I move—

I may explain that there is no intention to proceed with the Bill during the present session. The Bill is a very important one. It affects very important interests and not merely mining interests, and the intention is to give the people interested, and the public generally, an opportunity of studying the Bill before the following session. The intention is that next session the Bill be referred to a select committee, and it is hoped that the persons interested in the Bill will be able to study it during the recess, and will be ready to put their views before Parliament during next session.

Mr. J. F. TOM NAUDÉ seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 19th June.

I move—

Mr. SHAW seconded.

Before dealing with the motion itself, I wish to ask your ruling on the following point, as to whether a person who has been elected a member of this House, and who has not taken the oath as required by the South Africa Act, is a member of this House, whether this House has any jurisdiction over him, and, consequently, whether this House can grant him leave of absence? Until the member who has been elected takes the oath in this House, there is nothing to show that he is willing to be a member. The fact that he is nominated does not signify, as he has not shown, either verbally or in writing, that he is willing. It can happen that a man who is nominated and elected is not willing to be a member. We don’t know whether the hon. gentleman is willing to be a member and is willing to take the oath. If you rule that he is a member, and, therefore, can be granted leave of absence, then I say that we object to that leave of absence being granted. He has been sent to the Labour Conference at Geneva, presumably to represent Labour. I submit that in no way does he represent Labour. Except, perhaps, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Shaw), I do not think there is one single member in this House who believes that the hon. gentleman represents Labour. In the Transvaal he has been repudiated by every Labour man. His two would-be colleagues were told very clearly in Jeppe and Boksburg what Labour electors thought of him. Denver, the hon. gentleman’s old constituency, now falls in Jeppe, but he did not risk standing there or for any Transvaal constituency, because he knew what the result would be. He came to Bell ville —

Is the hon. member dealing with the point of order?

Yes.

Will the hon. member deal with the point of order first of all.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling on that point of order.

If the hon. member will look at the relevant provisions of the South Africa Act he will see that they refer to persons who are “members” of the House by virtue of their election and merely prevent them from taking their seats before taking the oath. The same question was raised in 1889 (V. & P., p. 208) when Mr. Speaker Tennant ruled tha†Mr. Merriman could be granted leave of absence before he had taken the oath, and when the question was again raised in 1924 (Debates, 1924, col. 1347) in connection with leave to be granted to Mr. A. S. Naudé, Mr. Speaker Krige came to a similar decision. Once a person is elected a member of this House leave may be granted and I rule, therefore, that leave of absence can be granted to Col. Creswell although he has not taken the oath.

Then I object to the hon. member going to Geneva to represent the Labour people of South Africa. He did not dare to stand for a Labour seat in the Transvaal, but came here to Bellville. He had the support of the Prime Minister, the then right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and Dr. Malan, and no combination could have been stronger. Even so, he would have been defeated had it not been a three-cornered fight. I submit that if he represents anything at all he represents the hon. the Prime Minister. He certainly does not represent Labour. I object to leave of absence being granted to him, and I shall vote against this motion.

May I say a few words on the objections of my hon. friends. I must say that a matter in such bad taste has not often come before the House. As a matter of fact, I know quite well why he is objecting in this petty manner that he has adopted. The hon. member has always been an enemy of Col. Creswell, ever since the day that he became an opponent of the communist element in Parliament. If then it had been one of the communist members of the Labour party who had gone to Geneva my hon. friend would have made no objection.

Why did not the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) go?

It is very petty of the hon. member to raise these objections. Let me say this: Col. Creswell represents the real Labour party of South Africa better than my hon. friend does, or than that section of the Labour party does for which he has always had such a penchant.

What about the hon. member for Troyeville?

Motion put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Bouwer, Derbyshire, McArthur, Dr. H. Reitz and Mr. Sutton) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared the motion agreed to.

I regret that my colleague who introduced this motion into this House is not present to reply to the many points which have been raised in criticism of it, but, as we know, he is on a mission of great importance to this country, and I must do my best to deal with the various matters which have been raised during the course of this debate. I think it will be agreed, as many hon. members have stated, that this debate opened a new chapter in regard to budget debates so far as this Union Parliament is concerned. In the past we all know the budget debate resolved itself into a sort of trial of strength between the Government on the one side and the Opposition on the other. Members on the Government side have risen and tried to convince the House, sometimes possibly against their own convictions, that the policy of the Government as disclosed in the budget is the best that could possibly be imagined, and members on the Opposition side, possibly with something of the same reservation, said that nothing could be worse than the policy as disclosed by the Government in the budget. This time we have had a change, and this time we have had something which is much nearer to free criticism of the budget proposals of the Government than I remember to have seen in this House. We have had members who are supporting the present Government able to deal with the budget proposals critically, without having to fear that they would come under the lash of the party whip. We have had, of course, direct opposition to the Government’s proposals. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has presented us with his usual programme of social legislation, which I will deal with later, but apart from that, we have had from hon. members who have supported the Government, and still support the Government, as I understand, criticisms of the budget proposals which would not have been possible under what I call the strict party system which prevailed up till now. It has been all to the good. Parliament has approached much more nearly to the conception of that which many hon. members entertain as to what Parliament should be—a council of the nation, where representatives of the people come together to express their views on the proposals which are put before them by the Government, without being too much hampered by the requirements of strict party loyalty; and from this point of view the debate has been a much more instructive one than previous budget debates have been, and it has been almost entirely free from that party wrangling which so often in the past has disfigured our budget debates, and led the country to believe that the House was not so much dealing with the financial proposals of the Government as that it was a party dog fight. This debate has been particularly free from that, and we have to congratulate ourselves, particularly the older members of this House, on the contributions which have been made to the debate by new members of this House. I think what we have heard from these new members augurs very well for the future composition of our Parliament. We are now getting our younger generation taking an interest in politics which they did not do before, and they are making sacrifices, if it is a sacrifice which is to be made before a young man can come here. They are making that sacrifice and are coming forward in public life. We also welcome the appearance of the first woman member. I will just add this, that if this idea of a budget debate is to continue, if Parliament is to be treated by this House as a council of the nation, rather than as a body composed of three waring parties, I hope that we shall be able in future debates to evolve more constructive criticism than we have been able to attain in this case. I do not say that this debate has been devoid of constructive criticism, but I think we can expect that members will come here prepared, if they do not like the Government’s proposals, to submit something for the consideration of the people. Now before I come to the main questions which have been debated here, I should like to deal with two matters which to some extent are outside the main current of the criticism that we have heard. The one is in connection with the appeal which was put forward in this House by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) and others in regard to the question of sufferers from miners’ phthisis. The hon. member pleaded the case of these men in, I must say, somewhat intemperate language, but it is a matter which calls for very serious attention. There was a proposal for fresh legislation before the previous Government for some years. Select committees have sat and commissions have been appointed, and have presented their reports and the matter is still under consideration. There is, at the present time, a departmental committee sitting in Pretoria to consider what form amending legislation in this matter should take, and it is my hope and intention to bring that matter before Parliament during next session. In the meantime there are certain cases of extreme hardship which it seems to be necessary to deal with, and which we have to deal with, I think, in anticipation of any legislation that may come before Parliament. A deputation waited on me at which there were present the hon. member for Vrededorp, the hon. member for Boksburg (North) (Mr. Bain-Marais), the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and the hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Heyns). They represented two cases of hardship. One was the case of men who had been working in the mines when they were warned that they had symptoms of miners’ phthisis. According to the present law, when a miner is warned that he is affected by this disease, he is expected to leave the mine and to get whatever compensation is applicable to that particular stage of the disease. There, of course, it is the compensation applicable to the first or second stage of the disease, that is, the ante-primary or primary stage. He is entiled, if he likes, to stay on work, and if he does not leave the mine, then, under the law, he is not entitled to any further compensation, whatever stage the disease may have progressed to. There are a number of cases of very great hardship where a man has stayed on in the mine because he felt that he was not prepared to give up employment in which he was earning a good wage, and take the chance of finding employment outside. He has stayed on and contracted phthisis in the secondary stage, that is the last stage, and he and his family, if he has a family, are living in great distress. The other case is where a man was entitled to compensation, and got compensation under the Act, previous to 1925, and left the country. By law he is not entitled to any further compensation than he then got. Some of them have come back into the country, and are in the secondary stage of phthisis, and in a state of extreme distress. What I propose to do is that the Miners’ Phthisis Board should enquire into these cases, and where persons are in necessitous circumstances, the Miners’ Phthisis Board should make them a monthly grant to enable them to carry on. It must be an ex gratia grant, because the present law does not cover it, but, as I say, we hope to carry a law through next session which will deal with these cases. The Chamber of Mines as being represented on the Miners’ Phthisis Board, has agreed that the funds in the hands of the board can be used for such purposes, pending the time when it is possible to pass legislation. Therefore, in these two cases, ex gratia grants will be made in necessitous cases to preserve them from the state of want in which they and their families are now. That will be dealt with when the Bill comes before Parliament during the next session. It has also been represented to me that a number of phthisis pensioners and phthisis sufferers who have taken up small holdings on the Witwatersrand, are in danger of being evicted from them, owing to being unable to meet the obligations that they have incurred in taking up the holdings. That is a matter which I am now enquiring into, and in regard to which it is possible something may be done. That was a matter mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Bouwer). Then the other point, what I may call a side point, is in regard to the recent negotiations with the persons interested in the diamond industry. As the House knows, we have had certain negotiations with the representatives of the diamond mines and the diamond corporation with a view to the stabilization and control of the sale of diamonds during the present depressed condition of the market, and I wish to inform the House that after a conference with representatives of the Government and the Administration of South-West Africa on the one hand, and the diamond corporation and the central diamond mining companies in the Union and South-West on the other, the Government of the Union has conditionally approved an agreement for the better control and stabilization of the diamond industry. This agreement will take the place of the existing inter-producers’ agreement and the sales agreement between the conference producers, i.e., the De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., the New Jagersfontein Mining and Exploration Company Limited, the Premier (Transvaal) Diamond Mining Company, Limited, and the Consolidated Diamond Mines of South-West Africa, Limited, on the one hand and the Diamond Corporation, Limited, on the other hand. The existing agreements in the present depressed condition of the diamond market have proved to be unworkable and have failed to provide the confidence and stability which was expected from them. The new agreement it is hoped will provide the necessary control of sales from the various sources represented in the agreement and from existing stocks and should enable the producers to take early advantage of any improvement in the diamond market. The main principle of the agreement is the constitution of a selling pool to which the mines, the Government in respect of State production, the South-West Africa output and the Diamond Corporation in respect of its stocks and its outside purchasers, will be contributors. The sales will be controlled by a board on which the Government for itself and South-West Africa, the producing mines and the Diamond Corporation will be represented. Among the functions of this board will be the ensuring of parity of prices and of assortment between South Africa and overseas so that the South African cutting industry will be assured of the protection conferred upon it by the Diamond Export Tax. The Government recognises that in the present condition of the diamond market and having regard to the serious conditions of unemployment existing in the cutting industry in Europe, any expansion in the cutting industry in South Africa cannot be looked for at present. Its object is to secure that the industry on its present basis shall be enabled to compete on fair terms in the classes of work which it can undertake here, with the industry overseas. Under present conditions it is impossible to give any indication as to when the producing mines in the Union may be expected to reopen. If the new agreement has the effect expected of it in helping to restore confidence and stability, the producers will be enabled to take the earliest advantage of improvements in the demands for diamonds. Now with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) yesterday, I should like to assure him that if this agreement comes into operation, the board and the offices which it controls will be situated in Kimberley and that will be as far as one can make it the centre of the diamond interests in South Africa. Now coming to the main criticism that was offered against the budget, I think I am putting it fairly when I say that the main lines of criticism were that we are laying a crushing burden on the main productive industry of the Union and that we are using the proceeds of this excessive exaction to bolster up the agricultural industry in a wasteful and non-productive manner. That fairly seems to be the criticism from the various parts of the House. Some members object to what they consider the excessive burden which we are laying on the mines. Others say that they object to the manner in which the revenues of the country have been used to assist the agricultural industry. Hon. members like the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), take both objections. They say that first of all we take this vast amount from the mining industry, and having taken it, we spend it in this wasteful manner. In answer to that I would like to say—and that is going to be the line on which I shall defend this budget—I wish to put forward before the House the proposition that this budget is intended to be and is a national budget and not a sectional budget. The Government proposes to appropriate a share of a sudden accession on an enormous scale to the profits of the gold-mining industry. It proposes to appropriate a share of that sudden and enormous accession to their profits, and it proposes to use that appropriation chiefly to relieve the submerged economic condition of a large section of the agricultural industry in the country and of the people concerned with it, not with the intention of handing out doles to a large number of indigent farmers, but with the intention of keeping on its feet and keeping alive the main productive industry of the country after our mining industry, and that is agriculture, and above all, with the intention of keeping engaged the people connected with that industry on the land, instead of seeing them forced into the towns. In regard to the contention that we are laying too heavy a burden on the mines, I propose to deal with that; later but I would like to deal with the contention that we are only benefitting one section. Members from the urban areas, the one after the other have got up and said that their objection to this budget is that it proposes to benefit only one section, only the farmers, and that nothing is being done for unemployment. That I think is founded on a misunderstanding of this budget, on a misunderstanding of what is being provided in the estimates that are being placed before the House and I do not think that this antagonism which was suggested in the speeches of hon. members as between town and country is really justified. I do not think that we are going to do any good for South Africa by fomenting a division between the interests of the town and the interests of the country. They are indivisible. The smaller towns, as many hon. members explained, are dependent upon the agricultural interests around them for their prosperity, and so are the larger towns to a very large extent, and what is another interest which the larger towns have is this—that if we stand by and see the people now engaged in farming, productively engaged in farming, driven out by financial circumstances and climatic conditions, then they are going to drift into the larger towns and they are going to constitute one feature and by far the most difficult feature to deal with of our unemployment question. We are doing something for unemployment. If hon. members will look at the estimates they will find a sum of £750,000 on the loan estimates in the labour vote for dealing with unemployment direct. They will find under headings like “Irrigation” a provision of over £500,000. For afforestation they will find a considerable provision of over £400,000 which will be used for people who otherwise would be unemployed, but who now will be usefully employed. These it may be said are small things, but they are an effort on the part of the Government, which, if necessary, can be extended, to utilize the services of the unemployed for something reproductive, for other than relief works on roads. Unfortunately, in the present state of affairs, relief works on road construction are necessary, in order to enable a large number of our people to keep body and soul together, but these relief schemes are nothing more than a palliative, and not a permanent method of dealing with the problem. Until industrial conditions improve, so as to absorb a greater amount of labour, the Government will adopt the policy of using, as far as possible, the work of the unemployed on services that will become permanent assets to the country. I do not say that we are doing enough for the unemployed, or that we may not be forced to do more than is provided for in the estimates; but I would like to combat the idea that the budget proposes to do nothing for the unemployed and proposes to spend the whole amount of the money from the mines in subsidizing a certain number of farmers. Then it was said that we should have done something for the townsmen in remitting taxation, and a case was put up for a reduction of postal rates. I am in a happy position in regard to that point, because I am not likely to have to do with the Department of Finance for more than a short time. Personally, I think the reduction of postage to a penny is one of the first things that Government should do, but I am not able to commit my colleague to doing anything in that direction. Apart from that certain questions were raised in the course of the debate in regard to customs duty. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) was the main champion of reduced customs duties. He told us that the average duty on imports in 1924 was 11.1 per cent., and in 1932, 25.5 per cent. I think the hon. member, however, will admit, if he goes into the figures very closely, that his statement was somewhat overdrawn. First of all, he has included in his 1932 figures the surtax of 7½ per cent. imposed last year, but repealed last session. He also overlooked the fact that duties which are graded at so much per lb. or per oz. increase very much when regarded as ad valorem when prices fall. Therefore, duties which would be comparatively light in terms of value when prices are high, assume a more formidable aspect when prices are low. There are various other factors which very considerably reduce the increase that has taken place in customs duties between 1924 and 1932. I could give the House the figures, but I do not propose to weary hon. members with them. Another point to which attention has been called is that the special duty of 2s. 6d. per gallon has been taken off whisky; the reason for that is a special one. This extra duty was imposed when Great Britain went off gold, and then the importers were receiving the benefit of the exchange. That position no longer exists, and the facts as regards this particular duty are these: It has been found by experience that, to put on a higher rate than exists now means a drop in revenue. I daresay many of my hon. friends interested in wine farming think that is a very good thing, and believe that the more whisky is kept out of the Union the more their products will be consumed. I have very often noticed that when a deputation of wine farmers themselves visit this House and when I see them in the dining-chamber, I very seldom see them drink any of their own products. That is left to Uitlanders, like myself, and others, who appreciate the products of our wine growing districts. I would suggest to wine growers that instead of pressing for higher duties on whisky—which may make it difficult for them to maintain the preferences they now get in the markets of the United Kingdom—they would be wiser to expand their markets outside South Africa: they will do better for their industry in that way than by pressing for a high duty on whisky. I had been asked why the increased duties on rice, tea and fish had not also been taken off. That touches a sympathetic chord in the heart of my hon. friend behind me. The answer to that is that when these duties were put on they did not result in any increase in price. The suspicion entertained by the Treasury officials is, that if the duties were taken off they would remain in the hands of the merchants. If we reduce the postal rates, we would have to find the money thus lost somewhere else, possibly by another “screw” on the gold mines. The criticism against what I might call the distribution part of the budget is that it does nothing for urban areas, but merely lavishes on farmers the money received from the gold mines. This is met by the consideration that the help we are giving to the farmers is not merely assisting a certain number of them to meet their obligations, but to deal with a phase of our unemployment problem which it would otherwise be impossible tn cope with—the drift to the towns of men and families from the country who join the ranks of the unemployed and this constitutes a more difficult phase of the unemployed problem than any other. This is an attempt to deal with it by stopping this drift at its source. Some hon. members have told us that they advocate a scheme of unemployment insurance. Well, that is a good thing in its way. It can deal with a type of unemployed, which we find among artizans and men who have been in regular employment; when men like these are thrown out of work for a week, or a month, or several months, their case should be dealt with by an insurance scheme. But this type of unemployment which consists of the towns being flooded, if I may say so, by people drifting in from the country who have been unable to maintain themselves on the land, that type of unemployment cannot be dealt with by any insurance scheme. Therefore if we can enable men to remain on the land, and maintain their families there, who would otherwise drift into the towns, if this scheme of ours can do anything towards that, then I say that it will be doing a notable service towards the solution of the problem of unemployment. I don’t say that we are doing as much as could be done. Hon. members have told us we are not benefitting this class of farmers, and that we are not benefitting some other class of farmers. It is true that we cannot expect to deal with every possible class, but a great deal is being done, as hon. members will see, if they look at the votes which are now before them, not only in the way of relieving bonded farmers from their interest charges, but in the way of providing for tenant farmers who are in distress. There is a sum of £200,000 provided for dealing with needy tenant farmers, and there are other sources from which farmers are going to be assisted. I repeat again, because it is a point which must be kept in mind, that this budget is intended to be a national budget, not a budget to deal with one section, but a budget devoted to a real social trouble in which we have been involved partly by causes applying to the whole world, and partly by causes arising among ourselves. Some hon. members say: Why not do all this or at least do something out of loan funds? Why do all this out of revenue in one year? We have also been told by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and others that we ought to be borrowing much more largely than we are doing. They tell us that the cure for many of our troubles is to increase consumption and demand by the people, and that in order to stimulate demand, we should embark upon public works, and so start an increased demand. To my mind that is for any country a dangerous policy, unless this borrowing is used to create works of productive capacity, unless this borrowing is used to create assets for the nation which will be permanent, and out of which the debts can eventually be paid. I know the hon. member for Zululand thinks it is old-fashioned to pay our debts. That is the banking idea of finance. We have evolved to a higher stage of finance, according to the hon. member. I am not sure that lenders would approve of such a conception of finance. There is this point also to be considered, that our public debt in South Africa is already fairly high, if you consider the productive assets of the country. We have got our railways which represent a very large amount of our public debt, but I am not sure that if our railways were a business concern, and not a State concern, that a prudent manager would not wish to see the capital account of our railways very considerably written down. When a private concern writes down its capital it is so much the worse for the shareholders or the partners, as the case may be, but we can only reduce our debt by the taxpayer taking over the responsibility for part of the national capital expenditure, or increase our assets in relation to our debt. We have a very considerable amount of our national debt sunk in irrigation works of which a considerable amount should be written off as regards any possibility of its being paid, and more will have to be written off in the future. We have invested a considerable amount of money in the purchase of land for settlement purposes, and year after year we have a demand for the amount to be written down. I should hesitate at the present time, whatever the future may push us to do we do not know, but at the present time I should hesitate to make any large accession to the public debt unless we can prove it to be directly productive. We have even been criticized in some quarters because it is proposed that £1,900,000 of the revenue derived from the mines which, under ordinary circumstances, would go to loan account, has at present been devoted to revenue. That has been done to meet the peculiar circumstances of this year. It is not a principle of general application that because this particular amount comes from additional profit accruing to the mines, that it should be for good and all appropriated to revenue. This is an appropriation for this particular year, and it is not intended to be a permanent diversion from Loan Account of the money derived from this source. This budget must be considered as a budget for the year, diverting from the exceptional profits of one industry a portion of such profits to the purposes of the State. I don’t want to be misunderstood with regard to that. I think it would be optimistic to suppose that next year will witness a condition in our national economy which will not require the Government to divert a large share of mining profits to the purposes of the State. But if such taxation is continued, and if it is found that the taxation we are now imposing checks development and new investment in mining, undoubtedly, if that is found to be the case, the matter will have to be remedied. The intention of the Government is to appropriate a share of mining profits in such a way as will not discourage fresh investment of capital, and in such a way as will not discourage mining development. But subject to that, this budget must be regarded as dealing with the problems of the year. Now some hon. members say that this is a gamblers’ budget —that it is gambling with the present gold premium. Well, every budget is a gamble, more or less, and is an estimate that the conditions prevailing during the year will produce revenue such as is expected it will produce. We expect that during the current year the premium on gold will continue to such an extent as to give us approximately the amount for which we have budgeted. It may give us less, and it may give us more. The gamble we undertake, if it is a gamble, in estimating the money we shall get from the mines for the current year is nothing to the gamble we would be going in for if we accepted the recommendations of some hon. members and pushed the expenditure for which we are estimating on to the following year or years. That would be a real gamble.

How do you do it on the railways?

How do you do it on the railways, I am asked; but on the railways it is, within easily determinable limits, a steady revenue. If it is a gamble, when we are using the profits from the mines for the current year, it will be a greater and a much wilder gamble if, relying on these profits, we push this expenditure on to future loans and future prosperity. Then we are told that the real remedy for our depressed agriculture is to raise the prices of primary products. That, we are told, is the real cure; that the things we are doing now are only makeshifts, and we are dealing only with temporary difficulties. That is very true; we all agree with that; but the question is, are you going to allow the horse to die while you are waiting for prices to rise, and are you going to do nothing while the country is waiting for this great scheme to raise the prices of primary products? The farmer’s trouble here and all over the world is that between the price he can get for his products and the price for the things he wants to buy there is too great a gap, over which he cannot jump. He cannot sell his products, in other words, at prices at which he can live. The manufacturer cannot produce at prices at which the farmer can afford to buy. I am not prepared now to go into the causes of that; there are all sorts of causes, and this has been discussed by all sorts of authorities. It is not only so here, but all over the world. The whole world is looking for a remedy. What is suggested now is that we should try to raise the prices of primary products, by various means. We are told we should diminish the hours of work in our industries, and raise wages all round. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and his party say that that is the one thing we should do, and that we should borrow money for our public expenditure. I believe the hon. member for Benoni has even a better plan than borrowing money for expenditure, and that is by printing notes. That is a much simpler plan, and does not involve the paying of interest! Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with any proposal that will lessen the hours of work in industry. I think that man has brought machinery to such a point of development that he is being rendered unnecessary altogether. The human element is being dispensed with, and the machine is going to do all our work for us. Why should we not, then, enjoy a little more leisure than we have done in the past, and why should not the worker get more leisure out of the machine? The danger of these expedients for raising the prices of products inside any one country is that, while you may possibly be increasing the demand for products, you are also increasing the costs to the producer of these products, so that he will be no better off than before. The danger of dealing with these things from the point of view of one country or one isolated community is that it cannot be effected—it is a world problem, and it has to be dealt with by an international arrangement, or international agreement. I would like to quote to hon. members an extract from a statement made by Mr. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister of Great Britain, in which they state—

Then it goes on to say—

So that, however we may look forward to a rise in the prices of primary products, we must realize that anything we can do here inside our own borders will not be effective, and may have an action that will neutralize the good that can be done. It can be done only by internatinal agreement and international cooperation, and we may hope that the conference which will be sitting in London, if it does not achieve a final result, may yet point the way to which nations may come to a better state of things. We recognize that there are many problems in this country connected with poverty, with the needs of a vast section of the people, which cannot be dealt with by any immediate expenditure of money. It was said that we are not really attempting to cope with the poverty in this country, and we were referred to investigators of the problem of poverty in this country, and told we were doing nothing to cope with it. I say mere money expenditure can go only a certain way to cope with these conditions. These conditions arise not merely from an immediate want of food and clothing, but from a mal-adjustment between one section of the community and another. It is also due to the rapid economic and mechanical development which has dawned in South Africa and to the fact that our people have not yet been able to fit themselves into that new world. You will have to look to other agencies to education, to the education of the children, to agricultural education in our agricultural colleges and in schools throughout the country, to the improvement of stock, to the protection of our soil from erosion, to protection against pests and diseases in our plants and animals, to the extension of public health by the provision of nursing services throughout the country and child welfare, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz). Upon these agencies the Government is spending a large amount of money, not as much I know as those who are keen upon this work would like to see spent, but we are not neglecting these agencies and they are at work. But the process is a slow one and you must not expect any immediate reform which is going to convert the whole body of our people into a socially adapted unit. The process is going to be slow and what we are trying to do now is to provide such assistance to the farming community of this country as will enable them to resist the unfair pressure of debt which is wearing them down and which is threatening to deprive them of their homes, and to do it in such a way as will not impair their independence. If we can do that I think the expenditure will have been justified. I come now to the other feature of the budget which has been criticised and that is the mining taxation. This taxation has come upon the country somewhat in the nature of a thunderbolt. It is a scheme of taxation which is complicated and difficult to understand, and what is more, it is a scheme which produces different results in the case of different mines, I propose to give some figures, which are the best I am able to procure, which will show as far as general figures can show what the effect of this taxation is going to be; but before I come to that I would like to say something in regard to the object and the scope of this taxation and to refer particularly to certain criticisms which were raised in this House as to why we had not gone further. Now I want to say very definitely that the object of this taxation was not merely to plunder the mining industry of a large share of its profits. Whatever some people may say and whatever memories we may have of the past, the Government does not regard the mining industry as a milch cow to which the Treasurer can go when he is in want of money, but as a national asset contributing its due share to the revenues of the country and above all providing employment for large and increasing numbers of our people. It is an industry exploiting a national asset. The mineral deposits of this country are a national asset. The law lays down that the exploitation of these minerals belongs to the State, but they are exploited not directly by the State but through the agency of private enterprise. Therefore that exploitation has to be governed by certain definite principles. It is undertaken as I say by private enterprise, and therefore there must be a sufficient reward if the exploitation is to be a success and is to induce the investment of capital in what is necessarily a risky investment. In other words, we must not add to the ordinary risks of investment in goldmining enterprises, the further risk of confiscation by the Government. That is one principle. Secondly, we must impose such conditions as will ensure that this national asset of our mineral deposits is used up so as to provide the maximum amount of employment for our people. The asset will be used up; it does not grow again. All the mineral deposits that can be profitably worked should be profitably worked. I want to discourage hon. members from taking up the attitude that has been shown occasionally, notably by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr; de Waal), namely, that the gold mines of this country belong to a few foreign capitalists, foreign millionaires, who occasionally, when it suits them, visit this country and disappear again. These statements are merely calculated to arouse public prejudice against what is a national industry. They are out of date for any one who knows the facts. We only hear them from a very few philosophers like the hon. member for Piquetberg, who, I say with respect, spend most of their time in gnawing the bones of the past. I would like to give the House some figures to show what happens to the output of the gold-mining industry and to relieve them of the idea that all the gold extracted from our South African mines is carried off by a few millionaires who visit these shores from time to time. In 1932, out of an output of round about £47,000,000, there was paid out in wages £15,900,000. European wages were £8,700,000 and coloured wages £7,220,000. There was spent in stores £15,369,000, and of those stores South Africa produced and manufactured £10,675,000. Imported stores amounted to £4,694,000. These, of course, were imported through South African merchants and others who presumably got a certain profit. This is to show hon. members that the output of the South African gold-mining industry is to a very large extent distributed in South Africa. It is not sent overseas. The dividends, which are all the shareholder gets out of these mines, amounted in that year to about £9,000,000, so that even if the whole of the dividends were carried out of this country they would be only a very small proportion of the total output of the mines. But these dividends are not all sent overseas. A very considerable portion of the shareholders are resident in South Africa and draw their dividends in South Africa. So let us get rid of this idea that the gold-mining industry of South Africa is a mere alien industry with which we are not concerned, something we can screw the last ounce of money out of but which we have no interest in from a national point of view.

What are the figures for the overseas dividends?

I cannot give you the division between overseas and South Africa. Now the principles underlying the present taxation on our gold-mining industry are first of all that the Government has taken an amount, which it considers reasonable, to meet the present financial position. The mechanism of the tax has been devised in such a way as is intended, I do not say it has in every way succeeded, but it is intended to make it easy to encourage the lowering of the grade of rock to be milled by the mines. Now that is not altogether an easy proposition. But that is the intention, and if it should be found by practical experience, that the effect of the taxation is to discourage investment, to restrict expansion, or to discourage the lowering of the grade of rock to be mined, then I have not the least doubt that these difficulties will be attended to. The intention of the Government is twofold. First of all, the obtaining of a share of these large profits, and secondly the obtaining of the working of rock of a lower grade, and if the scheme does not effect that, and above all if it acts as a deterrent against the working of the low-grade ore, then it will have to be revised. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) attacked this whole scheme of taxation on the ground that it constituted what he called an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the pockets of one section of the community to another, and that the Government had interfered on an unprecedented scale through this transfer from one section to another. It is true that there has been this transfer of wealth. All taxation, more or less, means the transfer of wealth from one section of the community to another. And the hon. member said that it was on an unprecedented scale. It is on an unprecedented scale, because the departure from the gold standard constituted in itself a transfer of wealth on an unprecedented scale. I would like to give hon. members a few illustrations of the transfers of wealth that took place by a rise in the value of gold-mining shares from the time when this country went off gold, and hon. members will see from these illustrations that there is evidence of a very considerable transfer of wealth, or call it purchasing power, from one period to the other. I take the Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company, one of the main holding companies on the Rand. Their 20s. shares stood at 22s. 3d. on the 21st of December last. On the 15th May last they stood at 46s. That is an increase of over 100 per cent. Then take the Rand Mines, another important holding company. Their 5s. shares, on the 21st December, stood at 60s., and on the 15th May had gone up to 123s. Now I shall refer to some individual mines. Brakpan mines, their 20s. shares stood at 70s. on the 21st December, and on the 15th May they had gone up to 127s.

What are they now?

I do not know what they are standing at now. I only show the transfer of wealth that took place before this tax came in. I am quite willing to get the figures for the hon. member, but I suspect he knows them better than I do. Now let us take City Deeps. Their 20s. shares on the 21st December stood at 9s. 3d., and on the 15th May at 28s. 6d. Crown Mines, 10s. shares, on the 21st December, stood at 97s., and on the 15th May stood at 192s. The E.R.P.M., a low-grade proposition; their 10s. shares on the 21st December stood at 10s., and on the 15th May at 28s. 6d. Government Areas, on the 21st December, stood at 26s. 3d., and on the 15th May at 46s. 6d. And so on all the way down. I do not want to weary the House with more instances.

No, we have got quite enough.

I am not quoting these figures in any spirit of envy; I do not possess any of these shares myself, I am sorry to say; but I am quoting these figures to show that if this tax constitutes a transfer of wealth on an unprecedented scale—as it does—then it has been preceded by a transfer of wealth, or of purchasing power, on an even greater scale. Some hon. members say, “But what about wool, what about our farming products, and what about our base metals—have not they got the benefit of our going off gold as well, and should not the same tax be placed upon them?” The answer to that is this, to my mind, that although even the commodity prices have certainly got an advantage of the difference between gold prices and sterling when they are exported, the prices of these commodities have not moved to anything like the same extent, because of the restricted markets there is for them. Farmers’ products have not gone up to anything like the difference between sterling and gold, simply because the markets would not take them, and the same thing applies to our mineral products, to copper and to tin. The rise in prices for these articles has been nothing like the immediate rise in the price of gold. Immediately the change took place, immediately we went on to sterling, so the gold prices went up without any trouble. And that is why it was justifiable for the State to tax that accession of wealth, because in the case of gold these profits have accrued, whereas in the case of other commodities they have not accrued. Other hon. members said that we were fast going along the way to socialism. The fact is simply this, that all civilized Governments had assumed, as they have had to assume, certain responsibility of interference with the rights of private property, where those rights are in conflict with the interests of the people as a whole, or where they are being exercised in conflict with the interests of the people as a whole. Where that interference has brought about a more justifiable distribution of wealth, where the State is satisfied that it can bring about these results, whether you call it socialism or anything else, it is a responsibility which any civilized Government has for many years exercised. Some hon. members urge that we should leave in the hands of the mining companies the whole of these profits and allow the companies to judge how they are to be dealt with and what amount should be distributed to the shareholders. The State has the right, however, to exercise what influence it can in determining what amount of the extra profits should be used in the extension of the industry and the prolongation of the life of the mines. I want now to give the House some figures. Hon. members have been confused by hearing different sets of figures which are difficult to reconcile. In the first place, what is the amount which the Government is talking from the mining industry by direct taxation and in the form of rental from leased mines, that is to say from the tax now in existence, from the rentals of leased mines and the tax on excess profits? The total amount to be received during the current financial year is estimated at £13,800,000. With regard to rentals from leased mines, I may remind the House that in recent years the State has adopted a policy of leasing mineral areas to persons and companies prepared to work them. The consideration for the granting of the lease is a certain rental determined by a formula based, directly or indirectly, on profits. In regard to that I want to lay down very clearly that the amount which the State takes from the leased mines by way of rental is not a deduction from the shareholders’ money, and those amounts never belonged to the shareholders. They are a source of revenue belonging to the State in consideration of which the State gave up those assets and the shareholders never had a right to them. I deprecate that amount being included in the total the State takes from the gold mines. The amount receivable as rentals from leased mines is estimated for the current year at £4,700,000. That leaves the amount we are taking from the gold mines during the current year by taxation at £9,100,000. Between the estimates the Government have put forward and the estimated effect of the new taxation as calculated by the mining companies, one cause of discrepancy lies in the fact that in regard to this particular income tax year, some companies will pay income tax only on half of the gold premium period. When I give the total receipts I am dealing with the total for the current year, that is a year during which the companies will not all be assessed on the whole of the gold premium. Of the sum of £9,100,000 to which I have referred, £3,100,000 accrues to the State through income tax. In other words, if no special duty had been imposed, the income tax would have brought in £3,100,000. That leaves us with an amount of £6,000,000, representing the proceeds of this special tax. The figures I am quoting are the estimates for the current year. We heard a great deal from the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) of what he was pleased to call the “fifty-fifty legend”; he regarded a statement of my colleague that the taxation was approximately 50-50 as legendary. The 50-50 basis, however, was spoken of in relation to the premium and not in relation to the profits the gold-mining companies might derive from the premium that would accrue from the increased price of gold. My colleague intended to convey that of the premium coming from the companies, the Government’s share was approximately on a 50-50 basis. The estimated premium for the year which would be realized from the sale of the output of gold during the current year on the existing price over and above what the gold would have realized if it had been sold at the old standard price of 84s. 9d. an ounce is £19,700,000. It is estimated that certain reductions will have to be made to cover the increased working costs. There may or may not be an increase in working costs, but in view of our departure from the gold standard an increase may arise and to provide for that and the estimated lowering of the ore, I take the figure of £4,450,000, which would leave the premium proceeds at £15,250,000 after allowing for increased expenses and a drop in the output owing to the lowering of the grade. Now, just a word about the drop in grade. What is involved in that? With the same output, of course, you would have a drop in the gold recovery and correspondingly, of course, a drop in the profits from the exploitation of that particular amount of ore. Hon. members, however, must not regard that as something that the mines have lost. It may be lost to the existing shareholders who may be getting a smaller dividend because of a lower grade being worked, but in the long run shareholders will not suffer as their assets will improve as the life of the mine is prolonged. The return on the present holding through the life of the mine will be increased. I think we must be careful in looking at the effect of this taxation not to be guided exclusively by the market opinion of the day. The market opinion of the day looks at present values to a large extent. Although I know that a certain number of people in the part of the country I come from make it a part of their business to have a little flutter on the exchange, and possibly may have got caught by a drop in values, one must look at what the effect must be on the life of the industry as a whole. It is estimated, and I think the estimate is agreed, that the additional profit due to premium for 1933 is £15,250,000, and that the increased lease rentals due to premium will be £2,400,000. The increased rental from our lease mines, owing to the increased profit due to the premium, will be £2,400,000. It does not matter in the least whether the proceeds of these leases are devoted to loan account or are devoted to revenue. The additional profit due to premium in 1933, less the increase in leased rentals caused by premium, will be £12,850,000. The tax applicable to additional profits will be as follows: income tax, £1,400,000; that is to say, we shall get more from the existing income tax by £1,400,000, and this new duty, the excess profits tax, is estimated to produce £6,000,000, so that the tax applicable to these additional profits will be, in all, £7,400,000. This increased revenue of £7,400,000 must be set against the estimated increased profit of £12,850,000, and the result will be a percentage something under 58 per cent. That is the proportion of increased revenue to increased profit. The “fifty-fifty legend”, as my hon. friend calls it, must be criticised by the figures I have just given; that is to say, that the existing premium for the year, less the deduction for increased costs and lowering of grade, that is, £15,250,000, must be set against he excess additional taxation of £7,400,000, and if you make allowance for the fact that the lowering of the premium owing to the working of lower grade ores is not a loss to the mines, but an extension of life, I think the House will agree that the fifty-fifty legend is a great deal closer to reality than most of the legends we have been brought up on.

What is left for the shareholders?

That will depend to a certain extent on what the managements of the companies have to say about it.

Can you not give us some idea?

I will tell you that the estimated working profits for 1933 are put at £30,000,000, the whole of the working profit, new and old.

Gross?

Yes, and the total amount of revenue I have already explained. To come back to the distribution of the budget, hon. members have complained that not enough is being done for the farmer. In addition to the relief from interest it is proposed to give him under this budget, hon. members must remember that the sum of £2,500,000 is provided in the estimates for the payment of subsidies on exports, and that there is provided other assistance to the farmer, including a contribution to the maize pool and a contribution to the wheat pool. I think that in view of the amounts set down in the estimates, it cannot reasonably be complained that we are not looking after the farmer; in fact, I hope that as a result of the enquiry my colleague is going to institute into co-operative societies, we shall find that the time during which we have to make these advances to the farmer is coming to an end, and that further advances will be made on business principles and not on the responsibility of the Government. The advances now being made are being made to relieve the farmer from the crushing burden of debt, and to enable him to remain on his land. It is intended for the rehabilitation of agriculture. Some hon. members have advocated different treatment of the farmer. They say: “Why don’t you adopt the Van der Horst scheme?” Now let us consider what the Van der Horst scheme means. In the first place the Van der Horst scheme contemplates abolishing all subsidies, quotas and all other assistance of that kind to the farmers. That has got to go. Then the interest of farm bonds is to be reduced and after five years the rate of interest on farm mortgages is to be 3½ per cent. The Government to take over the bonds and issue stock, sufficient if necessary to take over the whole of the mortgages on the farms. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) put it before us in attractive language, and said all it meant was the issue of farm debentures. He did not call it “Government bonds”—that is too crude. He called it “farm debentures”; but whatever you call it, the State’s credit is at the back of it, otherwise nobody will touch it. I do not think that any reasonably responsible member of the House will contemplate the Government taking over a liability of from £100,000,000 to £120,000,000 stock at 3½ per cent., redeemable over a period of 48 years.

Farmers will take the responsibility.

Yes, the farmer is taking responsibility for his end of the concern but who would advocate the State entering into a large loan for public works if it has a big liability of £100,000,000? It could not raise it to begin with. The credit of this country would be hopelessly gone if it attempted to raise all this money at 3½ per cent. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), seemed to think somehow that this scheme would be one to promote the farmers’ independence. He doubts whether the present scheme will do so, but he thinks the Van der Horst scheme would have secured the farmers’ independence. I ask how? No, we have had a sad experience in the past of the effebt on the farming community of being debtors to the Government for one thing or another. Governments of this country have been approached from time to time to give advances to farmers for this, that or the other purpose, being assured that all was well, and that the money would be forthcoming as soon as the money was due; but every hon. member knows what happened. Large numbers of farmers—not all—but I am sorry to say, an increasing number, ask the Government to write it off. The danger is that we are encouraging a feeling amongst the farming people of this country, that money advanced to them by the Government need not be repaid. Imagine the condition of things that would exist if the Government held £100,000,000 of bonds, farming debentures, or whatever they may be called, which depended on the Government getting back its money on the farmers’ ability and willingness to pay. His independence would be more compromised under that than under the present scheme of the Government. I am sorry to have wearied the House, but there are one or two things I omitted to say about the goldmining taxation, which I may say now. I said at the beginning that the scheme is a complicated one, and that it is difficult to assess precisely what its effect will be on various classes of mines. Points have been raised by those who are interested in the industry for the purpose of showing that this particular method of taxation will not have the effect of encouraging rich mines to mine poorer ore. It seems to be admitted that with regard to the poorer mines they will be encouraged to mine poorer ore, but the richer mines will not get the same encouragement, or perhaps will get none at all. Well, I recognize the anomalies which are inseparable from the laying on of taxation such as this. Some of the mines may be suited by it and it will give them a reasonable concession for the lowering of their grade of ore, but in other cases that will not be so. It is contended, with a good deal of force perhaps, that it is not scientifically possible to devise a scheme of taxation for the encouragement of mines to mine a lower grade of ore. That contention may have some scientific foundation. It is my intention, however, to institute an enquiry during the recess to see how far this scheme is working towards that end; that is, to encourage the expansion of the industry and the working of lower grade ore, and any modifications which may be made during the next budget will have the advantage of that enquiry and seeing the actual results that have come from the working of the tax. Then I also want to refer to the point which was raised by one or two hon. members. We were asked why we did not carry out in this budget a scheme which was foreshadowed in the speech of his Excellency the Governor-General at the opening of last session —for the taxation of profits made on exchange speculation—on the profits made after the departure by Great Britain from the gold standard, on funds sent from this country to Great Britain, and on the profits made on them when these funds came back to South Africa after we had departed from the gold standard. I may say that after a very careful enquiry made by my colleague and the Government, we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to carry out that scheme, and it was quite impossible to distinguish between the man who had sent money overseas for business purposes and the man who had done so purely for speculation; and secondly, as the hon. member for Bredas-dorp (Maj. van der Byl) said last night, it was impossible to distinguish between the man who sent money overseas for speculative purposes, speculation in exchange, and the man who did exactly the same thing by buying and selling shares on the Johannesburg market. One you can catch, and the other you cannot. I am not certain whether yon can catch either of them; I am certain that you cannot catch both. We came to the conclusion that it was impossible under any scheme of administration to produce an equitable scheme which would catch the profits made by persons who speculated in one form or another on the difference in the exchange between this country and another. There is an amendment to this motion, which was moved by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), and supported by his party; with which I want to deal.

The whole party?

Yes, the whole party. He objects to the passing of this motion giving the Government supply until the necessary steps have been taken to do quite a number of things. I do not quite know how he is going to apply profits from the gold premium to a moratorium for farmers, and whether the State is going to pay their creditors or not. Then there are a whole lot of other things, State banks and so on. Let me deal with this proposal to raise the wages of those engaged in the production of gold by a percentage equal to the increase in the gold premium. It is put in a very plausible form. He says “These are the men who produce the gold: why should they not have a rise in wages equal to the difference between the sterling value of gold and the gold value?” I would like to know how far he proposes to go. I take it he is speaking principally for the underground workers on the Witwatersrand, but what about the vast body of 220,000 natives? They certainly play a very important part in the recovery of gold what about them? Are they to have a 35 per cent. increase? Then there are the clerks in the companies’ offices, carpenters and engineers; every sort of man who has anything whatever to do with the working of these mines, underground or on the surface, black or white is equally entitled to this 35 per cent. rise in wages. If we are going to start moving wages no and down, according to the rise or fall of the gold premium, merely on the ground that these particular people have a hand in producing gold we shall be in a very dangerous situation. The trouble would be when you tried to get the wages down. If these men once had their wages increased by 35 per cent., they would have the strongest possible objection to having them lowered again. For that reason, and for others, with which I need not trouble the House, I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni. I do not suppose the House will accept it, even if I personally did. I would like to repeat, with as much force as possible, what I said at the beginning, that this budget is not a sectional budget; it is a national budget, dealing with a national emergency, and without laying any undue burden on posterity. It makes a great demand, undoubtedly, on the mining industry, because that is the industry which, owing to the peculiar financial conditions of the time, is making unprecedented and exceptional profits. The State is appropriating part of these profits to meet this national economic emergency, but at the same time it does so without any intention to cripple the expansion of the industry, but on the contrary, with every desire to see the industry expand, and with every desire to see it afford the greatest possible amount of employment to the people of the country, and to attract additional capital from outside. The attempt to help the farmers is not on the basis of a dole, but is to keep them on the land, and to keep them on their feet, to enable them to retain their independence, when they would otherwise be swept off the land by the pressure of creditors. It deals, to a certain extent, with unemployment; but its main effect on the unemployment problem will be to restrict it at the source, by keeping persons on the land, who otherwise would be forced off the land. It does not seek to plunder one section at the expense of another; it does not want to pamper one section at the expense of another. Its aim and object is to be, in the truest sense, a national budget.

Fortunately, my task is simpler than the task which has been allotted to my colleague, who has just spoken. The first hon. member who discussed railway matters in this debate, was the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock). I was glad that he expressed a considerable amount of optimism regarding the position of the railways, particularly because he is a man who comes very frequently in contact with railway working, and his opinion is well worth accepting. I may say that I accept that opinion myself. There is no necessity for pessimism in regard to the railways, but I should like to say at the same time that that opinion must be largely qualified, and that optimism should be tempered with a considerable amount of prudence. There is no latitude possible for increase in expenses, and no latitude possible for any exceptional expenditure. One of the great burdens of the railway figures is the enormous overhead—the principal item of course being interest, which amounts to 25 per cent. of the turnover—the enormous amount which does not vary, whether you are carrying 20 per cent. more goods or 20 per cent. less, and that is the great difficulty with the railway figures, that they are not elastic. I am afraid that will always be the difficulty, that when the revenue decreases the profits will decrease very rapidly. The Government intends to carry on the railways on business principles, subject to only one condition, and that is, the condition in the South Africa Act that special regard should be had to the inland development of agriculture and industry. Personally, I think that a 10 per cent. increase in the revenue of the railways would revolutionize the financial position, but we have not got to that 10 per cent. increase in revenue at present, and it is no use anticipating a revenue which has not arrived. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), as a matter of fact, was rather pessimistic. He considered that the estimate made by my colleague, who is now overseas, was too optimistic, and that we were not likely to get that revenue. That is a matter of opinion. When we come to the 31st March next, we shall know who was right. Personally, I agree with the hon. member that it is as well to estimate figures rather conservatively, and I think that the Minister of Railways, in his judgment at any rate, has estimated conservatively. The other point that was discussed was the question of the composition of the commission of enquiry. Several hon. members mentioned this matter, the hon. members for Turffontein, Benoni (Mr. Madeley), Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), Germiston (Mr. Strauss), Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), and others. I listened to all their advice, but, unfortunately, most of it was mutually destructive. I would like first, to deal with the extreme advice which was offered to me by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He was not prepared to allow anybody on that commission, who came from overseas. It is true, he did make one slight concession, that if anybody elected to come from overseas, to give evidence before that commission, he would have no objection to their being treated as witnesses. I am entirely at one with the hon. member and I consider that South Africans should do South Africa’s work. I think we all agree with that as a broad proposition but I do not subscribe to the inference, that he seems to draw from this, that we are not prepared to learn anything from the rest of the world. I am afraid that if the young South Africans ever get to the position that they think that they know so much that the rest of the world can teach them nothing, our country will get on the downward path instead of going on on the upward path. I was also surprised at the other statement that it was against the policy of the previous Government, as the Nationalist party, to appoint any commission consisting of men from overseas. It is quite true that the hon. member is young, but at any rate he can go back nine years and he would then remember that one of the first commissions appointed by the Nationalist Government was the Kemerer-Vissering Commission, and therefore it is quite incorrect for him to say that this appointment of overseas commissions is against the policy of the Nationalist party. But even if it were against the old policy of the Nationalist party, that is no reason why the coalition Government should not reconsider any part of that policy. I take it that we shall all have to reconsider part of our policy if we are going to work this coalition. In this case it is not so. The Nationalist party when they were in power, appointed overseas commissions in exactly the same way as we suggest doing now. Then there was a school of thought that we should have all interests represented on that commission. One hon. member suggested that, and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) immediately took it up and said that he quite agreed, and that of course there must be a representative of Labour on it. I take it that that means that there is going to be a representative of Labour, a representative of agriculture, representatives of mining, commerce and industry and, of course, representatives both of the administration of railways and of the workers on the railways. Before you are finished, you will have a Parliament sitting. I immediately turned that down as absolutely impracticable and unworkable. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) suggested that two South African members should be added to the commission, and I think that that is worth bearing in mind and being carefully considered. The difficulty of appointing two such men is to get two men of sufficiently high calibre who have no interests in South Africa. Otherwise they would not gain the confidence of the public of South Africa. But as I say, that is not a matter to be lightly turned down. Another suggestion made by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Strauss) was that there should be two South Africans acting as assessors. That is also a suggestion which requires consideration, but, on the whole, I am still of opinion that the best commission of all is a commission from overseas and that all these varied interests should prepare extensive evidence and tender that evidence before the commission, so that all the varying interests may be suitably and fully represented before that commission. Of course, I want to add this, that I have not the final say in this matter; another and a greater god will arrive in a few months and he can give the final decision. I will, as far as I can, give him the facts and the opinions of members expressed here in the House and a decision can then be arrived at. There are two points which I want to make clear. There is a fear which I want to allay in members’ minds and that is that the Government is going to accept holus bolus the whole of the recommendations that any commission may propose. They are not going to do anything of the kind. They are not going to accept any impracticable suggestions made by men who know nothing of our country, and I want to remind hon. members that even after these matters have been before the Minister of Railways, they will still have to come before the Cabinet. After all, what we want is an unbiased and unprejudiced criticism of the problems and the working of our railways. We want some test of what other solutions than our own are worth trying in regard to our problems and we also want some criticism as to whether our railways are being worked on the best and most efficient lines. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) also asked a question in regard to the rates of interest charged by the treasury on our capital. Well, the rate is made annually on the money that is raised during that period. For instance, in 1931-’32 the rate was 4.677 per cent., whereas the rate in 1932-’33 was 3.617 per cent., a very great difference. The average rate that we are being charged is roughly 4.086 per cent. That is what it was in 1932-’33. There is a committee of the treasury and the railways sitting at the moment discussing what should be the rates chargeable to the railways owing to the recent loan conversion and forthcoming ones, and what will be equitable both to the treasury and to the railways. Now, in regard to points raised by individual members, I shall take them as they happened to come here. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) was concerned about the clothing of labourers employed on truck cleaning. The men are served out with oilskin jackets and trousers. The hon. member said that when on leave the men should not be charged with the rent of their houses, but in my opinion that would be very unfair to the rest of the staff. By far the largest number of these European labourers are not supplied with houses by the department. The next point was in regard to the electrification of the railways, and I may say that the electrification of the Ladismith-Harrismith line is going to be carried out. The estimated saving by the electrification of this section is £26,488 a year. I consider that good business, even although we do have some old engines lying idle. These engines are now valued at £1,656 each, but, as a business man, one realizes that you do not take in your old stock at cost price. These engines cost on an average of £4,246 each, but most of them were purchased in the last century, and naturally they have been written down in value. That seems to me to be conducting the railways on business principles. It will be a financial advantage to the railways to electrify the line. Personally I would like to see engines purchased as far back as the year 1900 written down to £1 each. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) wanted to know if the department would institute special excursion rates for miners’ holidays. My reply is that you cannot create special railway rates for certain categories of the public. Then the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. S. P. Bekker) suggested that we should use part of the gold premium taxation in reducing the rates on coal. I refer him for an answer to the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Fagan) criticized the Motor Transportation Act. The question of outside competition with the railways is under constant consideration, more particularly to-day, because, in addition to motor competition, we have competition from animal-drawn vehicles. Up to the present no solution of the problem is in sight. I have always realized that the Motor Transportation Act is a serious interference with private rights, and is only justified owing to the grave financial position of the railways. I hope some solution will be found which will restore liberty to other methods of transport, but it must be perfectly clear that if these methods of transport are allowed, they will have to pay their fair share of the costs of the roadways they use and they will be put in the same position as the railways. That is, they must carry all forms of traffic that are offered; they cannot expect to pick the eyes of the traffic, and leave the railways with the unpayable portion. This is a problem which is troubling the whole transportation world. It should not be overlooked, however, that it is in the interests of several localities in the Union that there should be some restriction on motor transportation. These localities would be the first to complain if, owing to unrestricted competition, the railways had to curtail their services; hence, in the interests of localities themselves, it is very often needful to control motor transport. As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Fagan) and the specific case he mentioned, the administration did arrange with the farmers with regard to the conveyance of must, and did compromise reasonably by allowing the transport of must by motor lorry within a radius of 15 miles of the distillery at Robertson. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) asked whether an occasional accelerated train service could be instituted for the conveyance of cattle. I will ask the administration to look into the matter. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), as to there being only four bonus inspectors, I think in his copy of the estimates, the figure 2 has dropped out before the figure 4. The number of bonus inspectors is 24 not 4. As regards the other point he brought up, I think it is rather unkind to suggest that the administration’s only idea was to reduce wages, and to get rid of as many men as possible. 1 think that was rather a harsh way of putting it, and I trust he will see that that is so when I recall to his mind the very great care that has been taken by the administration to make the necessary reduction with the least possible hardship. He will remember, in regard to reducing artizans to lower rates rather than discharge them, that that was done entirely with the consent of the artizans themselves.

That is not so; there is plenty of work for those men to-day.

That is a matter of opinion. The question of the quantity of work in the railway workshops is a question of what work requires to be done, and of what engines and trucks and so on are required to be put back on the line in order to carry the traffic. The hon. member appears to think that everything should be done at once, and that engines and trucks should be repaired whether they are needed or not. I think it is the railway administration’s duty to restrict the work in the railway workshops to that which is reasonably necessary for the time being. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Strauss) raised a question with regard to the artizans and running staff with which I cannot very well deal. He made a statement with regard to alleged statements by the Minister of Railways, and I cannot say what the Minister said or did not say at a public meeting. I think the hon. member must wait until he gets the Minister here before the question he has raised can be dealt with. The hon. member will remember that we have restored a considerable amount of the reduction. For instance, the temporary wage reduction was restored from the 1st April, and also acting pay in higher grades. I may say that it is the intention of the administration as far as possible that their workshops should be occupied with work within reasonable businesslike requirements. We have no intention of doing unnecessary work so as to keep men in a job. It is not business.

Will you tell us something more definite about the artizans? How many days will they be allowed to work?

I presume the hon. member wants a promise that every workshop throughout the country will have a 43½ hour week. I don’t think that at all a practicable proposition. I cannot even tell the hon. member how many hours he will be required to work next Monday. It would be impossible for any administration to give a definite undertaking that the men in the railway workshops shall work a certain number of hours per day. I should like to refer to the criticism of the hon. member of Illovo (Mr. Marwick). He suggested that no reductions in tariff had been made since 1920. For his information I may tell him that reductions to the extent of £5,000,000 have been made since that date. I will mention butter and cheese, on which the rate has been reduced by 20 per cent. since 1920. I should like the hon. member to get from overseas the rates for these items of produce, because I am informed that our rates compare very favourably with the rates in force in other countries. If we are doing as well as anyone else, how much better do you want us to do? If you can show us that our rates are abnormally high compared with the charges for similar services in some other country, then we shall have some basis to go on. The hon. member’s position is that because the price of a commodity has gone down the railway rates should come down, but you cannot reduce a railway rate 75 per cent. on a certain commodity because that commodity has gone down 75 per cent. in value. No, if the hon. member can give us some facts, and some comparisons with other countries, we will then look into them and see in what way we are behind other countries in handling this traffic, to which he refers. Now the hon. member for Bloemfontein South (Mr. Haywood) brought up the question of the leave of certain European labourers. The position with regard to European labourers was stated quite clearly by the late hon. C. W. Malan a session or two ago, and he was very emphatic that no additions of pay or privileges should be given to them, without risking seriously keeping them on. The intention of the Government is to keep this European labour going. I ask the hon. member not to press for additional funds. Those labourers, to whom he referred, got twelve days’ leave, and they were labourers employed before the 1st April, 1923. I suggest that, in the interests of the men themselves, he should not press for any amelioration of these conditions. I think I have now gone through all the questions which have been put to me by various hon. members.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Derbyshire, McArthur and Sutton) voted against the question, Mr. Speaker declared the question agreed to and the amendment, proposed by Mr. Madeley, dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed during the year ending 31st March, 1934, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railway and Harbour Funds, and from Loan Funds, respectively.

Main Estimates [U.G, 1—’33].

Vote 1, “H.E. the Governor-General”, £23,326, put and agreed to.

On Vote 2, “Senate”, £39,398.

I see that provision is made here for 39 senators. Should not that number be 38?

I am not prepared to say at the moment why the number is 39, seeing that one is a Minister. If we have provided one too many there will be that amount of saving.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 3, “House of Assembly”, £134,584,

I want to ask why it is given as only 136 members when it should be 139? I should like to ask which members are not to be paid.

I am afraid this Vote was drawn up before the change took place. If necessary, a supplemental Vote will be taken.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 4,, “Prime Minister and External Affairs £92,360.

On this vote, I want to raise a matter of some importance. When we were at the conclusion of the last session, the select committee on the native Bills reported to this House and the House adopted the report. I took that opportunity in common with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) to press upon the Government and upon the Minister of Native Affairs that the proceedings of that committee should be published for public information, that the country has no idea what the committee had been doing over a long period of time and that the proceedings ought to be made public. The Minister of Native Affairs on that occasion agreed to make representations to the Government and he himself expressed himself in favour of publication. The only reason why the committee itself did not adopt the suggestion that the proceedings should be published was that they did not want to embarrass the Government at that time. It was felt that in the coming elections nothing should be done to cloud the issue which would then be before the country. I do not know what action the Government is going to take, but so far no action has been taken. These Bills have been before Parliament and the select committee for six years. Originally there were four Bills. They were The Natives Parliamentary Representation Bill. The Natives Land Amendment Bill, the Coloured Persons Rights Bill and the Union Council Bill, and those Bills were sent to a select committee consisting of 19 members which sat for two sessions hearing evidence. Evidence was brought from all over the Union. Natives, as well as Europeans, gave evidence before that committee and they represented every phase of the economic, ethical, religious and social life of South Africa. The evidence was printed in two volumes and the public are well aware of what that evidence was. Subsequently, a joint select committee of both Houses consisting of 26 members was instituted to consider these Bills, and for four years this committee has been deliberating upon them. Also there have been two commissions, one which sat in Pretoria soon after the Bills were introduced and a commission consisting of members of the joint select committee which sat in Pretoria last December. That commission concluded the work which had previously been before the select committee and the House by a practically unanimous conclusion upon the matter. Throughout the whole of these proceedings of the select committee, the Bills have been considered in an entirely non-party atmosphere and there has been the utmost freedom of discussion. The voting has been without any regard whatever to party. I think the time has come to say that the majority voted in favour of these Bills. We have now entered upon a coalition agreement. The coalition agreement provides that a joint select committee should he established and that it should expedite the passage of these Bills, but there is a rider that an endeavour should be made to obtain common agreement upon the matter and that the coalition agreement must not be considered in the light of having arrived at unanimity. I do not know what a common agreement means in this regard. I do not know whether it is common agreement merely between the members of this House. If it means that, then unanimity will never be attained. If it means common agreement in the country, in the nation, the only way in which that can be arrived at is by the country having the opportunity to consider the proposals with which the majority of the select committee are in agreement. Any refusal to publish the proceedings of the committee must necessarily render common agreement impossible. There can be no common agreement unless people have an opportunity of discussing what they are to agree about. It has been most unfortunate that during the six years that these Bills have been before Parliament there should have been a conspiracy of silence. By the rules of this House the fact that these Bills have Been sent to a select committee has rendered it impossible to discuss them in the House or outside and it has also been impossible for the press to discuss them in the spirit in which they should be discussed. As a matter of fact, the press, during the whole period of these six years, have acted very honourably to the House in banning all discussion on the Bills. So South Africa knows nothing whatever of all the lengthy discussions which have taken place during the time that this committee has been hammering out a philosophy of native government. It knows nothing of all of the efforts that have been made to provide more land for natives, more facilities for them to develop in various directions. There is a general impression throughout the country that the committee has found its path insuperable, and that the committee has reached a deadlock so that the Bills are now to be conveniently dropped. I want to say this, that these Bills were not dropped by the committee, but that the committee have come to some final majority conclusions, and that these conclusions are in agreement with the views that are current throughout the whole of British Africa in regard to native government and are consonant with the ideals of the League of Nations. The basic principle of the scheme which has been under consideration by the committee has been to create a distinct Parliament of native affairs within the framework of our European Parliament which will have some control over all legislation and taxation affecting natives. The scheme would have given an effective executive of elected representatives who would look after all matters affecting natives, the financing of the development of the natives in their own area through their own efforts. But while Parliament has been busy discussing this problem which goes to the roots of our civilized existence, while the House has been silent and while the press has been observing a truce upon the Native Bills we have had an intensive propaganda carried on throughout the country by others. This Parliament has been asked in the public press to abrogate its functions as the ruler of the people and hand over those functions to the self-appointed spokesmen of the natives and Europeans in their joint councils. The South African policy on native affairs has been represented in this country and abroad by some of its foremost citizens as harsh in the extreme, oppressive towards the native and based on fear and designed merely to satisfy the prejudices and ignorance of a slave-minded population. Books and pamphlets have been published overseas, articles have been written, and have appeared in periodicals, written by cranks and theorists without any administrative experience, knowing very little and appreciating very little of the difficulties underlying all these matters, which have held South Africa up to the reproach. Meanwhile the position of our native affairs has become increasingly difficult both economically and politically; and it has become increasingly difficult because there is a total absence of clear, national sense of direction. While we have been silent upon the Native Bills and while all the legislation passed through this House ever since Union has been of an adaptatious character there has been carried on a very determined propaganda in favour of a policy of assimilation. The consequence is that there is the utmost confusion as to what goal we are making for. We are told that we have no national policy, that in the absence of a national policy one can yet be invented. Yet I say that the nation has definitely determined the direction in which native affairs shall go. Let me point out the legislation which we have passed since Union which indicate the direction in which it was intended that our native affairs should run. The Act of Union, first of all, established that there should be segregation in native representation in Parliament. The next measure that we passed through this Parliament, which was agreed to by all sides, was the Natives Land Act of 1913, laying it down that the policy of South Africa was to be one of territorial segregation. The next Act which was passed was the Native Affairs Act of 1920 which set up segregation in the local government of natives. In 1923 we passed a Native Urban Areas Act which laid down segregation of residence for natives in urban areas. In 1925 we adopted the Native Taxation and Development Bill, in which we laid it down that a certain part of the money which came from native taxation should go towards native education and development. Then we passed the Native Administration Bill which definitely placed native law as something separate from European law, and which definitely segregated native administration from European administration. And then we passed another law, which I regard as one of the great milestones in the history of native legislation. I refer to the Immorality Act of 1925, establishing vital segregation as between the two races. Here is the national policy which has been written year after year since Union. It cannot be said that there is any doubt as to where the nation wants to go, no matter what these assimilationists and theorists may think. These native Bills, which we have been shaping during the past years, conform to the national character of the goal which we are making for, and I think it is essential that that should be recognized. Public opinion still needs to be informed and instructed upon the national goal. The assimilationists have had six years of clear ground during which they have been able to fertilize the country with their ideas, while we who have been grappling with the reality have been tongue tied. It is high time that the majority of the members of this House should give a lead to the people of South Africa. I do not think that the Prime Minister has anything to be ashamed of in his Native Bills. Tn those Bills a definite direction is given to native policy, which, while satisfying the ideals of the Europeans does give some hope for the economic, ethical and political development of the native people. I feel this very strongly. I feel that if we delay in dealing with these vital problems it will become almost impossible in a short time to do anything at all. When one stops to realize the changes which are taking place on the African continent with electric rapidity, the change from the unknown to the commonplace, the swiftly altering changes in the relationships between natives and Europeans, the intensive economic competition which is engulfing a larger and larger number of the white race in the hopeless mas of poor whiteism, and the creation of a thoroughly dissatisfied, poverty-stricken native proletariat one must either be callous or ignorant of the consequences to attempt to delay a solution. When the measures agreed to by the committee are thoroughly understood by the people, it will be found that in the development of the native areas we shall be offering an economic, ethical and political liberty to the natives which does not exist to-day, and which will enable the intellegentsia among the natives to build up a Bantu nation instead of a black proletariat. In conclusion I ask the Prime Minister to remove the ban on the publication of the proceedings of the select committee, and to allow the public themselves to judge. I think it is only by taking measures to see that the people are fully informed of the work which has been done by Parliament that we shall attain that common agreement referred to in the coalition agreement.

My hon. friends (Mr. Nicholls and Col. Stallard) know what my feelings are on this subject, and how much I am in agreement with them. Let me assure them once more that I am as heartily in agreement with them to-day as when we last sat together in the select committee. I still hope I shall be able to convince them of the rightness of our policy, but I would rather not have the report published at the present time. In the first place this session is practically an extraordinary session. We cannot do anything now in this matter, but the most important reason is this. Some of their old colleagues in the South African party and some of my present colleagues in the new ministry have always held opinions on this matter which differ considerably from ours I have always felt—and I feel it to-day more than ever before—that if we could come into close enough contact and had personal discussions in a committee room, especially now that we are one in politics, acting together as a coalition Government, then we stand much more chance of coming to an agreement which can be accepted by the majority—I hope by all, but at any rate by a majority—which would be far more effective in giving that assurance for the future, than would otherwise be the case. I have always felt this, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me, that when we come to a solution of the native problem, which I am positive we shall come to, and which I am positive we shall come to on the lines of segregation, the greater the proportion of the population we have with us, the greater the assurance of the success of that policy will be. When you have a strong section of the commuinty against you in a matter of this kind, the effect that that is going to have on the European mind and on the native mind in the future, is likely to endanger the success of your policy. I have every confidence that we shall come to an agreement, because some of those very people who have held very strong opinions, what we term negrophilistic views, have spoken to me and given me the assurance that they would be only too glad to stand by our side instead of opposing us, if we could come to some agreement. The attitude taken up by them impressed me so much that I felt quite sure that if we could have a little further discussion, not in this House but as men outside this House, our differences could be met. For that reason I have felt that I would not like to have this published—I will be very frank— before I have had an opportunity, in the first place, of having a discussion on the subject with my friend the Minister of Justice. He has been for years the representative of views from which I have differed, and I have no doubt that his views are held by many people, but I feel sure that we can get to a stage where we can say, “Now we can all agree upon this.” I was thinking of that when I advised my colleague not to have this information laid on the Table of the House. I would like the Minister of Justice to have this information first. If we were to put this on the Table of the House, discussion is going to ensue in consequence before some of our friends in the Ministry will have had a chance of coming together and seeing it. We should be able to meet as friends and speak about the matter before this is published. I am afraid things may be said in the newspapers and criticisms may be given expression to by the very friends to whom my hon. friend has referred, which will only make it more difficult for us to come to a conclusion. I would submit to the committee that, instead of having this publication made now, let them go on for another six months or so. The moment that January arrives we are going to have our committee again, because my hon. friend can have this from me, that we are fully convinced that something should be done. When January comes we shall have that committee appointed, and we shall then have these documents laid on the Table of the House for the purpose of serving the committee from the start. We can go over the whole thing, and we can do so without our position having been compromised by a premature publication of the document. That is my only reason, I can assure my hon. friend, for not having insisted on the Minister of Native Affairs having this document published. With these few words, I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied. If the majority of the House desires otherwise…. [inaudible].

I take it the committee and the whole country will be grateful to the Prime Minister for the extremely frank way in which he made his statement on this all important matter. I have been somewhat nervous, that in the course of events, these three Bills might have been relegated … [inaudible]. I am extremely pleased that the Prime Minister has said that suitable legislation is to be placed on the statute book at the proper time. I am of opinion, and so are others, that time is the very essence of this matter. As the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has said, propaganda of a very earnest kind and of an important nature is going on, not only amongst the natives themselves, but in the universities, and all sorts of departments of public life in which you would not expect it; and the position has become an intense one. I have felt embarrassment myself, as a member of this committee, knowing the contents of these three Bills, in dealing with these matters on public platforms, and I should like at the earliest possible moment to be relieved from this embarrassment, and be able to state what the contents of these Bills are. I was going to urge very strongly upon the Prime Minister that he should agree to the publication of these three Bills at once, believing that chat was in the public interest, and that only by doing that would he be able to impress upon the public the importance of considering the proposals that they contain, but in view of the earnest statement made by the Prime Minister, who is clear in his own mind, I understand, that at present conversations with others of his colleagues is the best way of arriving at a solution, in view of that, I withdraw the request I was going to make, and I express the pleasure that I feel at hearing from the Prime Minister that these Bills are to be proceeded with, and not dropped, at the earliest possible moment.

I did not raise this matter in any way to try to embarrass the Government. I merely brought the matter up in order to try to lift the ban of silence which has prevented our discussing this matter in the country. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) that no harm will be done by this remaining over until next January, and I am very thankful that the Prime Minister has agreed to lay the papers on the Table.

I would like information about Head C (1); it is the availability of our extraordinary ambassador and plenipotentiary Minister in Italy. I think that I am correct in assuming that the period for which Mr. Pienaar was appointed will end next year. I would like to know whether the Government intends either to reappoin†Mr. Pienaar or even to continue the appointment of extraordinary ambassador in Italy. In the first instance, I want to say in regard to the appointment of extraordinary ambassadors abroad I am in agreement with the Prime Minister, but, although I agree in principle with it, it is another matter whether the appointment of an extraordinary ambassador in Italy is justifiable. I do not know what our relations with Italy are which make it necessary for us to have an extraordinary ambassador there. I could understand it if we could appoint one in Germany. Between us and Germany there are actually many bonds. There is the bond of language; there are bonds made by the thousands of students who go to pursue their studies there; there are bonds made by our commercial relations with Germany, and there are also bonds owing to the fact that we originally, so far as ancestry is concerned, came from Germany. The one point in connection with Italy is that we have a meat contract with that country which is not actually very satisfactory to South Africa. We have extraordinary ambassadors in certain countries. My opinion, however, is that we should at present and in the future particularly apply ourselves to the obtaining of new markets in other countries. There is competition now on the markets of the world such as has never existed before. The production of the world is increasing, but the markets are not increasing, and, if we are not very careful, then other countries will get ahead of us and capture the markets. I would, therefore, like to know whether the Prime Minister would not consider whether it would be possible to appoint in the place of extraordinary ambassadors commercial agents in Italy, Germany and other countries where we have markets at present, or where it is possible to develop new markets for our produce. If that can be done without causing extra expense, then we can possibly find new markets for our produce. I would, therefore, like to know whether the Prime Minister will give his attention to the matter and whether he cannot do something in that direction in these times of economic pressure when we have to be careful about spending money.

I would like an explanation from the Prime Minister of the expenditure under D. (4), viz., our contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations. I see there is a considerable increase on last year. We started years ago contributing to the expenses. In 1924 it was £25,000. Subsequently it was reduced and in 1929 it stood at £15,000, a reduction of £10,000. Since that time the contributions have gone up again and last year it was £19,560. This year the amount is £25,000, so that the vote has increased by £5,940 in a year. We would like information about that increase. I thought at first that the difference could be ascribed to the exchange, but I notice from other items that it is specially mentioned when the difference is due to the exchange, and this is, therefore, an increase of the amount itself. I would like to know why there has been such a tremendous rise in one year.

In associating myself with what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has said, I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the following. The hon. member said that more commercial agents should be appointed in Europe in order that our trade there should be extended. I accept that. It is entirely correct, we can open up markets in Europe. But, for my part, I want to say that apparently, according to the budget, little attention is being given to our own continent, to our own Africa. Little attention is given to the countries to our north, the two Rhodesias, Kenya, Tanganyka, and Uganda. They are countries with a very great future and which, as far as I know, are practically closed to us for the simple reason that no attempt is made to make ourselves known in the north. I see from the estimates that provision is made for our representation in Portuguese territory. But I would like to know whether there is not an opportunity at present, in view of the development that may be expected in other countries more to the north, to give attention to those countries as well. We know that our ancestors looked to those countries because they were convinced of their future. Will there not be an opportunity for us in the matter of trade to follow the example of the Voortrekkers to see what can be done there? Our future lies in the north.

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

I want to express my satisfaction with the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon to the effect that he intended as soo as possible to give attention to the Native Bills. I can assure him that the country will be very glad to learn that he intends to proceed with the Bills immediately. When the coalition agreement was entered into between him and the Minister of Justice there was a great amount of unrest in the country because, as we know from the definite provision in the agreement about solving the native question and the passing of the Bills. We were restless and feared that the matter would be postponed indefinitely, and, therefore, it is with much relief that the House and the country have learned this afternoon that the Prime Minister intends to proceed with the Bills as quickly as possible and not to postpone them indefinitely. I can assure him that we all feel that that matter should be tackled immediately. Every government must achieve something, and if there is one thing which the coalition Government can give the country then it is the putting on the statute book of the Native Bills. I, therefore, hope that the Prime Minister, as he has promised, will immediately, after the return of the Minister of Justice, discuss the matter with him and that they will then see that in the early co-operation of the two parties an attempt is made to do so, and that it will lead to a solution. I think that in the spirit of concessions and co-operation that is now prevailing it is the time for us to deal with the matter. In the past the matter was always regarded from a party point of view and it could not be solved. I we cannot solve it at this stage of our history, then I despair of a solution. In connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) I also just want to say that I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter of ministers abroad. In this matter, however, I differ from the hon. member for Humansdorp because I think it unnecessary to appoint a minister in Germaney. I think we should only have one minister in Europe, but that we can have more commercial agents there. Such a minister can have his residence at one place, and then we can have our commercial agents in other countries, i.e., in Holland, Italy, etc.; that will save great expenditure. Then I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether the following is correct. At a meeting held a few days ago at which members of Parliament were also present, the idea was expressed that it was possible that we were going to appoint shortly a commercial agent or an agent-general in the East. I would like to hear from the Prime Minister whether this is so, where he will be stationed, and what prospects for our trade there are in the East. If it is so, I welcome it, but I hope he will be stationed at a place where it will be possible to develop our trade. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the Government is thinking of Dutch or British Indies or also of the Far East, Japan and China.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister to give us information as to what is being done by the coalition Government, whom we are all trying to support wholeheartedly, with regard to the Mozambique treaty. This treaty was renewed in 1928 by the then Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Malan), and I understood from Mr. Malan that it was his intention to have the matter enquired into this session. This treaty belonged to the days of long ago—the reason for this treaty, or the main reason for it—when a great deal of the traffic of the Transvaal went through Delagoa Bay. The reason given for the treaty was, of course, that there was difficulty in getting natives for the Transvaal mines. I think I am right in saying that that difficulty has disappeared. There are thousands of starving natives in the Transkei and elsewhere who could be employed in the mines of the Transvaal. The traffic arrangement under the treaty was that somewhere about 55 to 60 per cent. was to go through Delagoa Bay, the balance to be divided between Union ports. I think the time has come for the Union Government to say that Union traffic must go through Union ports and over Union railways. As you are aware, our railways are our greatest assets, and we are faced this year with the fact they have been making a very large loss. If there is an opportunity of making up some of this loss, it lies in the direction of our getting a larger share of our own traffic through our own ports and over our own railways. The ports of Durban and Cape Town can deal with any traffic that may come their way, and the Government has seen to it that East London and Port Elizabeth are being treated in a fairer manner so that they may be developed. In 1928 the Mozambique treaty was renewed for five years, so that the treaty terminates this year. I claim that we should now get the share of the traffic that we are entitled to. I don’t think it should be a question of sharing at all. Let us supply all the traffic we can to our railways through our ports, and let other ports come in for what is left behind. I am told that there is some difficulty with regard to the natives of the Transkei going to the gold mines. It is true that at one time they were very loth to offer their services to the gold mines of the Transvaal, but the gold mines have improved the conditions of labour so much, and the death rate has become so low, that there is no reason why these natives should not go in their thousands to work in these mines. If what I am advocating were done, at least £50,000 per month should go into the Transkei, if a proper number of natives were recruited, and this would do away with a great deal of trouble we have from time to time, the trouble of natives starving in that part of the Union through not being able to get work. For the last few years the natives have been denied work. Even on our railways they have been practically denied work. At any rate, the natives are entitled to their share of the work provided by the Transvaal gold mines. I hope the Prime Minister will tell us that this year, at all events, this treaty will be gone into, and, I hope, cancelled, but, if not, I hope the Prime Minister will be able to inform us that some fairer arrangement for the Union will be inaugurated.

I want to ask the Prime Minister what he and the Government intend to do in connection with the manganese industry which has now entirely failed. I have before me a petition from about 876 families who are entirely unemployed owing to the stoppage of the manganese industry. The time has come to assist the people in one way or another. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that in 1931 for five months the export of manganese amounted to the considerable sum of £75,951 and that industry is now at a standstill. The Prime Minister possibly does not know it, but it is partly caused by the subsidy which used to be 10 per cent.—now is only 7 per cent. once more—and to the high railway rates which should be brought down. As it is such an asset to the country something must be done by the Government, especially in view of the unemployment of these people. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will not instruct our delegates to the World Conference about to be held to take protection against the unfair competition in Russia. If we do not support or assist the industry it will be completely ruined, and the people who used to work there will become a burden to the State. Seeing the Government has done very much for other sections of the population I think that that section can also be assisted so that we can resuscitate that industry again. It would be a calamity if the industry could not start work again and, in my opinion we, ought to give the assistance, e.g., in the form of an increase of export subsidy and reduction of railway rates. In conclusion, I want again to ask the Prime Minister to consider the desirability of giving a definite mandate to our delegation to the international conference to try to protect us against the unfair competition of Russia. We shall then be able to maintain this industry, which will be in the interests of those people and also in the interests of the country as a whole.

I did not wish to take part in this discussion here this evening, because it was rather sprung upon us, but I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the attitude he has adopted on this native question, because we all know that there is a great diversity of opinion in this country on this very vital question. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) referred to it as a national question. I go further and say it is an African question; it is a world question; and we in South Africa will have to recognize that, in adopting a native policy which is suitable to us, it will be one not only affecting South Africa, but it will have to be one in accordance with African thought. We have to realize that Africa is no longer a land of mystery, or the dark continent. Only last week, for instance, our deputy Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) was sleeping in Cape Town, and to-night he is on the northern shores of Africa, at Alexandria. The continent is shrinking. But we find we have one native policy for the Union, a different one for Portuguese East Africa, and Portuguese West Africa, and immediately north of that again a different one, in the Belgian Congo; immediately to the north of that we find the French Republic turning the natives, not only into French citizens, but into French soldiers. What we have to realize is that, as a party Government, we could not solve this question, and, therefore, the moment is now opportune to show that we, as a consolidated nation behind our national Government, can do so. The time is opportune. In the words of the Prime Minister, cannot we now, by sitting round a table and expressing our thoughts, as man to man, come to some agreement? I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister in that. I want to say that in the “good old days” of the past I used to think of the Prime Minister as an ogre, and as a danger. Now that I know him for a month or two, I find he is a very kindly gentleman. If I can make this discovery, I think that on this vital question we can also come to some agreement. Another point we have to recognize is that the native in South Africa has not in the past been considered as an economic asset. We, who are always looking for markets outside South Africa, have to recognize that these natives, these barbarians of 50 years ago, have touched the fringes of civilization in South Africa, and cannot march backward, but have to march forward. When a native comes to the city, ne very often assimilates the vices of civilization, but it is impossible for him, very often, to assimilate the virtues of civilization. I am glad that the Prime Minister has not followed the hon. member for Zululand, and the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), but followed his own common sense. I would like to refer to another point on this vote. I do not know whether in committee one makes one’s “maiden speech,” my blushes tell me I am making mine now. We are asked to spend a large amount on Ministers plenipotentiary, and when I was in Opposition I knew the figures too well—what the Ministers plenipotentiary and secretaries cost us. I am not going into these figures to-night. We have our Ministers plenipotentiary abroad—they are very fine posts, and very good work they are doing. I have always admitted that. The Opposition to which we belonged advocated that long before the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) was in the House; but what we did not realize in this country is that we have no difficulties with regard to production; our difficulties are to sell. It is very hard to sell in other continents, whether they are industrial manufacturers or agricultural raw materials, because there we have to compete with Australia, America and other countries. Africa is opening up, and we have vast potentialities in this continent itself. If we want to develop our industries here, we have to look to this continent as a hinterland with regard to our industrial development, and we have to realize that we have this huge continent begging and praying to be exploited. We have to see that we have our trade representatives, men who are studying our interests there, where markets are ready to be opened up. Africa, as a continent to-day, is importing close on £100,000,000 worth of goods. What share are we going to take in capturing those markets? I put this before the Prime Minister, in all humility, not because we want to teach him his job, but because our people require to be educated to look upon the continent of Africa as the hinterland of our industrial development.

I want to ask the Prime Minister a question about the vote for our envoy extraordinary and Minister plenipotentiary in New York. I see the vote has been increased, although the commercial representative and his staff have been transferred to Montreal at an annual cost of £4,176, under the vote of Commerce and Industries, and I would like to know where the extra cost attached to the office comes in.

I just want to say a few words in connection with the Mozambique Convention. I cannot in the least agree with the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares). I want to bring the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. I take it that there are certain things in that convention, certain things in connection with our trade, which will have to undergo a thorough change, but I hope, with all my heart, that when that convention is renewed it will not be done in the spirit expressed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), viz., that Lourenco Marques will be like a harbour that belongs to a hostile neighbouring state. Lourenco Marques is, in truth, not in Union territory, but it is a harbour of a friendly neighbouring state, and it is a harbour of great importance to the northern and north-eastern parts of the Transvaal. Can you imagine what it will mean for Barberton and other districts in the northern parts of the Transvaal to have a harbour within 100 miles of them? All are close to Lourenco Marques, and in certain circumstances we have to force them to send their fruit and other produce by rail to Cape Town, which is 1,200 miles away. We speak of economy, but here a great deal can be saved. Take, e.g., the rolling stock of the railways; if you send a truck of fruit from Barberton or Tzaneen to Lourenco Marques, then it is back at work in the Union within 24 hours. If you send the truck to Cape Town, then it takes 12 days before the truck is back in service. If we have a proper convention with the neighbouring state, like the Portuguese state, we will in that matter alone effect a tremendous saving. The trade with the east has just been referred to. Can you imagine that, while we practically have a harbour at our doors, or might have, such as Lourenco Marques, through which we can trade with East Africa or the east, that we should have to take our exports first along the coast to Cape Town or Durban and then past Lourenco Marques again to the East? It is sheer folly. I admit that you cannot give any neighbouring state a preference over the Union harbours. Nobody asks it. But we in the northern and eastern Transvaal in the districts of Lydenburg, Zoutpansberg and Barberton, would be able to have very good export trade with Lourenco Marques. It is asked where are the ships. If we could give a guarantee that we will have a regular export trade the ships will certainly come. The ships will come on the track of the exports. I also want to express my hearty thanks to the Prime Minister for the statement that he intends to proceed with the native Bills. I can understand that he does not want to pass by his colleague who is absent, and I think everyone will appreciate the manner in which he expressed himself. He did so in a very delicate way. The public outside possibly do not always understand the lengthy procedure of Parliament at times. Many of the people have possibly already thought: “Oh, that is going to give too much trouble, they will postpone the matter.” We must not, however, expect to get a 100 per cent. agreement on the question now. But I think that we can, in fact, obtain a solution of it. I find an amount of £1,397 on page 14 under “G” “London.” I would like to know from the Prime Minister what the expenditure is for, because it cannot be for the office of the High Commissioner, the amount for which is given on page 48.

Inasmuch as other speakers have already discussed the Mozambique Convention, I want to add my contribution to it. I want to express the hope that the Government will thoroughly review the Mozambique Convention in September next. It is of great importance, more especially to the farmers in the north. The Convention has given a severe blow to the ground nut industry. The position is such that under the Treaty beans for industrial purposes from Mozambique are allowed in free. The edible beans which they do not produce are taxed, but that does not help us at all. As our farmers cannot compete with the East African farmers, where almost all are coloured people, we have from time to time urged the Government to give us protection. The ground nuts industry is a very suitable one, especially in the north, where the climate and the land is suitable. We can provide enough ground nuts for our industry, and I hope the Government, when the Convention is reviewed, will not impose a duty on the beans, but will forbid the importation, and if it is necessary only to allow the importation to take place under permit, as was done in the case of wheat. This is a matter of very great importance in the north, at any rate, in my constituency.

While appreciating the remarks of the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Rood) regarding the Mozambique Convention, I think there are certain things in it which ought to be revised. At the present time it seems to work very much against the Union. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth mentioned that the mines in Johannesburg can get all the natives they want from the Transkei. The experience of the mines is that they cannot obtain a sufficient number of natives from that source and they are forced to go to Portuguese East Africa. There are certain clauses which, I think, ought to be revised. For example, under Clause 10 the mines in Johannesburg have to pay the Portuguese authorities £1 15s. per annum per native. At the present moment we are employing a little over 50,000, and even at that rate we are paying £87,000 per year for the privilege of employing these boys. There is another clause which ought to be revised. Clause 13 says that for 234 shifts, which is approximately nine months, 1s. per shift shall be paid to the natives and shall be paid in gold in Portuguese territory. That at the present rate amounts to £30,000 per year, money which ought to be spent on the Reef amongst the traders there, but which, in fact, is being paid to the Portuguese in Portuguese territory. 1 do submit that these clauses should be revised. We can get all the boys that we need from north of latitude 22 degrees south. These boys are not suffering from the disabilities of the past, on account of the hygienic conditions on the mines of the Rand having been considerably improved. To-day we have all kinds of vaccines, and the incidence of disease is much less than it used to be before. We can now, obtain a very large percentage of the boys that we need from Rhodesia, and, as a result of that, we should be able to increase our trade with Rhodesia, which will be of considerable benefit to every section of the community.

It may save time if I deal at once with this question of the Mozambique treaty which has been raised here by several hon. members. In September next we can give notice for the revision of that treaty. That does not mean, of course, that the treaty will come to an end then, but notice can be given by the Portuguese authorities and by ourselves for the revision of the treaty. There is no doubt that for the privilege of recruiting native labour in Mozambique, the Union has to concede very valuable privileges to the Mozambique Government. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) mentioned the railways and the railway traffic. That undoubtedly is an important concession. A certain amount of traffic has to be passed through Lourenco Marques, instead of through other ports, on its way to the competitive area of the Rand. Well, that is a very important concession which we had to make, in order to get the Mozambique Government to grant permission for natives to be recruited for the mines. Then there is the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé), that certain goods come into the Union free of duty, and compete, to a certain extent, with Union goods. Then there is the other point mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill), that after the Portuguese natives have served about five months a reduction has to be made compulsorily from their wages, and paid to the Portuguese authorities. Now all these matters adversely affect the Union.

What about their wages having to be paid in gold?

Yes, there is a clause in the treaty which says that all native wages shall be paid in gold. I believe that there is a difference of opinion among the legal advisers as to what that exactly means, and negotiations are now proceeding between the Chamber of Mines and Mozambique on that point. The question is: is this necessary? Is it necessary for us to be able to recruit native labour for the mines in Portuguese territory?

No, it is not!

The hon. member says, “no,” but, unfortunately, the people responsible for the carrying on of the mining industry hold a different view. I shall, however, convey the hon. member’s view to these people. I am afraid that, as things stand, we cannot get away from the fact that we are not able altogether to dispense with recruiting in Portuguese territory. It is quite true that we have at present a record number of natives from the Union and the Protectorates working on the mines. The number of Union natives, Swaziland natives, and natives from Bechuanaland, is in excess of anything that has been known at any time, but that is partly due to the fact that the natives have had very bad crops in different parts of the Union and in these territories. It is hunger to a large extent which has driven these natives out to work on the mines, but they are natives who have not been on the mines before, and they may not come again. The fact is that we cannot depend upon these natives coming again. Now, because of the fact that the native labour in the Union is so plentiful, the number of natives from Portuguese territory has dropped. Instead of our needing 85,000 natives from Portuguese territory, as we are allowed under the treaty, the number that we have now is 50,000. But the point is, whether the Union is in a position to dispense altogether with the privilege of recruiting in Portuguese territory. There is a departmental committee enquiring at the moment into this matter, to see to what extent our native labour can be supplied here, if for any reason we should renounce this treaty with Mozambique. I am afraid we cannot look for very much from Rhodesia. Important industries are starting there. The copper mines, which are inactive now, may, if the price of copper revives, require a large number of natives, and there may be an active demand for native labour. We are under the restriction that we may not look for native labour north of latitude 22 degrees south. That restriction was imposed on account of health conditions, that is to say because the health of the native from those parts was not supposed to be able to stand the conditions existing on the mines. Conditions on the Witwatersrand mines have very much improved since that restriction was imposed, and the question is now being considered whether, if that restriction were removed, we might not be able to get from there a supply of labour which might render us to a large extent independent of Mozambique labour. But that will take time, and for the immediate present we shall still be to a certain extent dependent on Mozambique for our supply, and we are engaged in going into the matter to see whether we can tap other sources of native labour, or increase the attractions for native labour within the Union to such an extent as will enable us to get away from the irksome conditions to which we have to submit, in order to get permission from the Portuguese to recruit. We are anxious, as far as possible, to be independent of Portuguese labour, but we do not think the time has yet come for that.

I just want to add a little to what the Minister of Mines has said to indicate what is going on in the mind of South Africa about the Mozambique Convention. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) made an attack on that convention and his arguments were controverted by the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood). When we go to Lourenco Marques to spend our money to enjoy the pleasures to be found there, and if we asked for a cigarette or a drink coming from the Union we find them to be unobtainable. They are entirely selfish there and out for their own trade, and there can be no question of our getting much benefit from them so far as our trade in concerned. Then we come to something else. The Minister of Mines said that we require native mine workers from Mozambique. The labour office will, however, enlighten us to the effect that there are 7,000 to 8,000 natives walking about the Johannesburg streets, why then should we give such great benefits for an agreement with Mozambique, while our own people are unemployed? Mozambique is not a State to maintain itself for a single year if we shut our doors to it. Next I come to the statement of the Prime Minister in connection with the native question which is one of the things which weighs very heavily with us as Nationalists. The coalition Government was formed on the basis of an agreement which laid down that the question will be dealt with and I am therefore glad about the statement of the Prime Minister. It is probably known by the Prime Minister that a resolution was passed at a public meeting in my constituency which strongly insists on this matter being proceeded with as soon as possible so that a solution could be found for this great economic problem. Just let us think of the role the native plays in our economic life. Our maize farmers are struggling to get control over the sale of maize so that they can sell the 12,000,000 bags compulsorily through the cooperative societies. We have 8,500,000 natives in South Africa of whom 2.000,000 live amongst us, and will not the problems of the maize farmer be practically solved if we can arrange that everyone of those natives consume just one bag of maize per annum? It is a question I would like the maize farmers to consider. We have confidence that the Prime Minister will see that this Government, now that there is cooperation such as we have never yet had, will have the courage to tackle this question, and that we shall debate it courageously for the sake of the white population, as well as the native population, whom we cannot economically keep apart. It is in the interests of both for this question to be solved.

I think this is a good opportunity for me to answer the questions I have been asked. I will do so in the order in which they were put. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in the first place asked whether I thought that it was necessary to have an embassy in Italy, at Rome. I have not the least hesitation in saying “Yes, certainly.” Do not let us confuse the duties of an embassy and of an ambassador with the duties and functions of a trade commissioner or a mercantile attaché. It is true in fact that an ambassador ought, if he is any good, to assist a great deal in the trade of the country he represents. That is so with every country and people. But he has other things to think of besides those that form the duty of a trade commissioner. I just want to point out to my hon. friends that Italy is one of the four chief powers in Europe. If there is one place where we ought to have an ambassador it is with each one of those four powers, i.e., if we are at all set on our dignity as a nation. That that is not yet a fact to-day, that we have no ambassadors in Germany and France as yet, is due to reasons which have more than once been communicated to this House. It is especially due to the economic troubles we are having to go through. I think that we shall have to have embassies in Germany and France when circumstances permit. I do not, therefore, intend to do away with our embassy at Rome. There may be a change in the embassy, but it will be in connection with the person who will succeed Mr. Pienaar. Then the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) asked the question regarding the increase of between £5,000 and £6,000 on the League of Nations Vote. It is exclusively due to the exchange. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) asked if we would not try to extend our trade to the northern parts of Africa, and whether we ought not to do so. I quite agree with him and I do not want to go further into this because it is a matter which concerns my colleague the Minister of Commerce and Industries. He will be prepared later on to go further into it. Here I only want to say this that we are all agreed that the time has come for extraordinary steps to be taken to obtain as many of the markets of Central Africa as is possible. No other country, at any rate, should have the advantage over us. Then the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Ie Roux) also expressed the view that the question of our ministers abroad should be reviewed. Why? I differ entirely from him for reasons I have already given when he says that we ought rather to appoint more trade commissioners. Yes, there ought to be trade commissioners. J even admit that there ought to be more than there are to-day, but I can assure him that the trade commissioners where they were not supported by the embassy, got very little access to persons and places of important business. He asked if an agent-general was to be appointed in the East. This is a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Commerce and Industries. Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) put a question, but he has already been answered by the Minister of Mines. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) asked me a question about the manganese industry, and the policy of the Government there anent. This is a matter I have told him regarding which he should go to the Minister of Mines. Tn reply to the question by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) about the amount of £2,550 for exchange costs on the expenditure on the embassy in New York I want to say it will be reviewed now that America has also quitted the gold standard. Then the hon. member for Hopetown (Mr. Theron) asks what the amount of £1,072 meant which appears on page 14. It is, as he will see from page 19, the salary of the political secretary of the High Commissioner in London, page 19 gives the details of it.

I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give me any information about the appointment of a trade commission in Jerusalem.

That is an honorary post.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 5, Justice, £88,874,

As the Acting Minister of Justice is not here, I suggest that the vote stand over.

I am acting.

A Bill was introduced last session by the then Minister of Justice to amend the liquor law. Fortunately that Bill did not reach the second reading stage after a very considerable amount of opposition. There is still a considerable amount of anxiety as to the intentions of the Government in the minds of the native people, and I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government intends proceeding with that measure, or whether they will allow it to die a natural death.

I want to refer to the policy of the Government in exploiting convicts in competition with free labour. I have been engaged in a sort of skirmish on this subject with the late Minister of Justice and his successor. I have not had correspondence with the acting deputy Minister, but I have no doubt I shall, if he remains in that position very long. I want to give this committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion on what I believe to be an important matter of policy. Therefore I propose to move a reduction in the Minister’s salary of £5, in order to allow this committee to express an opinion on a matter that has been brought up in committee very often, but upon which we can get no satisfaction. I believe that the exploitation of convict labour in competition with free labour

I think the hon. member should deal with that question when we come to Vote No. 8, “Prisons”.

In the Minister’s absence, the acting deputy Minister is here, and I take it that the hon. member is in order in criticizing the policy of the department.

It is not a question as to whether the Minister is present or not but as to whether the matter should be raised on his vote or the Prisons Vote.

Am I not allowed to move a reductioin in the Minister’s salary?

The hon. member can move a reduction, but he cannot now discuss matters relating to prisons because there is a subsequent vote for prisons.

I am discussing the policy outside the prisons. I don’t care what the convicts do inside. I submit that it is a matter of policy.

In regard to prisons?

No, in regard to this Government in hiring out convict labour in competition with free labour. I submit that that is a matter of policy, and not a matter of administration.

The hon. member can proceed.

Once again I propose to move the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £5, because I believe it is generally repugnant to the feelings of the people of this country and of this committee that this policy should be continued. In my constituency in particular there are no fewer than 110 convicts employed on farms in the Constantia district. They are employed on five farms and it seems to me that in regard to these farmers in particular that policy is unjustifiable. Here we have in our urban districts a large amount of unemployment—

Order, order. I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension. Under the alterations made to S.O. 104 in 1931 the distinction which used to be drawn between questions of policy and questions of administration are no longer recognized. The Standing Order now lays down that discussion must be relevant to the vote before the committee and, as was pointed out by the chairman in 1931 (V. & P., p. 529), the discussion on a vote containing a Minister’s salary will be restricted to the items of that Vote or to such other matters as are not contained in other votes. The matter which the hon. member is discussing is relevant to the Prisons Vote.

Does that mean that I am not in order, sir?

Not in order in raising the matter on this vote.

This amendment Act of the Master and Servants Act was passed last year, and it was to come into operation after the 1st July. According to the Act, Section 9 only comes into force after it has been proclaimed. Now I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to proclaim Section 9, and if so in which districts in the Transvaal and Natal. Committees were appointd which took evidence and disapproved of Section 9. Some districts accepted it and I would like to know from the Minister what his policy is and whether he intends to proclaim Section 9 in the districts which have accepted it.

For some years past the case of the salaries of magistrates has been brought before the committee annually when the estimates have been discussed, and the Minister of Justice on each occasion undertook to bear the matter in mind, or words to that effect. But he said that the Minister of Finance was the difficulty, and he would refer it to him. Now this seems a favourable opportunity to raise this matter, as the Acting Minister of Justice is also the Acting Minister of Finance, and he cannot pass it on to another individual. I do not want to repeat the cogent arguments which appeared in the report of the Department of Justice some years ago, which pointed out the enormous responsibilities and duties of magistrates—how ably they carry them out, and what an inadequate remuneration is paid to them as local representatives of the Government. I think it is a bad policy to have men with such responsibilities doing work which demands great ability and the utmost exactitude in their duties, recompensed by such a low scale of pay. It is not a tempting career for our young public servants. Promotion is very slow, and considering what is expected from them, the demands on their brains and indeed on their pockets, I think the time has fully arrived for putting these men into a much better financial position. I hope the Minister will give this his consideration.

I want to raise the question of the High Court in Griqualand West, which used to be a three judge Court.

The hon. member will see that on the next vote it deals with superior courts.

I would like to ask the acting Minister whether he would be able to give this committee some idea as to whether the question has yet been considered of altering the law of succession. A question was put by me to the Minister of Justice last week whether it was his intention to do so, and the answer given to me was that this matter must stand over for further consideration. You will remember, Sir, that last year a select committee of this House sat on this very question of altering the law of succession.

The alteration of the succession law cannot be discussed now.

I put it in this way—

The merits should not be discussed.

Without going into the merits of it in the slightest degree, I would like to say that this question is viewed with the greatest keenness by a large number of women, in the Union.

Order. The hon. member is contravening my ruling. The hon. member can put a question, but should not discuss the merits.

In the absence of the Minister of Justice, may I say that the women of South Africa have great hopes that his bachelor deputy will do something in the matter !

I would like to draw the attention of the Acting Minister of Justice to certain troubles we experienced on the Lichtenburg diggings. In the first place we find, according to my information, that natives are trading in the locations without licences. They are, e.g., chopping down and selling wood by retail, they have no licence, nor any shop in the trading area which is made available. As Europeans are not allowed to trade in the locations I presume it is also prohibited to natives. A further complaint is that some of the natives pay no taxes at all and no longer take out passes and that the police no longer makes raids to see that the law is being carried out.

That comes under “Police”.

I thought it fell under “Justice,” but I only wanted to bring the first point to the notice of the Minister, and I will bring up the second point on the “Police” Vote.

I would like to support the remarks made by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), with regard to the pay of magistrates.

That is out of order on this vote.

I should like to discuss the whole policy of the appointment of magistrates.

The magistrates’ vote.

If I have to wait for that, I should like to support what the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has said as to the scales of remuneration of the public servants in the Department of Justice. Generally my remarks will not have to deal only with the Department of Justice itself, but with the various sub-departments which come under this heading. I realize that the present ministry has been in office only a short while, but it is necessary to express publicly on every occasion what the servants in the departments and sub-departments feel to be an injustice to themselves. I was in a country district this afternoon, where a member of the police force told me the effect of the distinction in the scales of pay which came into force in 1923; there are, apparently, a very large number of highly efficient civil servants who do not wish to receive promotion, because the effect of such promotion is really to give them an “Irishman’s rise.” In many cases, instead of getting an increase in salary, there is, on promotion, a decrease in salary. The alteration in the scale affects the whole civil service, but I am speaking particularly of those civil servants falling under the Department of Justice. There are very many men walking the streets of Cape Town to-day as police constables, who refuse to take promition, because they say it would not benefit them. I do hope that the Minister is going to use his efforts, as head of the Department of Justice, in conjunction with other members of the Cabinet, to see whether, in the early future, some attempt may be made to help these members of the civil service. I am speaking particularly of those who come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, but there are many others who suffer from the same disability. I repeat, it is highly necessary that every opportunity should be taken of ventilating this matter. After all, sir, if you want to build up a contented public service, with traditions behind it, if you want to have a contented Department of Justice, you must give them a fair deal. Apparently, these reductions or alterations in the scale of pay were made at a time of financial stringency. Now that better times are approaching, I hope the Minister is going to take this matter in hand, and see if something cannot be done to restore the old scale existing in 1923.

I think the committee will appreciate that I am in a somewhat difficult position, in dealing with these votes. I am speaking this evening for the Acting Minister of Justice, who, himself, has taken over the portfolio within the last week from the Minister of Justice, who, again, has been in office for only two months. The committee will, therefore, not expect me to go very deeply into detail in connection with this department, and certainly not to make any statement in detail on questions of policy, but, of course, I should be very glad to answer such questions as are put, to the best of my ability. Certain questions have been put in regard to legislation. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has asked what the intentions of the Government are in regard to the Liquor Bill, which had a somewhat ill-fated career last session. Well, I think I can say definitely that it is not the intention of the Government to reintroduce the law in the form in which it appeared before the House on that occasion. At the same time, I think I should say that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, does appreciate the necessity of an amendment of the existing law in certain respects, and that he will give his consideration to the various points, which so require amendment. The question of the necessary amending legislation will, therefore, be considered by him, but I think I should say it will be considered de novo. Another point in that connection was raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), who asked what the intentions of the Government are in regard to amendment of the succession law, As the hon. member knows perfectly well, the amendment to which he is referring is one which strikes very far down into our common law, and it is not, therefore, an amendment which should very lightly be undertaken. Again, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has not yet come to any decision in regard to the matter, and I can therefore only say it will have to stand over for further consideration. In reference to the concluding remarks of the hon. member, I should like to assure him that, as deputy Acting Minister of Justice, I do not intend to introduce any such legislation. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has raised the question of the Native Service Contract Act. It will be remembered that Clause 9 of that Act, which provided for the £5 tax, was only to be applied in such areas as the Minister of Justice might proclaim. The previous Minister gave the House the assurance that before any area was so proclaimed, in terms of section 9, the local community would, in each case, be given a chance of expressing its opinion. To that end, committees of five or six, presided over by the magistrate in each case, have been constituted. I think that most of these committees have now reported, and in quite a number of cases the report has been against the application of section 9 of the Act. The reports, however, are not yet all in—they have not yet been collated— and therefore no definite policy has been laid down as to the extent to which this clause will be applied; but I think my hon. friend will agree with me that, in view of what I have said, it follows, almost necessarily, that the matter will have to stand over for the Minister of Justice when he returns. I do not think even the Acting Minister, for whom I am deputizing, will wish to deal with the matter. Then the question of salaries has been raised, more particularly magistrates’ salaries, and perhaps I may be permitted to refer to that at this stage. I think it is recognized that the departmental view is to the effect that certainly, as far as the lower grade magistrates are concerned, there is, to-day, a very real grievance. The Department of Justice has on more than one occasion represented that view, but there have hitherto been two obstacles in the path— the one the Public Service Commission, and the other the Treasury. In regard to both, there has been the very powerful argument, in recent years, of shortage of funds. That, of course, is an argument which is somewhat weakened at the present moment, but is not yet entirely removed, and I think the Acting Minister of Finance will probably still be disposed to enjoin caution in these matters, and I can, therefore, only say that this particular question will have to receive further consideration.

*I think the only other question is that put by the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel). It is in connection with licences. So far as I can follow him, I think it comes more under the provincial administration, or the Minister of Finance. Perhaps my colleague, the Acting Minister of Finance, would say something about it at a later opportunity.

A few years ago the hon. i member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) and I called attention to the fact that costs in connection with legal process in general were very high, and we gave reasons why they ought to be reduced. Thereafter, the previous Minister of Justice called a conference of legal practitioners and others to discuss the matter. I would like to hear from the Acting Minister of Justice what was the result of that conference and whether any decisions were taken by the conference.

Would I be in order in raising the question of the appointment of court messengers, under this vote? There is no financial provision, under vote 7 dealing with magistrates’ courts, yet the appointments are made by the Department of Justice and these messengers are officers of the magistrates’ courts.

I want to raise a question of policy, and that is the policy in regard to the bringing forward of what I would term petty prosecutions. The whole question is an exceedingly difficult one indeed, but I can give my own experience gathered by occasionally sitting in a magistrate’s court waiting for a case to be heard in which I was personally interested; while sitting there accused after accused would be brought up on some petty and trivial contravention of the law. One appreciates that the lot of a policeman is very often a difficult one—or as the old song goes: “When constabulary work has to be done, to be done; a policeman’s lot is not a happy one, a happy one.” A policeman obviously has to carry out the terms of the law and, if he does not do so, he himself may get into difficulties. But it seems to me that there should be some kind of departmenal instruction to prosecutors and others in regard to the general policy to be pursued, having regard to the interests of individuals and of the public as a whole. Let me give one example which I can recall. A citizen was brought before the court, apparently for driving a motor car with one headlight not burning. His attention was called to that; he got out of the car, and the defect was put right at once. But a very zealous custodian of the law none the less took his name and address and he was brought before the magistrate’s court, where he had to wait the whole morning and then was reprimanded. Now, sir, should a policeman not have some discretion in a matter of this kind? There may be a petty contravention of the law, and it seems to me that a member of the police force—whom I am not blaming would engender a better feeling of confidence and goodwill with the public, if his duty in these matters was not to bring as many convictions as possible, but to be helpful to members of the public if the matter was a trivial one; he should be given the right to point out to such a member of the public that he had done wrong and that if the action was deliberate and was repeated he would be brought before the court. To my mind there is a tendency nowadays among a number of over-zealous custodians of the law to rush people into court on the slightest pretext. That is not a good thing for the Department of Justice, it is not a good thing for the police force and it is not a good thing for the public. There are many members of the public who cannot afford to waste a whole morning in the court on matters of this sort, and then be reprimanded. It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with the question. The one is for a general departmental instruction to be given to the police in regard to matters of this kind; and the second one is for magistrates to be given some instruction as to how they should deal with these matters. If magistrates were to take a firm stand in petty cases, and if they were to show by their remarks that they do not encourage bringing people into court on petty charges of this kind, it would serve a very good purpose. Now the importance of what I am trying to say is particularly marked in the case of non-Europeans and natives. So very often a native is brought into coort for a most trivial offence for which he may be fined 10s., 15s. or a £1; and when he is not able to pay the fine, he is sent to gaol for a week or a month. That man, who may have been a perfectly good citizen, is then, because of some trivial contravention of the law, thrown into contact with criminals. It seems contrary to the spirit of the law that such things should happen. Unfortunately milk boys who have forgotten to have a light on their bicycles after six o’clock in the morning, for instance, are brought before the court and the magistrate automatically rattles out “10s. or a week.” and the boy has to go to gaol. I think that we must re-shape our ideas in regard to this aspect of the administration of justice. We do not want to create a criminal class among the natives, but the easiest way to start them on their downward slope is to send them to gaol for some minor offence. To bring them into touch with criminals whom they may meet again after they are released is bad for them, and a small beginning may often lead ultimately to very serious danger to the State. I want to bring that matter to the attention of the Minister and I seriously urge that his department might go into it.

May I ask the acting Minister of Justice what the policy of his department will be in reference to the juvenile courts, the development of juvenile courts to try juvenile offenders? There are two or three such courts in the Union, and I am fairly familiar with the working of the one in Johannesburg. That court is a most beneficent institution; a child brought before it is not tried in a prison atmosphere. The child is tried by a kindly magistrate, who treats him more or less as a friend or as a father and the whole of the surroundings are calculated to keep him an innocent child instead of making him into a criminal. I hope that the Minister will give attention to the question of increasing the number of these courts.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) asked me about the result of the conference of legal practitioners which took place last year, I think in October. It was convened by the previous Minister of Justice, and the object was to find ways of expediting and cheapening legal process. I fear the conference was somewhat unproductive. I fear there was not much enthusiasm exhibited, either by the advocate or by the attorneys to reduce their own incomes. Certain recommendations were, however, made by the conference which were further dealt with by the Judges’ Conference held in the begining of the year. The report of the Judges’ Conference which has been laid upon the Table contains some of those recommendations. I think the hon. member is aware of the recommendations in that report. Some of the points have already been dealt with by the Department. Other points require legislation and are under consideration. But then there are a few points for the execution of which it is necessary to amend the rules of court and with that object the conference decided to appoint a committee to go into the question of the necessary alterations of the rules of court. The Chief Justice was to act as chairman of the committee. The Chief Justice is, however, at present on leave and the matter is therefore delayed, but as soon as he returns the matter will be dealt with.

†The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has raised the question of petty prosecutions and I may say that I have a good deal of sympathy with him in respect of some of the points which he has raised, more particularly in their bearing on non-Europeans; I am not at all sure, however, that the hon. member has really pointed the way to a solution of these difficulties. I cannot see, for instance, that it would be feasible to leave discretion to the police in matters of this kind. I think it would be imposing a rather considerable strain on the police to leave them discretion to decide what action should be taken. After all, there is a discretion with the Public Prosecutor and ultimately with the Attorney-General. It seems to me perhaps that a good deal might be done in the direction in which the hon. member is seeking to advance by moving for an amendment of some of the laws under which these petty prosecutions take place. In most cases I think they take place under municipal by-laws and regulations and sometimes under regulations framed under provincial ordinances. I think quite a good deal could be done by an examination of some of these minor forms of legislation with a view to improving them along the lines suggested by the hon. member. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Baumann) has raised the question of juvenile courts, and has referred in that connection to the very admirable institution we have at Auckland Park, Johannesburg. That, I think, is the only detached juvenile court in the Union, but some steps have been taken in the same direction in other large centres. It has not yet been found possible, I think, in any other large centre to detail a magistrate for this particular work, but it has been found possible to give all the work of this kind to one particular magistrate, in addition, of course, to other work. In that way, the same object has been achieved. I need hardly assure the hon. member that the department is quite sympathetic, and would like to advance in this direction, but the question of having detached juvenile courts is linked up with finance.

On page 21 appears the vote for the Government attorney and two attorneys-in-charge, as well as two professional assistants. On this vote last year the Minister, in reply to a question, said the Government attorney acted in 41 cases, and in. 21 cases other attorneys were instructed, from which it would appear either that there has been a large amount of extra legislation, or the work has been too much for the Secretary for Justice. Will the Minister kindly tell us why it is necessary to engage outside attorneys.

I wish to raise a matter of considerable importance to the public of Natal, that is the contemplated division of the Natal bar. Hitherto there has been no division, and it has been competent for a Natal attorney to appear in the Supreme Court and to carry on his usual attorney’s practice. A considerable number of the Natal public are very much perturbed at this movement, because they claim that under the old Natal custom of an attorney being allowed to plead in the Supreme Court, the public were able to engage in litigation on a much cheaper basis than are people in those provinces where the practice is first to consult an attorney, and then for the attorney to enfage a barrister to plead in the Supreme Court or his client. I have been shown bills of costs for two similar cases, one decided in the Transvaal and the other in Natal. The Natal costs amounted to only half of those involved in the Transvaal case. The public of Natal are not in favour of the Natal bar being divided. They have found that the dual system has been more efficient than the divided one. I would like the Minister to explain whether it is the intention of the department to enforce a division of the bar in Natal.

I hope the department is not going to be satisfied by asking private members to undertake the simplification of the municipal regulations and ordinances under which many unnecessary prosecutions are instituted in the police courts, for I think the matter is one of public importance. It affects the non-Europeans very particularly, and is giving annoyance to the business community. I wish, in the course of my remarks, to speak on behalf of the business community. During the recent election in the Cape Peninsula, we lawyers were told that the time had come for us to leave the House and to make room for business men. However, as there is not a single member in the House on this occasion belonging to the “Non-party business league,” I feel it my duty to speak for the business community of Cape Town. It is to be regretted that some old members who have fought for business interests in this House have not been re-elected to this Parliament; they were, apparently, not felt to be any longer entitled to speak on behalf of commerce. It might be dangerous to give discretion to a policeman to decide whether a prosecution should be instituted in a particular case, but it should be possible to have a system under which a member of the police force, in laying a charge, could add some remarks which would be placed before the public prosecutor, and, in the light of those remarks, the public prosecutor could decide whether it was a fit case or not for prosecution. The City Council of Cape Town is now responsible for the control of traffic. When a member of the Cape Town public transgresses a motor law, the motor control department sends out a warning. The members of the public very much appreciate this. For instance, if one parks one’s car more than 18 inches from the pavement, one receives a warning. I have had two such warnings ! I do not ask the Minister for a solution of this matter to-night, but I earnestly request him to ask his advisers to see whether some discretion could not be given to members of the police force, and whether a circular could not be sent to the public prosecutors, drawing their attention to the matter. With regard to the question of creating a criminal class among the natives, we cannot lay too much emphasis on the vital necessity of those administering justice realizing, when they are dealing with natives, that they are dealing with people who have an entirely different mentality and outlook from a European. The natives do not understand many of our laws. A native is brought up charged with contravening some obscure section of an obscure Act. Someone rattles off a few sentences of evidence, the magistrate says “guilty,” and fines the accused £1, or in default of payment to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven days. The native, not understanding the procedure, feels there is something wrong with European justice; that is a problem which we have to tackle. There is a case on record in which a native was brought before a certain court charged with murder. He pleaded guilty, but, naturally, the court refused to accept that plea. Eventually the native was found guilty of common assault, and discharged. In the view of the accused native, the crime which he was alleged to have committed took place during a brawl. In that case, the court, understanding the mind of the native, was able to deal with him in a proper way. One feels that in many of these cases that come before the courts, due to the fact that the magistrates have to hurry because the courts are understaffed, a wrong impression of European justice in South Africa is given. I think it may fairly be said of our judges and magistrates that they have the highest conceptions and ideals of the conditions of justice, but sometimes, owing to lack of understanding, things occur which create a wrong impression; and I think it is the duty of those responsible for the administration of justice in this country to see that such things do not happen.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) raised the question of the post of Government Attorney in connection with the post of Secretary of Justice. The posts were previously divided, and it was only for a relatively short period that they were combined. I think it was then the experience that the burden that was imposed upon the single incumbent of the two posts was unnecessarily heavy. It was also found that that system tended to a lack of expedition, and it was, therefore, decided to revert to the original system, and to appoint a Government Attorney once again as distinct from the Secretary of Justice. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has raised the question of the division of the bar in Natal. That is a matter which is determined not by departmental policy but by a rule of court. The judge-president of Natal has laid down by rule of court that from 1935, I think it is, the position in Natal will be the same as in the other provinces, and I think that in time Natal will come to be satisfied with the arrangement.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, Superior Courts. £225,851,

I want to raise the question of the Superior Court of Griqualand West. That court at one time had three judges; to-day it has one judge. I believe the previous Minister favourably considered latterly giving that court two judges. I wish to put the following points for the establishment of a two-judge court. A single judge is isolated, and should have the opportunity of consulting a colleague on points of practice and upon difficult points of law. Two judges will create confidence; for in the past there existed an air of instability since several acting temporary appointments have not enhanced the prestige of the court. Furthermore, when one judge is on vacation the court is vacant, and there is considerable difficulty in hearing cases. Acting temporary judges are therefore not satisfactory, neither from the public’s point of view nor from the judges’ point of view. Civil and criminal appeals from magistrates under increased jurisdiction are becoming more important and more numerous, and it is thought that two judges in consultation are preferable to one. Again, with two resident judges one could go on circuit and this would relieve the Western Circuit which is at present done in two portions, since it would be more convenient for Upington and the areas adjoining which are far distant from Cape Town and adjoin Griqualand West. Representations have been made by the public to extend the jurisdiction of this court so that Prieska, De Aar and Hope Town fell within it and it is furthermore the general opinion that the local court should be strengthened by making this a two-judge-court. I trust the Minister will give the matter his serious consideration.

I wish to raise another matter, and, as this vote is a most important one, I feel that it is necessary that these matters should be ventilated. I want to raise two questions which are somewhat of a delicate nature, and yet they are of fundamental importance to the whole system of the administration of justice. I wish to raise the question of the appointment of judges to the bench. I speak as a member of the bar, and I speak in this matter without casting any personal reflection on any particular member of the bench. I raise this matter because there is a very important principle involved, and it is a matter which has greatly affected the minds of the members of the Cape bar. The members of the Cape bar have always treated these questions in harmony with the tradition of the Cape bar, and have attempted not to be led into rash actions. Of recent years, the practice has grown up of appointing as judges to the bench persons who have not had a long practical experience as advocates. The practice has grown up of appointing persons from the civil service. I want to emphasise that so far as the personal aspect of the matter is concerned I want to say nothing. I am not concerned with that, but I am concerned with the practice, because it is felt by those who have had longer experience of the bar than I have had, that it is necessary that before a man is placed in the position of a judge he should have had experience at the bar. He should, moreover, be a senior member of the bar who has had a large practice and a long experience of civil work and possibly of criminal work. What is felt is, that the knowledge that civil servants have must necessarily be academic and not practical. Only in the hurly-burly of the bar is the necessary experience which will give a broad outlook, which is a requisite in a judge, obtained. I hope the Government will get back to the principle of appointing judges from the ranks of the bar and not from outside the bar. I also desire to raise another matter. That is the question of the appointment of persons to the highest court in the land, namely, the Appellate Division. Here the point at issue is, that the practice has grown up, not merely on one occasion, but on more than one occasion, of the appointment to the highest court in the land of persons, of the highest fitness, I admit, but who have not gone through a preliminary apprenticeship, if I may put it that way, serving an apprenticeship as a judge on the bench. That is a departure from the good old practice, not only throughout the Cape, but throughout the country. We have no objection to the personal fitness of the persons who have been appointed, but we object because of the principle which is at stake. In certain cases, there is an appeal from that court to the Privy Council, but in practice it is abrogated by disuse, and so hedged about with restrictions that in few cases indeed can litigants go from the Appeal Court to the Privy Council. The Appeal Court, ever since Union, has built up a tremendously high ideal for even justice, and the exceptional brilliance of its legal decisions; and without saying that anyone appointed in the past to that court will lower that legal brilliance, there is a danger that one may not obtain the most experienced and most practical judge for that particular position if one departs from the old tradition. I know it may be said there is a practice in England of appointing persons direct to the Court of Appeal. I have no knowledge of the practical effect of that; but we in South Africa, with our jurisprudence founded in Roman-Dutch law, have built up another tradition; and unless cause is shown for a departure from that sound tradition of ours of the past, I hope we will not depart from it, but go back to it, and that we will go back to that salutary tradition, because I feel it is best in the interests of justice in this country.

The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) has raised a question, which has become almost a hardy annual, namely, that of the High Court of Griqualand West, but he has raised it in a form somewhat different from that to which we have become accustomed. He is certainly a veritable “Oliver Twist” as far as the claims of Kimberley are concerned. Last time I heard him speak on this matter, he was claiming that the one-judge court at Kimberley should remain. Now that the one judge is remaining, he is asking for a second judge. I am glad that the hon. member’s gratitude is so lively a sense of favours to come. I think the hon. member, when he is not speaking as the hon. member for Beaconsfield, will realize that he is asking rather a lot when he is asking, at a time like this, that we should expend more on a court, the very existence of which was threatened not so long ago, and that he should ask for expenditure on a second judge. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has raised the question of the appointment of judges, and I do not think anybody can, in any way, take exception to the manner in which he has done so. At the same time, he will hardly expect from me any definite statement in regard to the appointments which have been made, the policy which has been followed in those appointments, and the policy which is likely to be followed in future. I think I can infer from his remarks that whatever criticisms may have been made with regard to particular appointments in the past, these appointments are to-day accepted, and we may go forward in the belief that there will be the fullest cooperation, as there always has been, between bench and bar in the administration of justice. With regard to the future, the whole question will naturally be one which will earnestly engage the attention of the Minister of Justice when such appointments fall to be made. During the tenure of office of the present Minister of Justice no such occasion has arisen for such an appointment, and I think the hon. member has absolute confidence in the way in which the Minister of Justice will approach these matters when they do arise.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 7, “Magistrates and District Administration,” £560,948,

I would like to raise the question of the appointment of court messengers. Recently appointments have been made which have raised a considerable amount of public criticism, but it is not from this point that I want to approach the matter. I want to get some information. I want to know whether these posts are publicly advertised and who is responsible for these appointments to the magistrates’ courts; also on whose recommendation are they appointed? I do feel, seeing they are not members of the public service, that they draw certain fees and emoluments, and that these are in the nature of being very remunerative posts, the competition for them should be as wide as possible, and in view of the importance of the duties that only the most efficient and qualified should be appointed. The criticism in the particular case I have in mind, this post was vacant, and a gentleman from this end of the province was appointed to the other end. He did not know the native language, and there was a considerable amount of criticism about that. In that very town, where he was appointed, there were a number of applications from very efficient men, including a professional man of undoubted integrity and character, who asked for the appointment, but did not get the appointment, whereas it was given to a person unacquainted with local conditions and unable to speak the native language, which, in my opinion, was essential. I would thus like to know what is the policy of the Minister in connection with these appointments.

I am sorry that I have to bring a matter of a delicate nature to the attention of the Acting Minister of Justice. It is in connection with the periodical court in the village of Delareyville. The periodical court comes under the magistrate of Lichtenburg and the village is 62 miles from Lichtenburg. It is 45 miles from Schweizer Reneke. The magistrate has to go there twice or three times a month from Lichtenburg. There is a considerable number of inhabitants in the village and environs, and there are little villages around with a considerable number of inhabitants. The position is that, inasmuch as the magistrate always has to go 62 miles to hold the periodical court there, the farmers have difficulties with regard to their administrative matter. I want earnestly to request the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to appoint a special justice of the peace for the village of Delareyville, because I want to assure him that if he does so that many of the farmers and people in the village who have to travel 62 miles in connection with income tax and administration matters will be given great facilities. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this. That district will probably in the future even need a magistrate, but for the moment we shall be quite satisfied, as we have a periodical court, to be given a justice of the peace.

I should like to raise the matter of the need for magistrate’s court facilities at Mowbray. I was up in court there six years ago for travelling without a light. Since that time the court has been removed, and people in that thickly populated area have to go to Cape Town or Wynberg. The Acting Minister of Railways had to go for his nomination to “B” Criminal Court at Wynberg, and I had to go to “A” Court. There are no facilities at all, although it is one of the most thickly-populated areas in the Peninsula. I would like the Minister to see if it is not possible to have a magistrate there at least once a week. In that area you have Pinelands, Athlone and a number of other places, and the people there have to go to Wynberg if they want representation.

I should like to draw attention again to the question of the salaries of magistrates. I wish to draw the attention of the Acting Minister to the fact that the lower scales of pay are very low indeed; in fact, they sometimes compare unfavourably with the salaries of senior clerks, who get about the same as the 26 junior magistrates mentioned in this scale. These magistrates get very small salaries, and yet they have very responsible duties. They have positions to fill which they cannot adequately fill with satisfaction to themselves, and they cannot represent the State satisfactorily, nor can they bring up their families in the way they ought to be able to do. They are the principal representatives of the Government in the town or village, and they ought to be paid adequate salaries. The Minister has already given something of a reply saying he is unable himself as acting Minister to promise anything, but I put it to him that the magistrates complaining of these salaries will consider that a very inadequate reply. I would suggest that the department should enquire into the matter in the meantime, so that when the vote comes before us next year the Minister can give us a more comprehensive reply.

I would like to ask the acting Minister what is the position of pre-Union unilingual magistrates and assistant magistrates who have been passed over for promotion for some years now. I would like to know if it is the intention of the Minister that these men shall not be penalized in the future but that they shall be given preference in positions where a bilingual officer is not really necessary. I would like to be assured that these men are not going to be penalised in the future, but will get preference in such positions where it is not absolutely necessary that bilingual officers are necessary, as these positions will be limited. They are entitled to be considered first when those appointments are made. I need not go into details, as the position of unilingual pre-Union officers in the past is well known to the Minister and how they have suffered by being passed over in the matter of promotion, even when positions were being filled where unilingual men could fill them without any difficulty or disadvantage to the public.

With regard to the magistrate’s court at Pretoria, the Minister says the position is much easier. I should like to know when we might expect a new building. The place is in a filthy condition, and it is probably the worst magistrate’s court in the whole of the Union. I hope the Minister will do his best in this matter, and that we shall shortly have new magistrate’s court buildings.

I wish to raise the question for the Minister’s consideration of the case of the late messenger of the court in the Estcourt division who was sent out to serve a writ or execute a warrant and was almost bludgeoned to death by natives. I should like to know whether the department has any means of granting compensation in a case of that sort, or whether any kind of general insurance is taken out in respect of messengers or sheriffs. In this case the man was totally unable to resume his work and has since died, leaving his family very badly provided for. I hope, if there is no provision, the Minister will support or recommend some sort of relief being granted to the dependents of a messenger who may be fatally injured while executing his duty.

The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has raised the question of the method of appointing court messengers. Shortly, the position is this: that wherever there is a vacancy it is advertised locally, so that the opportunity is given for any candidate wishing to present himself to apply. The appointment is made by the Minister of Justice, and it is made ordinarily on the recommendation or at least after consultation with the magistrate concerned. I think I may say that that is the procedure generally followed. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Joubert) has raised the question of a magistrate’s court for Mowbray. My somewhat inadequate knowledge of the Peninsula leads me to the conclusion that Mowbray is not far from either Cape Town or from Wynberg. If I am right, it is not more than four miles from either of these places. I can think of quite a number of suburbs in Johannesburg which are just as far and even further from the magistrate’s court there, and if the request of the hon. member were to be granted, we should have to do something similar in Johannesburg and other big towns. It is impossible to establish magistrates courts in every suburb of every town in the Union—even if it is the most important suburb of a town, as the hon. member leads me to believe, is the case with Mowbray. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) has again raised the question of magistrates’ salaries, and has, perhaps unwittingly, misrepresented the answer which I gave before on this point. I did not say that I was not able to promise anything, because I was not the acting Minister, but I made it quite clear that even the Minister, if he had been standing here, would have been unable to promise anything. The matter is determined largely by recommendations received from the Public Service Commission and the Treasury. I gave the assurance that the department is sympathetic, more especially so far as these lower grade magistrates are concerned, and I can say again that the department will continue to press their case, so far as it is possible. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has raised the question of the promotion of unilingual officers. I have gone into that matter, and I think I can say that the department is willing to consider every case of this kind as sympathetically as the surrounding difficulties warrant. But at the same time I think the hon. member will appreciate that in the case of any appointment we have to take account of the post to which the officer is to be appointed. We could only appoint such unilingual officers to positions where a unilingual officer could efficiently carry out the work. That must be accepted as the position. Within the broad limits of that statement, I think the department will treat these people as sympathetically as it possibly can. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti)) has raised the question of the state of the magistrate’s court in Pretoria, a building with which I am, externally at least, well acquainted. He may rest assured that the department will continue to do all it can to secure better accommodation than is available at present for the purpose, but as the hon. member is also aware, a considerable amount of money has been spent in recent years in Pretoria in the provision of office accommodation, and it is not possible to do everything simultaneously. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has raised the very hard case of the messenger of the court at Estcourt who was injured while on duty. I can only say with great regret that we are not in a position to do anything in a matter of this kind. There is no insurance scheme, and we cannot assume liability for an injury which was incurred in this way, or for the financial consequences of resultant death. It might perhaps be a case where Parliament might be petitioned, but I am afraid that, so far as the department is concerned, it has no power to pay compensation.

†*The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) put a question in connection with a unilingual notice in the magistrate’s court at Nylstroom. The department will have no objection to the amount of £7. With regard to the question put by the hon. member for, De-larey (Mr. L. M. Wentzel) as to whether a special justice of the peace could be appointed for Delarey I want to say that the department will go into the matter, and if it appears that the appointment is justified in view of the expense of it, the department will grant the request.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 8, “Prisons and Reformatories,” £634.933,

I think it is a great pity that the Minister of Justice is not here to account for his vote—a vote of extreme importance. When the Acting Minister told us that he is not in a position to discuss any subject at any length, or to discuss matters of policy, it is rather a farce to bring up such matters. However, the question of the employment of convict labour is such an important one that I will continue the subject. People in every urban area are being called upon, especially to help relieve the unemployed, yet at the same time, in places like Cape Town the Government actually hire out convicts, the numbers so hired out in Cape Town being 282. Some of these convicts are actually employed in quarries. Only last week we sent a deputation to the Minister of Labour, and we are going to get from him a subsidy for relief workers, some of whom are to be employed in quarries. At Constantia the employment of convict labour is even more unjustifiable. We have in that area fruit and wine farmers, men who are selling their products in an exceedingly highly protected market and getting subsidies for their exports. Now they are obtaining further substantial relief under the budget we are discussing. Protection, subsidies, and farm relief in all its respects, are certainly not meant to apply to convict produced goods. I put it to the Minister that this policy of hiring out convict labour—particularly in farming districts such as Constantia where an official goes round asking the farmers whether they would not take on convicts, and to the credit of the farmers, be it said, that the majority of them refused to employ convict labour—I put it to the Minister that that policy is absolutely wrong and indefensible, and I hope that he will, at any rate, endorse that opinion, if he agrees with me.

I should like to support as strongly as I can the moderate remarks of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson); this question must be faced. At the present time, we in Cape Town, are faced with the vital necessity of finding at least 2.000 jobs for the unemployed

Four thousand.

When I say 2,000, I mean that that number merely deals with the fringe of the problem. At the same time that we are trying to find jobs for the unemployed we are faced with this great difficulty, that the Department of Justice is allowing convicts to be hired out to private persons. It may be said that convicts must work; with that aspect of the matter I am not concerned. But those who are concerned with the needs of the unemployed locally are confronted with this menace of competition from convict labour. I urge on the Minister that this is not merely a problem of the Cape Peninsula alone, but it is one which affects most of the urban centres. I am going to appeal to the new Minister of Labour. I noticed, when my hon. friend (Mr. Waterson), was speaking, the particular attention the Minister was giving to his words. I hope that is an augury of the support we are going to receive from the Minister. From my personal knowledge I think the Minister is really trying to get down to the problem of the relief of unemployment. We have got to tackle it from all angles. There was an occasion I remember, I think it was towards the end of last year, when I passed one of the present Minister’s houses in Pretoria. If I may be allowed to say so, I almost saw red because of the number of convict labourers working in his garden. This policy should be discontinued, because fundamentally it is a wrong policy. It is true that the number of convicts so employed in the Cape Peninsula is not extraordinarily large. There are 282, so far as the Cape Peninsula is concerned; but that number is 282 too many. Convicts must work, but they must not be allowed to enter into competition with the starving people who are looking for employment at the present time. It is a problem that must be tackled, and it would be a fine gesture for the Department of Justice to say at the present time that this practice shall be put a stop to.

What about the needs of the farmers?

I would like to ask the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) to live up to the first part of the name of his constituency, and to show a little of the milk of human kindness. Farmers do not need this convict labour. I am told, on the best authority, that the standard of work carried out by the convicts is not up to the standard of ordinary labour. On every ground this policy is totally unsound, and it should be put a stop to.

I would like to draw attention to the remarks made by a judge-president on circuit some time back with regard to crowded prisons. I think it is time that that sort of thing should not be permitted. I see that the item for transport of prisoners amounts to £19,700. To my mind, that is due, to a large extent, to false economy. Take the position in Queenstown. All the prisoners from the surrounding districts are taken to Queenstown. On one occasion they had only accommodation for 100, and 140 convicts were crowded in. There is another matter that should be mentioned, which is that convicts are mixed up with persons awaiting trial. I hope the Government will not allow that to continue.

I do think that the Acting Minister of Justice will be well advised to take note of the very serious matter brought forward by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson). I myself have brought it forward for many years. This competition of convict labour with free labour has been a great evil wherever it has been tried. Terrible conflict arose in the early seventies in Australia and Tasmania because of this competition between convict and free labour. Not only farmers, but other individuals in South Africa, have availed themselves of this cheap labour in their gardens. Let the convicts be employed on useful public work, and on other public work which would otherwise not be undertaken were it not for the employment of convict labour. I know that with regard to a certain school useful work was done by convicts where it would not have been done at all otherwise. But with regard to work done for private persons, I say that to use convict labour in this way is nothing but a public scandal, which this House ought to put down at the earliest moment. When the Government allows free labour to be submerged like this it is nothing but a public scandal. I am sorry this is loaded on the deputy acting Minister, who is not responsible for it, but really he should make representations to the Minister of Justice or to the Acting Minister to get a thorough enquiry made throughout the Union as to the people who hire this convict labour; and he will be surprised, because he will find that this labour is used because it is cheaper than the market price of free labour. Unless there is an enquiry, we will have this brought up year after year, and get no satisfaction at all. I have raised this matter in Parliament during the past 20 years or so, and have got no satisfaction.

I would like to support what the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Heerden) has said. I wish to bring to the notice of the Acting Minister the particular case of the prison at Utrecht, where there is accommodation designed for eleven prisoners. Last year there was an average daily number of 28. There is no accommodation for European prisoners. There were seven Europeans dealt with last year who had to use the same conveniences as the natives. There is no place where the prisoners can be punished, and they are thrashed in the open. The public can walk past on the main road and see the prisoners getting their punishment.

That ought to be a warning to them.

It is an absolute disgrace that these unfortunate people should be sent to this prison, which is like the black hole of Calcutta. I have been through it myself. I was grieved to see under what unfortunate conditions these people were locked up. There is no place for exercise, and the prison is not enclosed except by a double wire fence, which leaves it open to the public view. Last year a European prisoner was there, and his mother came to try to speak to him by speaking through the wire fence. I hope the Minister will make an enquiry into this and see what can be done to improve the condition of affairs there.

I would like to associate myself with the views expressed in connection with the employment of these native prisoners on these farms down here. I asked a question in the House on a previous occasion. The great majority are natives, and not coloured people. These natives come here, cannot get employment, and are convicted of petty offences to which the Minister referred. They come to the towns and they become permanent urban dwellers in Cape Town and other large towns. These are the men that you want to get away from the towns. You turn them out of the municipalities and urban areas, and where do they go? They just go outside the boundary, they squat under trees, and you saw what happened last night in one of these suburbs. It is becoming a menace to the whole of the white population of the country. To a certain extent one must agree that the Government is in a difficult position. It is difficult to find work for these people. We have roads that are really not roads at all, in many cases, and I think the Government should consider some scheme of utilizing prison labour on main trunk roads. That is one of the beneficial uses to which these criminals could be put. I wish to deal with a local matter, and that is the employment of these convicts on road work. In the Transkei the previous Minister of Justice allowed us to use these convicts on roads, but unfortunately the regulations controlling the administration of these prisoners were drawn up in Pretoria, and they provided for the worst type of criminals for the purpose. The regulations are so framed that it is quite impossible in many cases to make the best use of these convicts. Then again 75 per cent. of the natives are convicted for non-payment of taxes. They cannot obtain work to earn money. They must go to gaol. Yet they are not criminals. The regulations are such that a warder must take charge of eight men. Here I have a report from a district engineer saying that the system is quite impossible. If one man wants water which is 100 yards away, the warder must march all the eight men that distance. To my mind, road work is the best use to which prison labour can be put in this country, and I hope the Minister will go into the matter and see if he cannot frame regulations to deal with natives in native areas and to utilize this labour to the best advantage. I believe in the Transvaal the regulations are not nearly so strict as they are in our part of the country. I hope the j Minister will take this into consideration and try to meet the provincial authorities.

I just want to add a few words on the subject. I would like to give my support to what has been said here by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I am one of the members who possibly has just as much to do with unemployment as any other member. It is distressing every day—except Sundays, of course—to see the dozens and dozens of young men having their names registered at the labour office as looking for work. What disturbs you inwardly is that these unemployed young men—and there are some amongst them fairly well-educated—repeatedly ask that they should be allowed to do the work which natives and coloured people are now doing in Government and other offices. It seems absolutely unsound to me for convicts to be employed, e.g., to water the flowers around the buildings. I know of two teachers who have been discharged who asked to be allowed to do the work. We are at our wits’ end because we do not know what to do with the unemployed and then convicts are still hired out. I think it will be setting a very good example if the Government employed those unemployed young men to do the work rather than natives being employed at the offices in watering the gardens.

I cannot agree with what has been said by previous speakers. We all have sympathy with the unemployed, but I am surprised that the hon. member who has just sat down suggests that those educated boys should be used for the work now being done by convicts. Three or four of them are standing round the Union Buildings and holding a hose to water the flowers. They are sentenced to hard labour, and what are they to do then?

Is that hard labour?

But it is argued here that they should not even do that light work. If they make chairs and such things in the gaol then that is also disapproved of because they are competing with other people. I thought that someone would get up here to protect the farmers of Constantia. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson), who ought to represent them, disapproved of the hiring of convicts out to them. What was the position? Two or three years ago the coloured people or bastards they employ here would not work for them, and those people were at their wits’ end to get labour. They need a certain number to cultivate their vineyards and orchards and they were compelled to come to the Government for labour. That was when this policy was laid down. Those farmers were obliged to build gaols. They were permanent buildings which they put up. What happened when the coloured people humbled themselves to go and do the work? They get their pay on Friday night. They get drunk and they remain in that condition until Tuesday or Wednesday, although the farmer has to get his work done up to time, especially when the fruit has to be packed. I am sorry for the unemployed coloured people who are really looking for work, but we must think of the farmers’ interests. Most of the unemployed are too unreliable and the Constantia farmers cannot employ them, because they have to have a certain number in regular service. The unemployed Europeans have my entire sympathy, but most of them do not want that kind of work.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee tomorrow.