide a sum of £3,555,000 to meet export subsidies, rebates on railway rates, losses by maize and wheat pools and one and a half millions interest subsidy for our farmers. The change in our currency has been a godsend to the mining industry, as it has increased their profits considerably, and I think it is only fair and reasonable that the State should secure a fair share. The Cabinet has decided that a fair and just share share of the premium is £6,000,000 over and above the amount which would on the basis of existing taxation have been obtained. This additional £6,000,000 is to be found by a new method of taxation. Not having any connection with mining, and not professing to have much knowledge of same, I am not in a position to discuss that particular phase of the matter. It is considered that the additional amount, which the Minister of Finance expects to receive this year, totals £9,700,000. He has told us that this will be approximately one-half of the total premium. Considering the present state of the industries of the country, and the needs of the farming industry, and of many other industries as well, I think, on the whole, that that is fair, but several expert members of Parliament have clearly stated that the percentage which the hon. Minister of Finance proposes to take will be considerably more than fifty per cent. These criticisms must receive the serious consideration of the Government and any necessary adjustments be made. Personally, I think 50 per cent. a fair and reasonable amount. We in South Africa have every reason to be thankful that there is at least one industry in the country which is in a sound and healthy condition. While for the past few years South Africa has been passing through a period of deep depression, I ask what would our position have Been if it had not been for our gold mining industry? We must all admit that it is only the mining industry which has saved this country from collapse. When I scan the budget I fail to find any relief whatever for the commercial and industrial community. It is a budget which takes from the mining industry and gives to the farmers. I quite recognize that the circumstances of the country are abnormal and that the farming industry has the first call. I do, however, feel that the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to realise the unfortunate condition in which many of our commercial and industrial concerns find themselves at this time. In common with the farmers, commerce and industry have experienced perhaps the most searching and trying time in their history, and some relief at least was expected. We had hoped, for instance, that a reduction would be made in the postal rates. One of the previous speakers has told us that many business men have found it cheaper to have their letters delivered direct rather than through the post office. I am sure, for this reason and others, that the post office department must have lost considerable revenue during the past year, and the time is certainly ripe for a reduction of the rates. Perhaps it is too much to expect in the present state of our finances that the charge be reduced from twopence to one penny; but, at least, a reduction might be made from twopence to 1½d. I find that last year the Department of Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones made a profit approximately of £480,000, the bulk of which, I am pretty sure, came out of the pockets of the commercial and industrial community. A reduction in the postage rates could well be effected, and I hope this matter will have due consideration from the Hon. Minister of Finance. Then there is also the question of the income tax of 2s. 6d. in the £ which is levied on all limited companies. The present Hon. acting Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Stuttaford) some years ago urged a reduction in this tax, and brought forward strong arguments in support of same. It is probable that owing to the depressed state of the country that the revenue during the present year from this particular source may be much smaller than usual; but I hope that before the 1934 budget comes before the House the Hon. acting Minister of Railways and Harbours will have convinced the Cabinet that it is in the interests of the commercial and industrial community that this tax should be reduced. There are many other items in the budget which bear heavily on the commercial and industrial community; but while recognizing that any amelioration can hardly be expected at this stage, we hope that these will receive the attention of the Government. From the fact that our imports for the past year have decreased by some £20,000,000 as compared with the previous year, and considering the very large number of insolvencies which have taken place in South Africa during the past year, it must be apparent to all that commerce has suffered severely through the prevailing depression. The creation of a Department of Commerce and Industries is a step in the right direction, and one which is very welcome to all business men. While the vote allotted to this particular department is comparatively small, I feel it will be of great use, and it is a step in the direction of bringing commerce and industries into closer touch with the Government. Commerce and industry in the past have not receivd the attention they merited, and practically all they have to be thankful for, as far as this Budget is concerned, is to know that no additional burden is to be added to the lot they have already to bear. Next year we shall ask for and expect to receive some remission in our taxation and some reduction as regards certain customs duties, and various other taxes which at present press very heavily on the commercial community. We have been informed that the taxation for the present year has been based on a conservative estimate. That may be so, but it will be the duty of our Government to see that no unwarranted expenditure is incurred, and that strict economy is observed. It is up to our Government to see that full value is received for all money expended. I thoroughly approve of all expenditure on reproductive public work, and especially those public works which will provide employment. Unemployment is one of the burning questions of the country, and our Government must take every possible step to relieve the position for these thousands of people who at present are unemployed, generally through no fault of their own. Many of these men are destitute and needy and urgently require assistance. As regards the farming community, we know only too well the unhappy plight in which they are placed at this particular time. Our farmers are by no means alone in their troubles as throughout the whole world the farming community is experiencing a most unfortunate time. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) told us to-day that the farmers in the United States were in a desperate condition. Not only are they in a desperate condition there, but also in other countries. This has taken place owing to the tremendous drop in the price of everything which the farmer grows or produces, present prices being far below those which were obtained five or ten years ago. While I have never been a farmer myself, I have been in direct touch with the farming industry since my boyhood days. My forefathers on both sides were farmers, and I have relations in the old country and in Canada and elsewhere who are farming. I correspond with some of them, and I can assure farmers in South Africa that they also are suffering almost as much as you are, in fact in some cases they are worse off. Our farmers to-day are getting something like 18s. to 20s. a bag for wheat. During the past two years the English farmer has not had more than an average of 10s. per bag of 200 lbs. The hon. member for Bredasdorp told us that those farmers who were members of the wheat pool had encountered a loss of £500,000 to £750,000. If that is correct, it goes to show how badly managed the wheat pool has been in the last two years. If they have incurred such heavy losses it is because the pool has been badly handled from a business point of view, and the members have not been wisely guided. It is not to be expected that the farmer can be an expert business man any more than a business man can be expected to know the details of farming. What is wanted is a combination of the two. A proposal to bring that about is at present under consideration. The hon. member for Bredasdorp suggested something on those lines. He suggested that a separate commission should be appointed to enquire into the wheat position. In that connection I may say that two months ago the milling industry engaged Mr. James Collie, and asked him to make a thorough investigation into that industry in South Africa. He spent two months on that work prior to taking the chairmanship of the South-West Finance Commission. That report is at present being considered by the millers of South Africa. A conference started to-day in Cape Town at which all the prominent millers of the Union are represented. That report is under consideration and it contains most valuable statistics, not only as regards wheat and flour and other things, but also in regard to wheat and the milling capacity of the country. The millers are to meet delegates representing Sasko and the South African Agricultural Union for the purpose of discussing measures which may be taken, so that the wheat industry, so far as it concerns farmers and millers, may be placed on a sound basis. That, I take it, is something like what the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) suggested this afternoon, and probably in view of same the Minister of Agriculture may reconsider the question with regard to the terms of the commission which he has agreed to appoint. The trouble last year was this, that the 1931-’32 crop in South Africa exceeded 4,000,000 bags, therefore there was a surplus. The hon. member for Bredasdorp to-day suggested that if there was a surplus of say 15 per cent. in South Africa, this might be exported overseas. If we had say 200.000 bags which we wished to export, the price which our farmers would get would not exceed 7s. per bag, that is at the price of wheat ruling during the past few weeks. There is no hope therefore of our exporting wheat except at a tremendous loss to our country. The policy of the farmers in South Africa should be to grow wheat for our own requirements. About 15 years ago I said that I hoped the time would come when South Africa would grow its own wheat requirements. That time has come. I also at the same time stated that South Africa would never become a wheat growing country. What I meant by that was that it would never be a wheat growing country like Australia and Canada were. All we can hope to do, is to supply our own requirements. If the quantity of wheat in South Africa is kept within reasonable limits, then the farmer will get a good return. Thousands of bags of wheat which could have been sold at a good price, were found to contain too much moisture. They were sent to the Quarry stores in Cape Town docks and were kept there. A price of 20s. to 21s. per bag was offered for same, but the pool decided that they wanted 22s. 6d. and in their wisdom decided not to sell. The result was that this wheat in the end deteriorated, became infested with weavils and other things and had ultimately to be sold at prices ranging from 12s. to 18s. I just wish to say now that any assistance that I can give to the farmers, I shall be only too pleased to give. 1 know that the farmers have had a hard time and it is the duty of all of us to extend to them whatever help we can. As regards the prices quoted in the white paper, I may say that during the past few weeks there have been several increases. The price of mealies has gone up by 2s. 6d. per bag and the price of lucerne by 1s. 6d. per 100 lbs. The rise in mealies, of course, is due to the small crop which the farmers have had this year.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.