When the House rose last night I was saying that I had almost concluded my remarks. I only wanted to finish up by putting a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with what I had put before him in respect of the declaration of policy made recently by nobody less than Mr. McDonald. Great Britain’s Secretary for the Colonies, in which he definitely stated that Great Britain had now departed from her old policy, and that she had long before the war considered the question of not adhering to any colour bar in the Army. I am very pleased to see that the rt. hon. the Prime Minister is also here this afternoon, and I think that we should hear from the Government to what extent Great Britain’s attitude in this respect is also being supported by our Government, because we hear that Great Britain is going to extend that policy to other parts of the Empire—we would like to know to what extent our Government is in agreement with that expressed policy of Great Britain. We have been told that a native of Jamaica will be trained as an officer and will serve in the British Army, and I should like to know what the position is. What will my hon. friends opposite do? I am referring to those who say that they are going to join the Army—what will they do when they get overseas and they receive orders from a native from Jamaica.

We shall stand under our own officers.

Do not waste our time with such trivialities.

Our friends opposite are unable to give us the information, so they are now trying to get away from the point by raising other issues. So far as they are concerned it may be a triviality, but the Afrikaner people are anxious to know what the attitude of the Government of South Africa is, and what attitude our young fellows overseas are going to adopt. I have already said that 150 of our young fellows have mysteriously disappeared from South Africa without the Government knowing anything about it—those young fellows whom John Bull has come here to steal away from us. If they are overseas now and that officer, a certain Moodie from Jamaica, should give them orders, will those young fellows of ours have to obey those orders? Do hon. members opposite take up the attitude that they will have to carry out such orders? We are not getting any reply from them. In spite of the fact that hon. members opposite are always ready to interrupt, and to give an answer to questions to which we expect the Government to answer, they are now remaining silent. There they sit, those hon. members who interrupt such a lot. I only want to tell them this, that I am convinced that the Government of Great Britain must undoubtedly have consulted with our Government before making a statement of that kind, and before laying down that policy. For that reason I hope that my friends opposite will give their attention to this matter. What is going to happen if in the Protectorates here white men should be placed under a native officer? And what is going to happen if that policy is carried to its logical conclusion? Here in the Protectorates natives and Europeans will then have to come under the command of black officers, and how is that going to affect us?

Do you really imagine that that will happen?

The hon. member asks whether that is going to happen. If I am to believe what Mr. McDonald stated in his declaration I must believe it is going to happen, and that is why this is a matter of such great importance. Hon. members over there have now suddenly become very silent, so we should be informed from the Government benches whether our Government has taken up this matter with the British Government, and if not, why not? I am convinced that if the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) had been occupying the Prime Minister’s bench to-day, this question would never have cropped up. The Government of England would have thought twice before making such a statement, and before laying down a policy which must be in conflict with the interests of every white man in South Africa.

With the exception of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), who has now raised the case of Mr. Moodie, I have attentively followed the speeches made by hon. members opposite, and I must say that those speeches were very peaceful. Now I do not know whether this spirit of peace really emanates from a desire for peace, or whether it is the result of the Hopetown and Losberg elections. Still, I am not going to discuss that aspect of the matter, because we are at the moment busy with more important matters than Moodie and Hopetown and Losberg. I wish to direct the attention of the House to certain other matters. After the speech by the Minister of Finance I read the large headlines appearing in Die Burger, in which it was stated that the Government was now abandoning the gold-mining policy of the former Government, that is to say, that all the proceeds from the sale of gold above 150s. would no longer go to the state. That was what one found in Die Burger, and it was a statement displayed with large headlines. A greater misrepresentation of the true facts one cannot possibly imagine.

Did the Government abandon the old policy or not?

No, it did not abandon it. The Government’s policy is that everything above 150s. still belongs to the state, but exceptions are made in certain cases, so that mines with a lower grade of ore will pay a little less. The Minister stated that there are five large mines which are on the verge of being closed down.

But surely if that is so, it means that the Government has abandoned that policy.

I have no time to deal with interruptions. The Government always said that the low-grade mines would pay a little less. But the fact remains that the Government will be receiving the same amount of money in taxation from the mines as it would otherwise have got, and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) has admitted that that is so.

What do you know about the mines?

It is quite likely that I know more about mines and about sheep farming than the hon. member does. I would not have made such a mess of the wool farmers’ interests as he has done. The hon. member for Fauresmith has admitted that the Government is going to get the same amount of money out of the mine taxation, but then he asks, “What of the future?” I as a farmer have also thought of the future, but if some allowance had not been made to certain mines, a number of them would have had to close down. The Minister of Finance who is a responsible man has told us that within fifteen months in all probability five of the large mines which to-day employ 2,500 Europeans, and 20,000 natives, will have to close down. If that should happen and all those miners should be put on the street, and if the one low grade mine after the other is forced to close down, I ask what the future of the farmers in South Africa is going to be. Everyone knows that Johannesburg is the best market for the farmers, and if those thousands of Europeans and natives are put on the streets, it must reduce the purchasing power of the country and the various communities will all suffer considerable hardships. For that reason I say that the Minister is pursuing the right policy. It would be shortsighted to pursue any policy which would result in the one mine after the other gradually having to close down. Now I should like to say a few words about the interests of the diggers whom I represent here. I want to tell the Minister that the diggers are in a precarious position. They are suffering great hardships as there is no payable ground left, and I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this matter and to see whether it is not possible to lay down a policy so that we may gradually be able to solve this particular problem. I have always urged that no further diggers’ licenses should be issued.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to discuss the interests of the diggers, as there is a motion on the Order Paper in this connection?

The hon. member cannot discuss a matter which is already the subject of a motion which has still to come before the House.

Talk about the Empire.

The hon. member tells me to talk about the Empire but I am going to discuss farmers’ interests here to-day. I know that this subject will not be as welcome to many hon. members opposite as a debate on the Empire would be. The farming population is in a miserable position to-day, and I feel that anyone who has observed the situation must feel deeply concerned about it. I remember when I came to Parliament in 1924 the farming population was still enjoying conditions of prosperity, but to-day the farmers are a lot of beggars. One will always find that if anyone on this side of the House gets up to discuss farmers’ interests, he invariably asks the Government to do something, and if hon. members on the other side get up 100 per cent. of their speeches are made up of complaints about the precarious position of the farmers and requests that the Government should step in to do something. But now I want to put this question: Who is responsible for that state of affairs?

Ah!

Yes, I fully expected such a chorus. When the Nationalist Government was in power—and I was a member of the Nationalist Party then—the farming population was enjoying prosperous conditions. What has happened? Why has the farming population gone back to such an extent? One cause undoubtedly is that the interests of the farmers in this country have always been made the football of party politicians. To-day we find the Keerom Street group on the other side of the House, and the Volksparty group. Both these groups sit together on the Opposition benches. But what a farce—in the last six years we have been witnessing the greatest farce imaginable on every occasion the hon. member for Smithfield introduced proposals to improve the position of the farmers. Hon. members on the Opposition benches on those occasions invariably put up the argument that such proposals were useless, that they were only patchwork. I say that the greatest enemy of the poor farmers in our country is the party politician, because a football is being made of their interests. What is the financial lead which the Nationalist Party used to give farmers?

You scratch backwards like a fowl, Oom Louw.

hon. members over there are ashamed of their past. The Minister of Finance in 1926 brought in a Bill in respect of credit societies, and he and his financial experts told us that those credit societies should develop steadily so that eventually they would become the farmers’ bank in South Africa. I told the Minister of Finance at the time that that Act contained a principle which clashed with the traditions of the Afrikaner people. That tradition always was “Children, do not stand security for someone else.” The Minister’s Bill contained the principle of joint responsibility, and I protested against that. Hon. members will find my speech in Hansard. I warned the Minister and I told him that I was afraid of that principle, and I also said that the Land Bank would insist on at least one or two farmers, who owned their own farms, being members of such a credit society, and if things went wrong the whole lot would be bankrupt. The farmers who were still independent would then also become poor whites. The hon. member for Fauresmith said that the farmers had to accept the Bill as it was, failing which he would drop the whole thing. Well, the unfortunate farmers accepted that position and the Bill was passed, and what was the result? In 1933 the Minister had to step in and had to write off debts, and those credit societies disappeared. I have said on previous occasions that the hon. member for Fauresmith is a man of whom our people have cause to be proud, and I am not now going to run down a man because he is against my views and is on the Opposition side of the House. I want to give him the credit to which he is entitled. For many years he has given a financial lead and he has controlled our affairs on a sound basis. That credit I want to grant him, but so far as the farming industry is concerned, his lead, and his policy have proved a total failure. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows I was a troublesome man, but I said in those days, “Look out, the farmers are now getting good prices for their products, and this is the time to make the farming population economically independent.” I had worked out a scheme and I proposed that the farmers should pay a levy on their products, and I submitted that scheme to the Nationalist Party caucus. Under that scheme we would have raised about £1,000,000 by means of such a levy, and my scheme provided that every farmer paying the levy, would get a receipt from the Receiver of Revenue. As soon as the amount collected stood at £5.000.000 my intention was to establish a farmers’ bank, and each farmer would have his paid-up share in the farmers’ bank. I know the contumely and contempt which I had to put up with, and I well remember the ridicule that was poured on my scheme. I remember the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who in those days was Minister of Agriculture, saying, “I shall refuse to impose a levy on the farmers’ products,” and what is the position to-day? A levy is imposed on all the products to-day, and what is being done with that money? So far two deputations, pleasure deputations, have gone overseas, paid for out of the wool levy, and the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) also went overseas, and the wool farmers paid for it.

You were not good enough to go.

That is a very poor retort to say that I was not good enough to go. I accuse the leaders of the Nationalist Party of having failed to do their duty towards the farmers.

Then why did you support them?

I did my best, but I was unable to get support. Now I want to touch on another matter. I feel the farmers should know. I am sorry I shall have to reveal here what took place in the caucus of the Nationalist Party, but if the Leader of the Opposition can come here and disclose resolutions and discussions of the Cabinet I feel that I am also entitled to say what happened in the Nationalist Party caucus.

You have always been disloyal.

Yes, I know that I was accused at one time of being a traitor to my people, and I know that letters were sent to the electors in my constituency telling them that I was a traitor, and those letters followed me up to Kimberley, and I had to fight them, but none the less I succeeded in holding the seat for the United Party in spite of those letters. I did my best for the farmers at the time when we had to do all we could for them. In 1930 I said to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) that the time had come for him to introduce a Bill to take steps to prevent the burdens resting on farmers in regard to mortgage bonds being increased. What happened? Since 1930 I have continually approached the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and I said to them: “I am getting letters drawing my attention to the fact that the prices of the farmers products are continually going down, while the interest demanded by Hoggenheimer is continually going up.” In 1931 I again approached the Nationalist Party caucus and I asked for steps to be taken so as to reduce the interest on farmers’ bonds. I was laughed at, and I was told that it was not an economic matter and that the Government could not deal with it. I came along in 1932 with what I called the “redmekaar” scheme (the “save-each-other” scheme) which contained the same principle as the farmers’ relief scheme. The hon. member for Fauresmith declared that it was the most uneconomic proposal he had ever heard of, and he did not want to know anything about it. I want to call on hon. members here—I want to call on the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst) — to bear out that I said to the Minister: “You are destroying the Nationalist Party to such an extent that you will not know it any more.”

Will you tell us now why you did not stop with us, and why you are now sitting over there?

They would not listen. We know the gold standard history. I do not propose going into that. I was a member of the Gold Standard Committee and I supported the report of that committee. But if ever I was a coward I was one when I signed the report of that committee. If we had not continued that policy the farmer would long since have been in a better postion. I want to ask hon. members whether the hon. member for Fauresmith voluntarily took the steps he did take in order to help the farmers? No, year after year I pointed out to the hon. member for Fauresmith what was needed, and after coalition he had to come along and was forced to take those steps which I had urged him to take. I say without fear of contradiction that of all the steps taken since coalition the interest subsidy scheme has been the most helpful.

That was put through by the hon. member for Fauresmith.

Yes, I give him credit for that, but he had to be forced to put it through. And we are to-day in this position that I can say that we have a bankrupt farming population, and I am ashamed of having to get up continually as a representative of the farmers to beg for gifts and favours like a beggar. And then I think of the farming population as I knew it in my young days. Politics have brought them to the position in which they find themselves to-day.

Their position is due to the fact that you people have dragged us into the war.

I said to the hon. member for Fauresmith when he had those large surpluses, and I repeat what the Minister of Finance said the other day, that mortgage bonds were taken up when the prices of products were high, when the price of wool was 4s., 5s. and 6s.

When was that?

The hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem; he is a mealie farmer and he does not know anything about wool. He does not know that during the last war the price of wool went up to 7s. Those mortgage bonds were taken up when the price of products was high, but the farmers will never be able to redeem those bonds. They stay on their land because 3½ per cent. is a reasonable rate of interest. After that experience I again went to the then Minister of Finance, and I also went to the caucus of the United Party, and I put forward schemes such as a simple farmer would do. As the result of the Anglo-Boer War I never had the opportunities of receiving a training such as the lawyers over there have had, but I worked myself up and I know when a scheme is sound. I went to the Minister and I said: “Let us reduce the mortgage bonds gradually,” and I suggested that the farmer, instead of paying 3½ per cent. interest, should only have to pay 2½ per cent., and I also put forward a suggestion that the Government should pay a 2½ per cent. subsidy instead of a 1½ per cent. subsidy. But I added that the Government would pay the subsidy on condition that the farmer redeemed 2½ per cent. of his bond, and if the farmer did so then the Government would give a 2½ per cent. redemption subsidy. I suggested that we should’ put up a five-year plan. We have heard a great deal about the Van der Horst scheme. That scheme also proposes that if the farmer pays off £1 the Government will also pay off £1. I was not listened to but hon. members will remember that the Leader of the Opposition said “If Mr. Steytler comes along with schemes of that kind it will be better if he left the Party.” That is a thing which embittered me, because we have been sent here by the poor farmers to get help for them. The Nationalist Party is here by the votes of the farmers, but what have they done for the farmers? They have made a mess of any schemes to help the farmer. The Leader of the Opposition, as hon. members will remember, said on that occasion that if I came along with schemes of that kind it would be better if I left the Party. I was kicked out of the Caucus once, so I kept quiet.

Oh, really, quiet!

And now they come along and they say that the Government has all the gold, and that it is all going to the owners of the gold mines and that the taxpayers get nothing. That is what we read in Die Burger, but that kind of propaganda is not going to help them. It is a distortion and we shall go to the country and inform the public what they have done. Before I sit down I just want to say this, that I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance. I feel that the country must have read his speech with great satisfaction. I am quite convinced that although hon. members over there now want to advocate the establishment of a Republic, as soon as they are in the majority they will turn round and say that we should wait a little longer. While they are making propaganda we are engaged in defending the country and in maintaining our sovereign independence.

We have been listening for nearly twenty minutes to a speech by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), which I can only describe as self-glorification. I wish to remind the hon. member of an old Dutch saying, “Self-praise leaves an unpleasant smell.” What I did not like in the remarks of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) was when in his speech he referred so sneeringly to the Afrikaans language and culture, and also when he referred to the Leader of the Opposition. Let me tell the hon. member for Kimberley (District) that people will long have forgotten him when South Africa will still be honouring the Leader of the Opposition for what he has done for the Afrikaans language and culture. However, I do not propose spending any more time on the hon. member for Kimberley (District). What the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) has said is o_uite correct—the hon. member scratches backwards like a fowl, he tries to dig into the history of the Caucuses of the past, to find something to attack us on. But he did not refer to the present. Now, let me refer to what happened last year when the hon. member was chairman of the Farmers’ Group of the United Party. He made himself so unpopular in that group that he was never seen there again, and that after we had done him the honour of electing him, as an old member, to be our chairman, and all the relief schemes which we obtained under the present Leader of the Opposition, were obtained without the help of the hon. member for Kimberley (District). Now let me say a few words to the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe). He has again been trying to stick the Nazi label on the Afrikaner because the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) declared at Piquetberg the other day that we should form a people’s front against the khaki knights. Because of that the Nazi label has to be attached to us again, but I do not know whether can really blame the hon. member for Potchefstroom, for I know that he realises that settling time is near, as Potchefstroom will deal with him and he trembles and shudders when he thinks of it. For that reason he is trying to stick the Nazi label on us. I want to say that it is essential for us to form a people’s front against these khaki knights because they are busy all the time trying to mislead the Afrikaans public and to stick the Nazi label on ns. It is essential for us to inform the public so as to enable them to form a sound judgment. The khaki knights are supported by the hon. member for Potchefstroom and by the Jingo Press, and I want to put this question to the hon. member for Potchefstroom: “Is a Jingo competent to judge what an Afrikaner is?” As they look at everything through their khaki spectacles, which are coloured red and if they see anything which is not Jingo it looks to them like a bogey. The hon. member now tries to take refuge with the Jingoes, but like a drowning man he is lost to his people. The Minister of Finance, to our sorrow, has departed from the sound policy laid down by his predecessor in regard to the gold-mining taxation. He himself rightly referred to the policy followed by the hon. member for Fauresmith, and he described that policy as sound, in spite of which he has now departed from this sound policy. I feel that this departure must be attributed not merely to the representations made to the Minister of Finance, but to the information service of the khaki knights, namely the information issued by Mr. Wilson which information is drafted and put together by Mr. Wilson who used to be secretary to John Martin, who is closely connected with Corner House. That is the gentleman who to-day is supplying information to South Africa, and now I want to put this question: Can we in the circumstances be surprised at the fact that the Minister of Finance is dealing so gently with the mines? Have we heard one single word of sympathy from the Government benches for the farming population, or for any other section of the population? The only people who have received some consideration from the Government opposite are the Chamber of Mines, the mine bosses. Mr. Wilson, who is closely connected with Corner House, serves as the information officer of the Government. Hon. members can therefore appreciate what the position is. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) has once again revived Hoggenheimer, and acknowledges his existence. I want to say that when the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) was sitting there as Minister of Finance, and when the Government of which he was a member was at the head of affairs, a sound policy was followed in connection with our mining taxation, and I want to add this, that swindling was kept in check. What assurance have the people with Mr. Wilson as information officer, and with the present Minister of Finance, who succumbs to pressure brought to bear on him, that we are not going to have one black Friday after another in South Africa? I should like to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say about this. We are at war and if we look at the Budget speech made by the Minister of Finance in which he provides an amount of £14.000,000 for the war, a question arises in my mind—a question to which the people of South Africa require an answer, as we are incurring this tremendous expenditure. We are told that we are going to fight in North Africa, and as this money is being voted for that purpose we want to know who the enemy is whom we are going to fight. You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite impossible for Germany to appear on the scene in Northern Africa. But we are being asked to vote money in order to carry on the war in North Africa, and the public want to know who the enemy is whom the Government wants to go and fight there? And we want an answer to that question before we vote these millions of money. The right hon. the Prime Minister is determined to go and fight in North Africa. He is preparing to do so and an amount of £14,000,000 is being placed on the Estimates and is being provided for us to go and fight there, and the public of South Africa wants to know who the enemy is. It is impossible for Germany to send troops to North Africa. Now while this Government is voting this £14,000,000 for war, let us have a look at this Budget and let us study the reductions which are being introduced in respect of the assistance which in the past was rendered to farmers. Leaving out the question of any additional relief, the Government is not even making the same amount of provision as it did in the past in this particular respect. In actual fact they are reducing the amounts for relief to farmers. In order to provide this £14,000,000 for war they have reduced the votes in other respects. The interest subsidy is being reduced by £120,000; the export subsidy on beef is being reduced by £30,000; the subsidy for the purchase of bulls and stock improvement districts is reduced by £25,000, and under the heading of “non-recurrent expenditure” there is a reduction of £56,000, a total reduction in all of £231,500. More than £250,000 is being taken off the vote “Relief to Farmers,” but £14,000,000 is being provided for the purpose of war, and for the purpose of playing at soldiering. It is at a time of emergency like the present that the Minister of Finance should go out of his way to save the people from ruin, and to uplift them. That is what he should have done. But we find now that he is economising on the vote “Relief to Farmers” although a nett increase is indicated at the end of the vote. And although that is the position, things have been done in connection with this vote which amount to a reduction in the amount of money provided for assistance to farmers. For instance, an amount of £300,000 is provided in respect of the additional 6d. per bag which is to be paid out for the first 500 bags of mealies produced by the farmer. We warned the Minister of Agriculture last year about this; I among others warned him that the levy would be evaded to such an extent that the control board would find itself short of funds. This in actual fact is not assistance to farmers for which provision is being made here, but this is an amount which is being provided to cover up the flagrant blunders made by the Minister of Agriculture. We cannot regard this as assistance to farmers. If the Minister of Agriculture had not brought such a rotten scheme before the House, this £300,000 would not have been needed. In actual fact there is on Vote 21, “Relief to Farmers,” a reduction of £231,000. I want to say this—if there are any members in this House who want to sacrifice themselves on the battlefields by all means let them do so, because they will do so for the sake of Poland, but I want to add that while the Minister of Finance and the Government over there are busy playing at soldiering, they are at the same time busy killing the soul of the one Afrikaner after the other in South Africa, by allowing them to become impoverished until they are so deeply in the mire that they will never be able to get out again, but that does not concern the Government. They are allowing the people to deteriorate. And now they are even going to economise on the help which used to be extended to the farmers in the past. Now I want to put this question to the Minister of Finance. It struck me the other day when I was among the farmers of Bethal, in the mealie areas, and when I saw the type of men who are living there—it hurt me to realise that that type of person is doomed eventually to land in the slums of our large towns — because that is what is going to happen unless provision is made for them, and help given to them while there is still time to do so. The mere thought of what is going to happen fills one with sorrow. And what is the Minister of Finance doing? What provision is being made on the Estimates to keep these people going? And what is the Minister of Agriculture proposing to do so as to save those people from ruin? No, they are playing at soldiering, but nothing is being done to assure our farming population that they will not go under. We have raised this point repeatedly, we have raised it during the Part Appropriation Bill and on other occasions. On every possible occasion we have pleaded the cause of the farmers, but has any answer ever been vouchsafed by that side of the House? Have we ever been given an answer to the criticism levelled by us against the Minister of Agriculture, have we ever had a reply from the Minister of Finance to the criticism levelled against him in previous debates? No, we sit here and we fight day in and day out, but we can get nothing from them. They remain silent like the Sphynx. I knew the Minister of Agriculture would scratch his head as he is doing now, but that is not all. The Minister of Agriculture referred to me the other day and called me “Koos Wind”—he called me a windbag. Does the Minister of Agriculture realise that I do not even look upon him as “wind?” He is not even a good wind, because a wind raises dust, but the Minister of Agriculture fails to do anything, fails even to raise a dust when we ask him to do anything. We asked the Minister of Finance the other day to extend certain privileges so that the farmers, who might get into difficulties under present conditions, could be assisted. The Minister replied that there was no cause at this juncture for a request of that kind, and I now wish to put this question to him: In view of the fact that our mealie prices have remained at the same level where they were last year and the year before, and no notable increase has taken place, and in view of the fact that costs of production have gone up by almost 100 per cent, I want to know how the Minister thinks we are going to meet and bear our capital burdens if we are unable to make a profit at the prices which we are receiving for our products? I want to put this further question to him, whether the effect is not the same, if capital charges are high, and prices are better than they are to-day? The Minister has refused point blank to concern himself with this. But my time is passing and I wish to say a few words to the Minister of Native Affairs, who as usual is not in his seat. I hope, however, that one of his colleagues will inform him of what I want to put before him. I should like to know what he intends doing. We know that he is not a man who likes to do anything. But some time ago his predecessor sent out a questionnaire to all the districts in connection with the application of chapter IV, and the other day when during the debate we reminded the Minister of Native Affairs that it was the object of Chapter IV effectively to apply segregation, the Minister said that it would need a referendum. That is not so. His predecessor has already obtained the information and we now want to know what the Minister’s intentions are. I want to read to the Minister a statement showing the actual condition of affairs, which may bring him to a realisation of the position in which some parts of the country find themselves. I am quoting here from a newspaper report—

Now I ask what the Minister of Native Affairs intends doing? Is he going to remain the same old jolly boy without doing anything? This is a serious matter. The fault lies with the education which the natives get in South Africa—the education which they get under the aegis of the “New Guard” and I hope that the Minister of Mines will listen to what I say. He is a prominent member of that organisation which has only one object in view in South Africa, and that is to detribalise the natives and to turn them into black Britishers. Even the Minister of Mines himself is nothing but a Britisher here in South Africa. That is what the “New Guard” aims at—to detribalise the natives, to draw them to Johannesburg, and then we get this type of evil which the people of South Africa have to put up with. The Minister may laugh, but even among them there is a secret movement, and we know something about it. We know what their object sometimes is. We are not blind altogether, nor are we entirely deaf. Go into the low veld where those people are engaged in that sort of thing. Their only object is to get the natives away from their tribal connections, to break the tribal link, because they will then take refuge in the towns and they become a menace to the towns. I ask the Minister of Native Affairs who is dependent to-day on the Minister of Mines, and the members of the “New Guard” sitting over there—there must be a dozen of them over there—what he is going to do to put a stop to this evil? I quoted one paper, and I wish to mention other instances showing the extent of the evil. The Minister of Native Affairs shakes everything off—just like a duck shaking the water off its back. I shall quote this—

That being the position, so that even religious services are interfered with by these loafers who make our towns unsafe, I ask what the Government is going to do? The Minister of Native Affairs does not worry his head about these things. What does he propose doing? I want to put a pertinent question to the Minister of Finance—we know how tremendously liberal he is in his conceptions, and he is supported by the Minister of Labour who was already on one occasion put out of a Cabinet because he had taken part in a round table conference with this type of person—I want to put a pertinent question to the Minister of Finance. The party on the Government benches is dependent on support from the “New Guard” but I want to ask the Minister when he is going to act, when the Government is going to take action against the evils which are menacing our people? It is unsafe for women to walk in the streets of Johannesburg at night, even if accompanied by men. That is the position, and yet our Minister of Native Affairs sits there like a “jolly boy.”

I am sorry that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is not here, because I wanted to remark that he had done all in his power to attack the Nationalist Party, of which he once was a member. One may expect a bird to foul its own nest, but if a human being does so, it becomes rather unpleasant. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) further remarked that farmers’ interests are being dragged into politics, and in that connection he levelled charges against this side of the House. If there is one person who always drags the interests of the farmer into politics it is the hon. member himself. The farmers themselves had no intention of being used as a football, and for that reason they made a football of him and kicked him from Albert to Kimberley (District). I expect him to be kicked even further at the next elections; he may even land on the white cliffs of Dover. I want to suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should apply all these conjuring schemes suggested by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) to solve the farmers’ problems. In days gone by the hon. member was never able to get his way, but he is now so very happy in his new party that I hope the Minister of Agriculture will apply all the schemes which the hon. member for Kimberley (District) produces out of his many pockets. Then all South Africa’s problems, all the farmers’ problems, will be solved and we shall live in a country flowing with milk and honey. I want to say a few words about the Budget. I think it is a commonplace to say that it is the duty of the Government to govern in the interest of the country as a whole, and not in the interest of this or that element or group of people. Furthermore it is the Government’s duty to maintain the balance between the different elements and the different groups of population, to extend protection if it should become necessary, to foster a good and sound spirit in the country, and to apply the means at the disposal of the state for the development of the country in the interest of the people as a whole. The Budget in itself must serve as a test of the extent to which the Government has complied with the obligations resting upon it. I would therefore like to deal with the Budget in that light, or at least I should like to deal with one or two aspects of the Budget to see to what extent the Government answers those requirements, and to what extent that is reflected in the estimates now before us. The first question I want to put in regard to the Budget is whether the state is receiving its rightful share in the income of the country in the form of taxation proposals or otherwise. Only if the state obtains its rightful share of the income of the country as a whole is the state able to comply with the obligations and the requirements imposed upon it. Let us take the case of gold in that connection.

What do you mean by the “income of the country”?

The state gets its revenue, its income, and that revenue is obtained from the general revenue of the country. In that connection I want to take gold, and I want to ask whether the state is getting its rightful share, its legitimate share of the gold production of South Africa by way of taxation and otherwise? In order to answer that question it is necessary to take account of the fact that according to our gold laws four-fifths of the gold belongs to the state, four-fifths of the mineral rights are state property, and the people who develop the gold in the Union, so far as four-fifths are concerned, develop it with the permission of the state. They rent the property from the state. The second fact which we have to take into account is that the present large revenue which the gold mines derive from the property of the state is due to something which they have not done themselves—it is not due to their own initiative but it is due to an action by the state; in other words, the state, by going off gold, depreciated the country’s currency in value, and as a result of this the profits of the gold mines — the property of the state — went up. From every point of view, therefore, the gold mines which have this large income are dependent on the state. I take it that the gold production is more or less in the neighbourhood of 12,000,000 ounces, and at the price of 168s. this means an income of a little over £100,000,000. When we were on the gold standard the price of gold was 84s. Consequently, as a result of the state going off gold, the gold mining industry was provided with an extra income, an additional income of something like £50,000,000, which they would not have had if the state had not taken that step. And let me say that the gold mines get that large additional income—I believe that that is generally admitted — at the expense of a large section of the population. The attitude adopted by the Nationalist Party has always been that the state should take a much larger share of the additional income than has been the case in the past. After gold had gone beyond 150s. the previous government took up the attitude that everything above 150s. would be taken by the state. And quite rightly so, in view of the doctrine which I have just laid down. The present Government, however, has departed from that attitude. To begin with the present Minister of Finance expressed himself in favour of that policy, but he has abandoned it, and now there is no certainty, no security, as to the future. Gold to-day stands at 168s. By departing from the policy of the previous government the mines are now again getting an additional 18s. from which, of course, must be deducted the taxation levied on that account. But now that we have departed from that policy we have no security, and we do not know where it is going to end. The result, therefore, is that the large mining magnates are jubilant at the moment and are highly pleased that the Government has taken this decision. Speculation is rife in South Africa, and this is due to the attitude of the Government. They said Hoggenheimer was dead, but I think everyone will admit that he has been resurrected from his ashes and is flourishing to-day as never before in South Africa. Evidence of that fact is the boom which took place on the sharemarket immediately after the Government decision became known. I notice that the Minister of the Interior is shaking his head. Evidently he must have been dreaming for a few days after the announcement by the Minister of Finance. His own papers announced the fact with a great display and pointed to the boom which was going on at the time. Now I just want to point out how the rest of the population is affected by the fact that our currency is depreciated in value, and by the fact that the gold mines as a result are getting more wealthy all the time. But before doing so I wish to put this question to the Minister: Are we, so far as our gold export is concerned, receiving full value for the gold which we export and which is sold in London? I believe that this matter is in the hands of the Reserve Bank. So far as I know all our gold is sold in London and we receive sterling value. In putting that question I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to an article which appears in The Economist of the 3rd February, where I notice the following—

This article proves two things. First of all that gold on the New York market fetches 1s. to 1s. 6d. per ounce more than on the London market. The second point shewn here is that because the dollar is in a stronger position than sterling, a larger profit is made if the production of gold is converted into sterling. I do not know exactly how much it is, but it is clearly stated here—

Not only private people, Frenchmen and others, ship gold from London to New York. I want to say emphatically that this extra profit, on by far the greater portion of our gold which we send to London, is being made by the Bank of England which sends the gold from London to New York, and they are no doubt making enormous profits every year on our gold because they are the intermediaries. They have to send our gold to New York because the English Government is busy buying war supplies in America for millions of pounds, for a few hundred millions of pounds, and any difference in the balance of trade between the two countries has to be made up in gold. It is therefore generally admitted that most of the gold going to London is sent on to New York. My question now is, “Why should London make this extra profit on our gold?” Cannot we send it direct to America? If we can get dollars for our gold, we shall be able to buy any product we need with that money, because England also gets dollars for the gold, and we shall then be able to make the profit which England is to-day making on our gold. I should like to know from the Minister why that is not possible, because there is no doubt that they are now making large profits on our gold. The Economist is a journal of high repute, and if a paper like that makes a statement of that kind, the Minister may take it to be correct. It suits England very well—that we can understand. They have to pay their adverse trade balance with America in gold, so it suits them very well to have our gold shipped and sold in that way. Now I wish to revert to the subject of our ever dropping currency. I say the ever dropping currency because it must be perfectly clear that so long as we are linked to the English pound, and the more England buys from America, the greater the danger of sterling depreciating lower. So long as we are linked to sterling our pound will depreciate together with sterling. What will be the effect of such a further depreciation? First of all the mines, as the pound depreciates, and goes on depreciating, will get more and more revenue, and will make larger profits. What is the Government going to do then, now that the policy of taking everything above 150s. has been departed from? What will the Government do in order to get its share of the extra profit? Let me say that although depreciation is a means of getting us out of many difficulties we must consider what the position will be for the people who do not export. It is a benefit to the exporter, especially to the gold mines. And if we see this effect then I want to ask: what is the Government going to do to give the miner his just share of this extra profit? The Minister has not said anything yet as to how much the mine worker will get as his share of the extra profit which the gold mines are going to make out of this depreciation. But what of the worker? What of the wage earner, because if a further depreciation sets in through our currency being linked up with sterling the people drawing wages must necessarily suffer because everything we import will become more expensive, and a great many of the articles which are not imported will also become more expensive. This is a point which should have been reflected in the budget, and for that reason I am asking the Minister whether he is going to take steps, as the currency depreciates and prices go up, and the income of the wage earner consequently gets less—I ask him whether he is going to take steps to ensure that the wage earner will be compensated? The wage earner will evidently have to stand the racket. And there are many of them. It is the public servants, and all private employees, and workers — all of them will suffer, and there will be thousands and thousands of them, because even at this stage since the beginning of the war, irrespective of depreciation, we have seen the cost of living go up. But so far we have not heard what the Minister is going to do, though he should have stated in his Budget speech what he intended doing. Now I come to the farmers. The Wool farmers and other farmers who export their products will have no objection to devaluation taking place, because they will undoubtedly get an increased revenue from the products which they export, and the farmers who export their products will be in the same position, but how are the others going to be affected? I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give me any idea of the proportion of agricultural products consumed in this country and the quantity exported? I am putting this question because I have an idea that a much larger proportion of our agricultural products are consumed in this country than exported. If that is so then the farmers will not derive any benefit, because they will have the disadvantage of devaluation in respect of the larger proportion of their products. It is clear that a depreciation does not immediately bring about an increase of prices locally. I therefore want to ask the Minister what proportion of our agricultural products is exported, and what proportion is consumed in the country? I shall tell the Minister what I have ascertained, and possibly the Minister will be able at a later date to supply me with more accurate information. A survey was made by the departments concerned for the years 1933 to 1937 of the average value of agricultural products in respect of twenty-nine of the principal agricultural products. The value of the annual production is £56,000.000—that is the average annual value of cur agricultural products, and the value of the agricultural products exported in the year 1938/39 was £21,000.000. Consequently, exports to a value of twenty-one million pounds took place in 1938/39 while agricultural products to a value of £35,000,000 were consumed in South Africa. It is evident from these particulars that a larger proportion of our agricultural products is consumed in this country than is exported, and consequently the farmer will not benefit if the pound should stampede any further, and sterling is further depreciated. What is the Minister going to do to come to the aid of these people if the £ should be further depreciated? If there is one thing that is clear it is that the farming population is finding itself in a difficult position, because while as a result of the war the price of everything they need, and everything that has to be imported has gone up, there is a tendency for the price of agricultural products to drop. Take mealies. The price of export mealies is 5s. 5d. per bag, and as a result of the control measures the farmer on the local market gets 7s. per bag. Even that is a low price for the mealie farmer to have to come out on. But the same applies to the cattle farmers. During the last twelve months the price of stock has not only not been consistent, but there is a downward tendency. If the same downward tendency should develop further in respect of other agricultural products as well, the state will find itself faced with such a state of affairs that it will have to step in, unless it is prepared to see a large section of the farmers go under. I take the mealie farmers as an instance, because the mealie crop is close on hand. The export price of mealies is 5s. 5d. and the crop is small—many of the farmers have not even got half a crop. If no steps are taken to push the price of mealies up a large proportion of the mealie farmers will have to go under, not merely because the price of mealies has gone down, but because the prices of their requirements have gone up. It has been stated here on previous occasions that the price of bags has during the last few months gone up by 100 per cent, and the price of fuel, affecting farmers who work with machinery, has also gone up considerably. So far as the price of bone meal and phosphates are concerned the Minister is aware of the fact—I am speaking of the Transvaal now — that we were able to obtain bone meal for £7 10s. per ton, whereas we have to pay £10 10s. per ton to-day, an increase of 50 per cent. Will the Minister tell me where the farmer is going to land if there is an increase in price in respect of what he has to buy, and a reduction in price in respect of the products he has to sell. Now I come to the Budget and I find that the Government does not propose doing anything in that respect to come to the aid of the farmers, in spite of the fact that the assistance which used to be given in the past is being greatly reduced. It is being reduced step by step, and I feel that the Minister of Finance should give his most serious attention to this aspect of the case, because I warn him that if he does not do so South Africa will land in a condition which will be simply fatal. There is another question I wish to put in this respect; is the state taking full advantage of the wealth of the country in order to tackle the country’s problems insofar as the State is obliged to do so? We are at the moment in the first year of this war, and we see from the Budget that the Government is providing £14,000,000 for the war. If the war continues for three, four or five years, and if what the Minister of Defence expects does actually happen, that we shall be actively engaged in the war, it may easily be found that our annual expenditure will not be £14,000,000 but a great deal more, and that at the end of the war we may have spent possibly £100,000,000 or £150,000,000 in connection with the war. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that this £14,000,000 which is to be spent this first year could have been spent a great deal better if, instead of having declared war against an imaginary enemy, he had declared war against an enemy who was actually facing us, namely against poor whiteism. Poor whiteism is a much greater enemy so far as we are concerned than anything menacing us from Europe. Increasing poverty is a much more serious enemy. We pride ourselves on the fact that we have a rich country, and we talk about gold production, we pride ourselves on the fact that South Africa is more flourishing than any other country in the world, but at the same time we talk all day long about those 300,000 or 400,000 poor whites which we have in this country. I do not wish to blame any particular Government for that fact; every Government so far has hesitated to tackle this problem really seriously. But I put this question to myself: in view of the fact that this Government in consequence of the depreciation of our money has more means at its disposal than any other Government has had so far — is it not its duty to take advantage of this position with a view to tackling this problem systematically, and if necessary to take immediate steps for a solution of this evil? We often hear talk of ten-year plans and five-year plans, and I ask whether the day has not arrived for us to tackle this problem systematically. If we do not do so, I am afraid it will continue to attack the root of our national existence, and the whole of the white civilisation of this country will eventually be endangered, if this cancer is allowed to spread the way it is doing. It is not for me at this stage to suggest any schemes. The matter is so comprehensive and so important that I say the time has come for me to put the question whether a systematic investigation should not be made so that the whole question can be thoroughly and systematically dealt with? Rehabilitation work has to be undertaken in respect of the 300,000 poor whites, and it can only be done in one way, and that is by the State stepping in and taking advantage of its great wealth to do that kind of work. It would be of no use for the church and other institutions to try and do it. There is only one body which can deal with it, and that is the State, which has control over the revenue of the country. That is the only body able to deal with the position. It is no use doing only rehabilitation work, because that will not kill the root of the evil, and that is what we have to try and do here. The State must make use of the means at its disposal to reach the evil in all its branches, and once it has done so it must destroy the evil, root and branch. I do not propose going into all the causes of poor whiteism; I only wish to mention one important source of poverty, and that is farming. If we go to the slums in our towns, if we look at the tens of thousands of poor people employed on the railways, in our forest plantations, and on our roads, we know that by far the majority of those people come from the rural districts. They have failed on the Platteland. I am not concerned at the moment with the causes of their failure. The fact remains that they have been unable to carry on in the Platteland because they could no longer make an economic living there. They have been forced to leave the land. I am not going to discourse on the reasons—I shall only mention one reason; and that reason will result in quite a number of other farmers failing on the Platteland. This brings me back to the point of dropping prices for farming products on the one side and rising production costs on the other side. These factors alone will, if no remedy is found, cause thousands and thousands of farmers to be ruined. This is a matter of the greatest importance, and it is the first cause which the Government should start with. And now I wish to say a few words about the fact that in this Budget the Government has given no indication whatsoever of its intentions to cope with this evil, which is threatening the farmer, the existence of the farmer, and particularly the mealie farmer. I have already said that other obligations also rest on the Government, namely, to ensure that right and justice shall be done in this country. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice is in his seat because he is the man in particular who has to see that right and justice and a healthy spirit shall be maintained in this country. I have in mind the action taken by him to establish the so-called order of “knights of the truth” in South Africa. I have stated that it is the Government’s duty to preserve a good spirit in this country. Now I wish to put a question to the Minister of Justice, because this is a matter which falls under him more than under the Minister of Defence: Does the Minister imagine that by establishing this order of people, who throughout South Africa are taking up such an attitude that they are creating a feeling of suspicion, who are going about and creating suspicions against other people, who are carrying stories and rumours to the Government—does the Minister imagine that that sort of thing creates a healthy spirit in this country? As a result of the actions of these so-called knights of the truth a spirit of hatred and malice is being developed, such as we have never before had in South Africa. This is even spreading to individual families, where brother is being put up against brother.

And you encourage it?

No, we do not encourage or foster it. I hope that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) will assist us to put an end to that sort of thing, because it is one of the most pernicious evils in South Africa. It is causing hatred and malice which will live for generations. I want to ask the rt. hon. the Prime Minister to consider this state of affairs very seriously, and to put an end to it. He is not going to achieve anything by it. If the object is to scare the Afrikaner in South Africa so that he shall not express his convictions, then I tell the Prime Minister that he will not achieve that object, but that that sort of thing will only lead to hatred and malice. I say this because I know some of those people—I know many of those people who pose as knights of the truth, and who have to carry on this work on behalf of the Government. I say that in many instances they are people of such poor standing that one can expect nothing from their actions but results which will lead to a feeling of hatred and malice. Some of them are of the worst type imaginable. The Minister may not know it. I know that he does not know all of them, and I ask him seriously to consider putting an end to this state of affairs. He will render South Africa, and the Afrikaner nation a service by putting an end to it. The task of those knights of the truth apparently is to try to find out everything they can against Afrikaners and to carry tales to the Government. We shall be unable to maintain right and justice, and a good spirit in South Africa, if that sort of thing is allowed to continue. There is another aspect of the matter which I wish to bring to the Government’s notice, and more particularly to the notice of the Minister of Justice. That is the compulsion which is being directly and indirectly brought to bear on Union citizens against their convictions and against their desires, to join up with the Government’s various war regiments. If a man on his own initiative joins voluntarily, I have no objection. I am speaking here of compulsion which is being directly and indirectly applied to people in order to, force them to join up. I have a circular letter here which was sent out to the engineers and other people supervising the construction of national roads, and I shall quote this letter in full. It reads as follows—

1. (1) A scheme for the militarisation of the road units under this department by the formation of road construction and maintenance companies, associated with the South African Corps is at present under consideration.
2. (2) When a definite decision has been reached further instructions will be issued.
3. (3) In the meantime this department cannot release any employees for full time military service; henceforth, therefore, any officials or national road employees who may wish to leave with a view to volunteering for full time military service elsewhere, should be informed that they cannot be released.

It is not only the sending of such a circular letter in which notification is given that military units in connection with the construction of national and provincial roads are to be created, but the senior officials now go from the one place to the other on the national and provincial roads, and they want to know whether those people are prepared to join up. The Prime Minister will say that those people are not obliged to join up if they do not want to. But victimisation follows if they do not join up. As the authorities are inviting the men to join up, indirect compulsion is being exercised. If the official has the courage of his convictions and refuses, no doubt is left to him —he is going to suffer for it. I again ask the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice, whether they think that that kind of compulsion, however indirect it may be, tends to promote a good spirit in South Africa? No, if the Government carries on in that manner it can rest assured that it will cause more bad blood in South Africa between the different elements of the population than any Government has ever done in the past. Let them differ from each other. It is the Government’s policy to carry on with the war. Let it do so, but not in this way, by exercising direct or indirect compulsion on people.

The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) at the end of his speech to-day drew the attention of the Government to the declaration of policy which has recently been made by Mr. MacDonald on behalf of the British Government. According to that declaration, the British Government is committing itself to the abolition of colour bars in the Colonial Empire. The hon. member wanted to know the attitude of our Government to this policy. Now it is not for me to answer the question which the hon. member for Delarey put to the Prime Minister, even if I could. But I should like to take the opportunity to provide the hon. member with a little information which might enable him to judge the circumstances which caused the Imperial Government to take that decision. For the last two or three years, the British Government has found itself in its West Indian colonies face to face with a condition of unrest breaking out into open revolt almost entirely due to the poverty of the people—due to the exploitation of people which has been permitted and has been carried on for generations without consideration for the victims of this exploitation. The hon. member can confirm that if he cares to look at the Imperial Blue Book for himself. I advise him to do so because I think the lessons from the West Indies would be very useful to hon. members in this House, and to people in this country when they are considering this question of colour bars. Then the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) worked himself up into a great passion about the social evils existing in our towns, and the tendencies of our native youth to run riot in these towns. I am sorry the hon. member is not here, because I should have liked to express in his presence my hope that it was pure passion and not merely the floggin of colour prejudice. If he is genuine, I think he will understand and appreciate what the answer to the challenge he has given to the Minister of Native Affairs in regard to juvenile delinquencies, and adults running amok in our towns, is likely to be which is that the cure for these evils is to be found in a more generous attitude towards our non-European population, which will enable them to develop their minds and their hands, and absorb their energies in legitimate channels instead of finding themselves thrown out into the streets. There is a way of dealing with the problem of native booliganism; but it means more wages for the family so that mothers can stay at home to look after their small children, that bigger children can be sent to school when they should be there; and finally it means that avenues of employment shall be opened to African youth that will absorb their energies and their interests legitimately and healthily. And now I wish to turn to the matters I planned to bring forward myself on this occasion. My colleague, the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming), made an appeal to this House on behalf of the native workers, that they should have some share in the prosperity which they have been largely instrumental in producing for South Africa; and, in particular, he appealed on behalf of the mine workers. Well, sir, I wish to remind the hon. minister of Finance that he has himself, in public, been sympathetic towards the cause of these native workers. Indeed it is not very long since he declared his conviction that the time was long overdue when native mine workers should be given some recognition of their services to the community. I am only reminding him of this at this moment because it has been the practice in the last few years, when the mining industry has been challenged in this regard, to reply by stating the inability of the mines to increase native wages because the Government has taxed the industry beyond its capacity to meet this demand. Now I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister kept this in mind when he planned this new scheme of mining taxation. I hope that he has visualised a rise in native wages as one of those rising costs of the industry that he is prepared to concede; in fact I hope it is one of those costs the rise of which he has specifically encouraged. But there is a direction in which I think the Government has a responsibility of its own in this matter of native wages, that is as an employer of labour. I fancy it is a little difficult for our Government to lecture any private enterprise on the subject of native wages. It has been said, and I think with fairly good authority behind it, that the Government is among the worst employers in this country, although I am glad to think that at the present time the Department of Railways is attempting to set its house in order in this respect. I wish I could say the same for the other Government departments. My colleague has pointed out that the Government does not provide very much employment for natives and non-Europeans, but those that it does employ are happy indeed if they ever get beyond the munificent wage of £4 a month. I have still to learn that, in suite of the magnificent profits made by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that that department has revised its wage scale which now rises from £24 to £48, but takes I don’t know how many years to reach the £48 mark. Now, sir, I feel that this situation cannot continue. If the Government is going to take any stand against private employers in this matter, and it must take a stand, it cannot continue to countenance these low wage scales, which tend to aggravate those problems which have repeatedly been referred to in this House, the problems of malnutrition and poverty in this country. That poverty begins, I am quite sure, with these low wage scales for native workers, which gradually reach up to the levels of European employment. That brings me to the particular point which I wish to put to the hon. minister of Finance, and it follows properly on what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has said. The hon. member has been challenging the Government on the extent of poverty in this country, and demanding, in forcible terms, that the Government should solve this problem in order to save the Afrikaner people. I don’t know whether the Government can solve this problem for the Afrikaner people, or for anybody else, but it can take a useful step in that direction, and it is incumbent upon it to do so. Now we hear a great deal about the extent of poverty in this country, but I doubt if we in any way visualise just how big that problem is. I doubt if the Government realises what poverty really exists in South Africa. I was startled, and I think most hon. members of this House will be startled in their turn, at the results of an analysis I have just made of the old-age pensions position. I do not know whether the hon. minister of Finance has made any analysis of the figures relating to old-age pensions. I have taken the trouble to do so, and I find that out of the European population which reaches the age of sixty, four out of every ten persons are incapable of standing on their own feet. That is to say, that 40 per cent. of the elderly people of our European population, 40 per cent. of our supposedly privileged minority in this country, cannot stand on their own feet and have to fall back on public support. With all the wealth of this country 40 per cent. of our European population who survive until the old-age pension age cannot stand on their own feet, and that in a country whose wealth is the envy of all the other countries in the world Forty per cent. of our elderly European people have not been able to earn enough in their working years to make it possible for them to sit down in comfort on the fruits of their own labours in their old age. That, however, is only one aspect of the ramifications of this problem of poverty in this country, and I suggest that the time has come when we should try to realise what poverty actually amounts to in this country. To do this I suggest that, first of all, we should try to discover the immediate financial cost of present relief services. That should mean not merely what can be regarded directly as poor relief services, such as poor relief, old-age pensions, inability pensions and mothers’ grants, but also indirect assistance to poverty, such as hospitals which we have to provide for the poor, hostels for low-paid wage earners, crêches for the children of mothers who must go out to work, and I should also add the cost of our prisons, because I am satisfied that most of the population of these prisons are largely the products of poverty. I would remind the House that from 12,000 to 13,000 of our non-European children still go to gaol every year as juvenile delinquents, and juvenile delinquency is largely the result of poverty. To that calculation then I would add the growing cost of private charity in this country. I think this must be one of the most generous countries in the world in the matter of private charity. In a place like Johannesburg the number of appeals that go out and the variety of methods of assistance are unbelievable. Finally one must add to all this the cost to the country in loss of efficiency of all these people who have to be maintained by outside’ assistances. That in itself must be an enormous cost to a small country of this kind. Then, sir, to realise finally the cost of our poverty, we must calculate what it would mean to supply those services to all the community that we supply now to one small section, and on the same scale. If we could visualise the financial burden that would be cast on the country in order to provide a population of 10,000,000 with the services now available for our Europeans, of 2,000,000, I think we should then be able to take a proper view of the situation. And having made all these calculations, we must then consider the extent of the burden we are now carrying, the extent to which it is growing and not receding, to what extent we can afford to carry such a burden, and to what extent we should carry this burden, that is to what extent we are justified in loading the state with the enormous financial burden of poverty, disease and disability, and to what extent it is incumbent upon us to apply our energies and our imagination to finding some way out.

What is the way out?

The way out is a matter for investigation. There are various suggestions I could make. In the last twenty years we have had various commissions. I am not for one moment suggesting the appointment of another commission, because the recommendations of previous commissions have been forgotten, and I see no particular advantage in appointing another commission to, be forgotten in the same way But at present we stand on the eve of a new period in our national life and I think it is the time to make a new investigation. In the last thirty years we have gone forward with a phenomenal industrial development, and that industrial development has been consciously dictated by the intention to provide adequate means of livelihood for the European population of this country. Some members of this House will remember that the first post-Union industrial commission in 1911 was given express responsibility for considering how we could expand our industrial life so as to provide a sound and adequate standard of living for the white population of this country. And what have we? We have this spreading evil of poverty. I venture to say that instead of cur branching out into greater general prosperity South Africa has been ceasing to be a high-wage country and has progressively been becoming a low-wage country. Actually the Government is trying to do something in this matter. We have had, since the outbreak of this war, the appointment of a number of new bodies upon whom we have placed the responsibility of analysing our economic interests and directing our economic development. We have got a National Supply Control Board to try to, regulate the cost of food; we have now operating a commission inquiring into our agricultural and industrial requirements, and we are having £5,000,000 set aside for an Industrial Development Corporation. That is we are seeing an effort to explore our national resources. Now I suggest that what is lacking in this scheme of development is any sort of analysis of our human resources. I feel that more and more we are losing sight of the human factor in our national life. We are failing to correlate our economic life with the social needs of the community. That is the obvious gap in our present organisation. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance should consider the possibility of establishing —although I am somewhat loath to suggest any more boards or councils—but we have had so many boards and councils that I confidently suggest that there should be some correlating board or council that will attempt to bring our economic life into line with our social responsibilities. This should not be a purely economic council. It should be an economic and social council which would help to correlate the activities of all our departments and to help to do for our national life what past commissions have failed to do, namely, to build it on a more solid foundation. I am satisfied that the proposal of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) will not solve the problem. The hon. member says that we should put the people back on the land. We have been putting the people back on the land, to the best of our ability, for the last 30 years. But any industrial development ought to raise the standard of living both for the country and for the town. The drift to the town should really mean a rise in the standard of life all round. It is because of the tendency of this House to put forward such sectional proposal as that of the hon. member for Waterberg that I urge upon the Minister the desirability of getting some sort of co-ordinating advisory board which will take into consideration town problems alongside country problems, and so try to build up our national life with a correlation of the two, which alone can lead to any peaceful growth.

I am taking part in this debate so as to emphasise certain points and certain views touched upon and expressed by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) in his reply to the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance. I am doing so for the simple reason that these matters will become subjects of the greatest importance to the state in the future. The subjects are not such that they will be finished and done with to-day, but they are of such a nature that if they prove themselves to be detrimental to the state, we shall be stuck with them for years, and nobody can say for how long. I first of all wish to draw attention to the way the Minister of Finance is using the surplus—he is going to use it for the purpose of the war and for the purpose of meeting war expenditure. I can hardly conceive of any principle which may prove more detrimental to a sound financial policy. We only have to cast our minds back to the past and see what was done with these surpluses in days gone by. The surpluses have been used, and quite rightly so, not in order to cover current expenditure from year to year, but for the purpose of redeeming our capital debt. All of us know what we have been able to achieve by means of that policy in the past. The money went into the coffers of the public debt commissioners and they used it to keep down those great burdens which have been increasing from year to year and to keep those burdens as low as possible. The Minister of Finance told the House that his system was one of “pay as we go along.” It is very easy to say “we pay as we go along.” If we were to take all the assets possessed by the state, with the exception of surpluses, and if we were to pay for the war out of those assets, it would be still easier to say “we pay for things as we go along.” No, we are not paying for things “as we go along,” but what we are doing “as we go along,” is that we are not only accumulating debts for the present, but we are accumulating debts for the future, although the Minister told us that the future would remain unburdened. Oh no, those burdens for the future are being increased in the same way as our own expenditure is being increased by the war. In this regard I cannot say anything except that if we are to go on paying our war debts in that way, we shall also have to do so in other similar cases, and we may then rest assured that in the near future we are going to have a policy laid down by a Government whose object will be wherever possible to secure a surplus which can be carried over to the next year, to cover the expenditure of that year, knowing that they will otherwise have to meet that expenditure out of other sources in accordance with sound financial principles. It is perfectly evident that a policy of this kind cannot be approved of as being financially sound and it is for that reason that since 1924 the Union has always pursued a course of laying it down that those surpluses were to be used for the purposes which I have already indicated and not for the current expenditure of that year, or in the event of war for the payment of the costs of such war. If hon. members ask whether war expenditure should come out of loan account, I say, yes, certainly, as far as such is necessary, but do not follow the practice of laying it down that these war costs are to be paid out of surpluses. That is point number one. I now come to the second point, namely, the departure from the policy which was laid down in respect of this profit on gold above the fixed price of 150s. per ounce. I at once want to draw attention to the fact that in this respect there has been a departure from a policy which was adopted by a Government of which no fewer than five of the present Ministers, including the present Prime Minister, were members, and that that policy was unanimously approved of by them. For what reason that policy was departed from I do not know, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will not take it amiss if I say this—that I cannot accept his excuses. No, there must have been other very good reasons besides those which he gave us. The reasons now given by him were there at the time when our original policy was laid down, but those reasons were taken into account and provision was made for them, and those five Ministers — the Minister of Finance fortunately or unfortunately was not one of them—but those five Ministers all agreed. I want to know what induced them to change their views so suddenly on a matter of such great importance to the people. That is why I refer to this matter and wish to emphasise this point because it is of such tremendous importance to the people to-day, and because I am afraid that, as the Minister will find out to his cost, it is going to be of greater importance still in the future. To my mind the Minister has set about things in an irresponsible manner, because after he himself had adduced reasons in his speech why this change should not be made, he came back later on to it and said quite airily, “There are other reasons why I am going to change this policy.” At this juncture I want to refer to what actually happened—we should look into the whole of this transaction. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) a few minutes ago dealt with this matter, but I wish to refer to it again and I want to point out that we are concerned here with money which comes out of a premium above 150s. per ounce which would therefore go to the Government. On the 30th August last a statement was made by the then Minister of Finance, my hon. friend sitting on my left here, in which it was definitely stated, as approved of by the whole of the Government, that this money belonged to the State and to nobody else, and that this money should go to the State and to nobody else, not to the mines or to the shareholders. I am only pointing out that there was not a single reason for this money going to the shareholders because where does this money come from? What is the cause, to whose efforts is the creation of this premium due? The Minister concerned referred to this at the time when he said that these profits had been brought into being as a result of a stroke of the pen by the Minister of Finance. Yes exactly, but such a stroke does not at once produce the money. Where does the money come from? The money comes out of the pockets of those people whose money is depreciated by that stroke of the pen, and if it could be done in a practical manner, the whole of the premium should be given to those to whom all the money belongs, to all the people whose money has been depreciated by the action of the Government. We know that, but as that is not possible, the only body entitled to that money is the State. We accepted that— the whole Government did, all the Ministers and all the hon. members behind the Government, and we have not yet heard from anyone, we have not heard from any of the hon. members opposite that they differed from the Minister of Finance in this respect—consequently we can say that all the Ministers sitting opposite had agreed and admitted that this money, this premium belonged to the State. I wish to emphasise this, that here we were dealing with money belonging to the State. The action taken by the Government at that time is not the kind of action which one can just go on taking at any time. The Minister of Finance will find that out, and the action which he has now taken is one on which he cannot go back. He will find it impossible for all practical purposes to go back upon it. If he thinks he can do so, he will find out that he cannot. He will have to ask himself what the consequences are going to be to the people who in the meantime have come along and have in a bona fide way invested their money in shares—he will have to ask himself what will happen to them if he tries to revert to the previous position, and thereby depreciates their assets. I say that a step has been taken by the Minister on which he will find it impossible to go back. He told us here that if it should be found necessary, we Would be able to take other steps, and he gave me the impression that he would be ready to say, “We have given this, but in the circumstances we are going to take it back.” I say that he will not be able to do so. We have already read in the papers about the boom which took place immediately after the Minister’s announcement. What does that mean? We must take it that a large proportion of shares have already changed hands, and I am anxious to see how the Minister of Finance of today, who has been so easily persuaded into taking this step, is going to go back on that decision. No, it is for that reason that I say that a fatal step has been taken here by which the State is giving away £3,000,000 a year. And for how long? That we do not know yet. It may be that this £3.000.000 will still go a great deal further, although we pray that such may not be the case. A step has been taken here, as a result of which State property has been given away without any good reason for it. The reason given, namely that we must enable the Mines to work low-grade ore, well, as my hon. friend on my left (Mr. Havenga) has already said, if the necessary millions are given to the mines, they will later on be in a position to work ore even of 1 dwt. Why not? If the Government is prepared to present me with the necessary money for the purpose, I shall go to my farm and produce gold there. Why not? No, it is ridiculous, and a reason of that kind, can simply not be accepted. The mines are not entitled to that money, they cannot claim it, and on a previous occasion they actually admitted that to be so. And why the Government should now proceed to give them further money, is something we cannot understand. Let me tell hon. members this. The Minister of Finance has told us that working costs have gone up so much. By that statement the Minister put a rod in pickle for himself which is going to make the position very difficult for him in days to come. Let me show what it is going to mean to him. The Minister will have to answer the question which my hon. friend on my left has put to him, namely what evidence there is that the working costs of the mines have risen to such an extent as to make it necessary for that money to be given to them? Where does the evidence of that rise in costs come from? Let us see what is going to happen if no evidence to that effect can be produced. One thing is quite certain, he is now going to have this position, that the daily labourers and the mine workers will go to the mine owners in the first place and eventually they will come to him and they will tell him that they also want a higher wage. They will go to the mines and ask for a higher wage, and if they are unable to get it from the mines, they will do what they did on a former occasion, they will go to the Minister concerned and they will tell him that they want higher wages. Is he going to tell them then that the costs of living have not gone up? If they have gone up, I want to know from him how he knows that working costs have gone up? But now I only want to say this to the Minister, that he can expect those people to come along and ask for higher wages, and I want to point this out to him. The mine workers of the Rand have approached the Government on more than one occasion with claims that they are entitled to a share in the gold premium, and a share in those profits made as a result of the depreciation of sterling. They have approached me more than once and until quite recently my reply to them, which was a most effective reply, was this— that we were dealing with an asset of the State and that the State is not entitled to make a present of any State assets to any portion of the population. They had to admit that that answer closed the case. But what is the Minister of Finance now going to tell those people if they approach him? He is here giving away millions of pounds to the mines, and this will go on for some considerable time—it will not stop this year. And those people will come along to him and say “If the mines are entitled to a donation from the State out of that money then we are also entitled to it,” and I do feel that if there is a section of the community which has a claim on those grounds, we cannot refuse the claims of that section. But what is the Minister going to tell those people? He has opened the door, and that is where he put a rod in pickle for himself which is going to cause him a lot of trouble. If, however, it were only the Minister who was concerned in this matter we could have laughed at his having dug a hole like that for himself, but the position is more serious than that. Take the position of other people. Take the position of the farmer, and let us bear in mind what the hon. member for Waterberg said a little while ago about the prices at which farmers had to sell their products. Products to the value of about £30,000,000 are sold in this country, and if there should be any further depreciation, or even if the depreciation should remain as it is, farmers are unable to make any profit on their products at those prices. The Minister has no intention of giving the farmers any share of that money. I want to add a few words to what the hon. member for Waterberg has already said. He pointed out that agricultural products to a value of £21,000,000 are being exported, and he told us that further depreciation would benefit that export of products. I only want to point out that that is not so, because I am not convinced that that opinion is correct. If I am not mistaken the prices of all those commodities have been fixed overseas and they are not automatically changed when our pound depreciates. In other words, we have to take it that in regard to farming products exported and also farming products consumed in this country, the farmer in respect of the one as well as in respect of the other would be receiving a lower price for his products. And now I want to say this to the Minister of Finance: You have now given away your surpluses for the purpose of financing the war; you have given away £3,500,000 which could have gone into the exchequer, and which would have been received—I am not going to speak about the present year—but you have given that money away to the mine owners, are you now going to help those other people, are you going to help the farmers? What is the country to expect? And if you do help them in what way are you going to help them? Can you help them in any other way except by imposing further taxation? We have had a taste of this—we have had a taste in advance. The cancellation of this 30 per cent. rebate is nothing but a re-imposition of a tax, and it is the start of what we are to expect for the future. The Government is now waging a war, a war, Mr. Speaker, which, as they say, may, if necessary, last seven or ten years. That does not matter, but the resources to meet the cost of that war, the resources needed for the proper maintenance of those members of the community who will be made to suffer through the war, all those resources are being wiped out. Can we look upon a policy of that kind as being anything but a fatal error? And if it were something new, something which the Government had had to face for the first time, we could still have forgiven the Government, but we have had exactly the same thing on previous occasions. The same condition of affairs has been discussed in this House and elsewhere, and everybody agreed that in principle the right policy was to take everything above 150s. And that was the policy decided upon by the last Government, and that is what the Government insisted upon, but now the ground is being cut away from underneath the Government’s feet, as a result of the Minister’s action, and the Government is surrendering its rights. To my mind this is a real tragedy in the country’s financial policy. Now I just want to say this. My hon. friend on my left has pointed out that it is the Government’s duty to inform the House and the country, and to do so in good time—it is the Government’s duty to inform the House and the country what its policy is going to be if one of these days the value of our currency should be seriously threatened. I want to repeat what my friend said, and I say that the Government is not entitled to refuse to answer this question. That question has to be answered, because to-morrow or the day after tomorrow Parliament is going to be prorogued, and this serious threat may be carried out at any time between the prorogation of this session and the commencement of the next, and it will then be necessary for the Government to take immediate action, and we are entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know what the Government is going to do in such an eventuality. What is more, it should be announced as soon as possible so that if necessary the position may be discussed even during this session. If this is not done, the Government will not be entitled, when the time comes to take financial action, to do so without calling Parliament together for the purpose of especially discussing the matter. As I said at the commencement of my remarks I only wish to emphasise these few points as they involve matters of such importance to the country and because the steps taken by the Government are so bad and so fatal that a word of warning must be uttered. I have emphasised what I cannot describe by any other name but the “bad policy” in regard to the Union’s finances. We do not only feel how detrimental this policy is, we do not only feel that the Government has taken a wrong course, but we wish to direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that this matter deserves his further attention because if he does not deal with it further, and if we carry on along this course on false and bad principles, the Minister will eventually find that his whole financial policy will be affected by the bad policy which he proposes following in this connection.

I beg leave to refer to a subject which has already been debated by this House. It was introduced by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) when he urged the provision of water supplies to the smaller towns and villages of South Africa. The Minister, in his reply, did not give the scheme very much encouragement, but he did say that he would give consideration to a report which on that day had been laid on the Table by the Minister of Public Health. He said that he would give consideration to that report. My excuse for bringing this up again is a notice which has appeared in a Natal newspaper dealing with the very serious shortage of water on the South Coast of Natal. The paper is dated March 6th, and the heading is “South Coast Water Shortage.” It says—

Well, sir, the Minister will realise that that is a very serious state of affairs. Referring to the Minister’s promise to take notice of the recommendations in the report which was referred to and laid on the Table, I have no doubt the Minister has not yet found time to examine that report. But I have examined it, and I beg leave to make some references to it. The report is one relating to administrative areas which are becoming urbanised, but which are not under local government control. The report says—

Then in regard to the need for water supply schemes on the South Coast the report says—

The report refers to three centres which have their own water supplies, between Durban and Port Edward. In that area, which comprises the South Coast, there are 44 villages in all, so that only three out of the 44 have their own water supply. It goes on to say—

hon. members will realise that this is a very serious situation. Then the report goes on to refer to the difficulties of developing schemes—

It then goes on to refer to minor local authorities who have no authority to embark on water schemes, and furthermore those who have made application to the Provincial authorities for authority to introduce water schemes have been denied that right. Then I would like to refer to the evidence of the Durban Publicity Association on this subject, where it says that the Natal South Coast is becoming an “all-year holiday playground,” and goes on to say that it is estimated that during last year 250,000 people holidayed at Durban, and probably a further 100,000 spent their vacations at the resorts along the coast, covering an area as far as Port Edward. Next I come to the recommendations contained in this report on this subject of water supplies for the smaller towns—

I agree. I think it would be unfortunate if the Government approved of loans to small towns all over the country. It goes on to say—

Now, sir, I am coming to the end of the recommendations. It refers to the threefold scheme, i.e. the three centres on the South Coast which have their own schemes—

These are the recommendations to the committee appointed by the Government to investigate these and other matters. It would appear from this report that the representations made by the hon. member for Weenen and other speakers, including myself, have been fully justified, and I hope the Minister will realise that this is the case. I am not pleading only for the South Coast. I look upon this as a matter of national concern, and I hope when the Minister takes this in hand he will take a big view of the question. We have competent water engineers in this country, and they can be employed to investigate the whole position and take a broad view, the same broad view that the Government took some years ago in regard to the electrical supply of the country. There is one other matter to which I should like to refer before I resume my seat. That is the question of the very dirty and unhygienic banknotes circulated in South Africa. I brought this question up a year ago, and I am sorry to say that the then Minister of Public Health, to whom I addressed my remarks, took no notice of my representations. I do not think that anybody will deny that the notes in circulation in South Africa are in a very disgusting condition. When I brought the matter up on a previous occasion I dealt with the hygienic aspect of the case. I also appeal to the Minister of Finance in this matter. These notes are issued by the Reserve Bank, which is virtually a Government monopoly, and I think if pressure were brought to bear upon the Reserve Bank by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of Public Health, something could be done in the matter. As a rule, when any hon. member brings forward a proposal for a reform in South Africa it is generally accompanied with a request for a big expenditure of money. This request of mine, and this reform, will involve no expenditure of money at all. I had the privilege, a little over a year ago, of being shown over one of the Reserve Banks, and I raised this matter with the Manager. The Manager told me that the Reserve Bank had huge stocks of new notes, and was eager to exchange them for the dirty notes in circulation. But he said the trouble was that the dirty notes seldom reached the Reserve Bank. He said they went round in a vicious circle and never found their way into the coffers of the Reserve Bank. I should like to make this proposal. I think the Minister of Finance should bring pressure to bear on the Reserve Bank to organise some scheme whereby the dirty notes are returned to the Reserve Bank and exchanged for new clean ones. I suggest further that the commercial banks and other large financial institutions in South Africa should be invited to cooperate with the Reserve Bank in this matter, and I am sure, if that were done, and it became a daily routine for the banks to return the dirty notes to the Reserve Bank, we should very soon have clean notes in circulation. This may seem, to some people, a trivial matter, but it is not a trivial matter. I should like to refer to a letter which appeared in a Cape Town paper on the 24th of last month, and I will read a paragraph from it—

I think that letter speaks for itself. I am sure that this reform could be introduced, for if there is a will there is a way. If it is brought about I can assure hon. members that everybody in South Africa will be very thankful. We are sick and tired of handling these dirty, filthy notes. We claim to be a civilised country, but I claim that no civilised country would allow such notes to be in circulation.

Anyone who listened to the remarks by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) must have been struck by a phenomenon which always occurs when any member joins the Party sitting on the other side of the House. He immediately becomes an advocate of the cause of the mines. The hon. member was very much concerned over the mines and he told us that if the taxation system, introduced by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) had not been changed, five or six mines would have had to close down. The hon. member is greatly concerned over that, but if thousands of farmers have to close down it does not worry him at all. I want to point out that as a result of the change introduced by the Minister of Finance, shares have gone up, the profits on which go to the mine owners and the shareholders. As against that we have the abolition of the 30 per cent. rebate on income tax. This is a tax on the middleman, the man who can afford it least of all, and he is the man who will now have to pay for the war. We can raise £14,000,000 so as to carry on the war for a year. This brings me to the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) who threw out his chest and said he was proud of the fact—he also told us that we should spend money every year on defence matters—he told us that we should spend money so as to be able to attack the enemy in his own territory.

I did not say that. I said that it was better to fight the enemy in his own country.

I asked the hon. member which country he had in mind.

I have the past in my mind.

No, he said that it was better to spend the money so that we could fight the enemy in his own country. Who is the enemy? Germany is not coming here and surely we cannot be expected to go and fight in Germany. All the colonial territory is in the hands of the Allies. The only territory which the hon. member can have in mind is Abyssinia, but does he want us to go and fight a war in Abyssinia now? What other territory can we have in mind where he wants us to go and fight the enemy? I say that while we are able to spend £14,000,000 for that sort of thing we have no money available for our own people when they are in need of help. The Minister of Finance in his criticism of the Budget last year said that it was not a poor man’s Budget, and now I want to ask him where he is doing more for the poor man in this Budget than the previous Minister did in last year’s Budget? We talk about the solution of the poor white question, and when we bear in mind the fact that the number of poor whites have increased so that to-day there are about 300,000 up to 400,000 of them, I ask what the Government is doing in order to relieve the position of those people? We have £14,000,000 to spend on war, but we have no money to uplift our own people and to help them. Imagine the position of a man with a wife and three or four children— what is his wage? I am speaking about unskilled labourers who are getting 5s., 6s. up to a maximum of 7s. per day. This means that that man earns from £5 to £9 per month—how can that man be expected to maintain the standard of white civilisation? How can we hope that such a man will not deteriorate? We have been told by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) and by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) what should be done in order to provide facilities for vocational training for these people. We want more vocational training and we want more facilities to be given so that in days to come there will be no need to import people from overseas, and we shall be able to give employment to our own people. But what is happening to-day? I myself have had experience in this regard, and other members, I am sure, have had similar experience—I have had to wait for a year to get the child of a poor man admitted to an industrial school because there was no room. But if a child has to wait a whole year, other plans are made in the meantime for him, he cannot wait as long as that, and he takes on other work with the result that he remains an unskilled labourer all his life. Children of that kind usually do not progress beyond Standard VI, and after that they usually return to the farms. But there is no money available to train them, yet if £14,000,000 has to be spent on the war, that money can be procured, although there are no funds to be found to assist our poor people. I believe I am right when I say that in Australia and New Zealand the minimum wage for unskilled labourers is 12s. per day. If that is so, why should we not give a higher wage to our unskilled labourers in this country? Whom do we want to protect? The poor man, or the rich man, who exploits the poor man to get as much work as possible out of him for as little money as possible. I hope the Government is going to spend as much money for our poor people, our own people, as they are spending on the war, and I want to remind hon. members that these poor people are their own people. The hon. member for Frankfort laughs, but apparently he has no sympathy with his own people. He is one of those who are more British than the Britishers themselves. All they think of is the country which is 6,000 miles away from here. They never think of their own people. When we ask for help for our own people, we are told. “Where has the money to come from?” but where does the money come from which we are spending on the war? Could we not spend that money on uplifting our poor people? It is no use talking all day long of the upliftment of our poor and then doing nothing. Take our irrigation schemes. They have been put off because there is no money, and schemes which have actually been approved of are being put aside because there is no money, but there is ample money for the war. Those schemes to which I have been referring, irrigation and other schemes, would have helped the farmers, and would have provided work for those men at wages which they are unable to earn to-day. The white man is being replaced in the towns by coloured people who come from the rural districts, and the result is that the farmers in the country districts are unable to get coloured labour, so that they have to use white labour. That is what is happening to-day. I want hon. members opposite to look at conditions in the farming industry to-day, and to compare those conditions with what they were 25 years ago. In my district—and that position prevails throughout the country—80 per cent. of the people used to be quite independent and without debts. But what is the position to-day? If you get 10 per cent. among the farming population without debt it will be a lot. And what is the cause of this deterioration? Surely they are not all poor farmers, not incompetent—surely one is not going to say that from 80 to 90 per cent. of our farmers are incompetent. No, their position is due to factors and occurrences over which they have no control—it is factors beyond their control which have caused them to deteriorate, and what is the Government doing to improve that position? It is stated, and I think the hon. member for Frankfort said this: “Can England be blamed for making profits on our wool?” I certainly blame England if in times like the present they take away from our farmers what our farmers are entitled to get. The hon. member is quite content that England should make a profit, and he stated that if our Government had the money it should also have bought wool and it should also have made a profit on that wool. At whose expense? Naturally, at the expense of the farmer. The hon. member further stated that he was so satisfied with the increased price of 19d, which he had got for his wool that he had no reason to complain. But does he expect the farmer to be satisfied with pre-war prices while all his requirements have gone up by 25 to 100 per cent. and even more? Does he not realise that the farmer if he has to pay these higher prices for what he needs, must also get higher prices for his products? The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) stated that the farmer paid too high a rate of interest, and that we should do something to rehabilitate the farmer. He admits that something has to be done for the rehabilitation of the farmer, and he admits that the means employed in the past, however well intended they were, were only palliatives and had not saved the farmer. The farmer to-day is in a position where he cannot help himself, and there is only one body which can do anything and that is the Government. Money is required for that purpose, but instead of spending that money on the farmer the Government is spending £14,000,000 on the war, with which we have no concern. If this war should continue for three years it will not be a matter of £14,000,000 per year, but it will cost us double that amount. We shall have to find that money, and it will be found, yet there is no money available to maintain farming on a decent basis. Heaven help the farmers if they have to go and look for somebody on the other side to plead their cause. It is only on this side that they can find somebody to stand up for them, and we say to members opposite that they are in a position to save the farming community, but they refuse to do anything for the farmer. It has been said that we must improve the farmers’ markets in order to save them, yet nothing has been done in that direction. What is the position of our meat trade, what is the position of our cattle and stock that are being sent to the large towns? Our stock, our cattle, fall into the hands of speculators. Hon. members opposite must not come and accuse me that I am referring to the Jews when I speak of speculators. I do not begrudge this speculator a reasonable profit, but I do object to his buying the farmer’s stock at less than production costs and then making such enormous profit. Cannot the Government make an enquiry into what is done in countries like Australia in regard to matters of this kind? Cannot the Government be guided by what is happening elsewhere, so as to improve the position in this country? No, they have no time for that, because we are at war, and all our time and money have to be spent in order to prosecute the war. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, (Central) (Col. Wares) smiles. But take the Land Bank. The interest rate has been put up from 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent.—and that has been done in spite of the fact that the City Council of Cape Town has now issued a loan at 3¾ per cent. The hon. member for Griqualand stated here that the farmer was paying a high rate of interest, but he will have to pay a still higher rate of interest now, because the fact that the Land Bank has raised the rate of interest by ½ per cent. will have the effect of other money lenders also raising their rate of interest. One of the manager of the Land Bank said the other day that unless the Land Bank obtained additional funds from the Government a maximum would have to be fixed for all loans. For the time being they have fixed the maximum at £1,500 but they are going further into the matter and they may take further steps when they hear what they are to get from the Government. In the past the amount which the Land Bank could grant was unlimited; now they are going to limit loans to £1,500, unless the Government is prepared to do something and grant additional funds to the Land Bank. If the Government is in a position to spend £14,000,000 on the war, it surely should have enough money to provide for the needs of the farmer, to enable him to carry on with his farming. The Government should not use all its money in prosecuting a war with which we have no concern. I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). He spoke about certain letters sent by members of Parliament to Jews. The one letter was dated 1925 and another one was dated 1927. In those letters Jews are thanked for what they have done during the elections. Let me remind the House that in 1925 we had no such thing as a Jewish question in South Africa. It only cropped up in 1928 and after that, and it was in 1930 that the Quota Act was introduced. I should also like to say that we are not against the Jews in the country, but we are opposed to the stream of immigrants entering South Africa. I was in Australia some time ago and I tried to find out the size of the Jewish population there, and so far as I was able to ascertain out of a population of 8,000,000 whites there were not more than 30,000 Jews. I should like to know what the size of the Jewish population is out of our total white population of 2,000,000. I hope the hon. member for Springs will realise that in those days we did not have the Jewish problem which we have in this country to-day.

To begin with I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). I have no intention of being personal because he is an old friend of mine, and in his time he rendered good service when he used to plead the cause of the farmers. I am only very sorry that he should get so cross when he speaks here. He reminds me of an old hunting dog I had. I have put up a trap for vermin, and the other day he was caught in that trap, and when I released him he bit me. The hon. member for Kimberley is trapped by the Unionists, and now he wants to bite us whenever he gets up to speak, although we try to get him out of the trap. Still, there is no need for him to be so embittered. He was unfortunate to land among the Unionists. It is not our fault, why should he try to revenge himself and take it out of us when he gets up to speak? I want to advise him to drop that attitude. Now I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance. He resigned on one occasion as a ’member of the Cabinet. People used to ask me whenever I addressed meetings. “What sort of a man is Jannie Hofmeyr?” and my reply invariably was that he was a good man although he was a great friend of the coloured people. That was his great failing. But now when I got home the other day people asked me, “What has he done now—he is spending £57,000 and what has he done for the poor?” Well, I want the Minister to tell me how I am to answer those queries. I do not know what to tell those people. They ask me, “Has he not even given a bit of money to enable us to buy stock?” and I have to tell them that he has not done so. I have to tell them that the Minister has forgotten that there are poor farmers who need assistance to purchase stock. I also have to tell them that he has not provided money to enable them to build a decent house for a bywoner. People keep on asking, “Why is the Land Bank rate of interest raised from 4½ to 5 per cent?” I have had to admit that the rate of interest has been raised, but I was unable to tell the people why the Minister had raised the rate. Then the afforestation workers came to me; people working for 4s. 6d. per day, and they asked me whether the Minister had not increased their wages a bit, because they felt that they were entitled to get a little more money. These are white people employed on that kind of work, and the Government is paying them 4s. 6d. per day. I had to tell them as well that the Minister had done nothing for them. Next the irrigation workers, people employed on dams, came to me and asked, “Are we to go on working for 5s. 6d. per day, without pay for rainy days, although we have to pay our house rent?” I had to tell them also that the Minister had not put anything aside for them. They asked me whether that was the same Minister who was spending £14,000,000 for South Africa to take part in England’s war. I had to admit that that was so. And then they asked me where the war was, and I was unable to give them any explanation. I should be very pleased if the Minister would come to my constituency, but he should not come by aeroplane and fly over the people, nor should he come there just to address a meeting. Let him come in his capacity of a Minister. I shall be pleased to take him by motor through the whole of my constituency. I shall take him into the homes of the people, so that he may see conditions prevailing there. He will then see that we have good cause for rising in this House and pleading day in and day out for some assistance being given to those people. I know that the Minister is tender-hearted, but I do not know how his soft heart finds a place in between the coloured and the white man. He has sympathy for the coloured man. In my constituency 300 coloured children are given milk every morning. They are not going to work for the white man. They are taken to a certain spot where everyone is given a cup of milk—and the farmers have to pay for it. Some of them bring a bottle with them and three children will fill up a bottle and take it home, and the result is that the mother no longer has to buy milk from the farmer because, as she says, the Government is now sending her her milk. I can mention hundreds of families in my constituency who have hardly ever seen any butter. Thousands of children in the Karoo do not know what butter looks like, and if I tell them that the coloured children get milk and that they are able to get butter at 5d. and 6d. per lb., they fail to realise the condition. If ever they want to buy butter they have to pay a high price for it. When those people come to the towns they notice the coloured children getting milk and butter for nothing. This Government is spending thousands of pounds on that sort of relief, but the poor white man has no money to spend on butter or milk. Take the position of the farmers. I want to mention one particular article. We used to get apple boxes from the Western Province. This year we were informed that there were no shipping facilities to get the boxes from England. We were unable to get our boxes. As against that we, who are farming in that part of the country know how many forests the Government have, and we are well aware of the fact that there is machinery to saw up the wood and to manufacture the boxes. I wrote to the department about this, but I got a reply that the factory manufacturing boxes had shut down in November, so that no boxes were available. The result was that we had to buy our boxes at a much higher price. We had to pay 50 per cent. more than in the past, owing to the fact that the Government had closed down its factory in Knysna, and did not look after the interests of the farmers. All the Government want to do is to prepare themselves to shoot and kill Germans, but they have no time to do anything to look after the interests of the farmers. If we approach the Cabinet, we find that they have no time to talk about anything except war, or the internment of people or the establishment of camps to catch people. The only thing they are interested in is how they can best get people to join up, and then to say that they are volunteers. That is all they use their time for, that is all they worry their heads about. They are continually appointing people. If we ask for work for our people, they ask those people why they do not join up. That is how the Government is responding to any appeals made to them. And if we turn to the question of mealies we are told that mealie growers have to pay a levy of 4s. per bag. How can my poor people in Riversdale possibly afford to pay a levy of 4s. per bag on mealies? Now the shopkeeper has to pay, and he orders the mealies so that the poor man has to pay that levy to the shopkeeper. Then we come to wheat and what is the position there? As soon as the wheat is in, the farmer sells to the agents and to the co-operative societies, and the co-operative societies ask just what they want for wheat. For first-grade seed wheat they are now asking £1 5s. instead of £1 2s. 6d. as it used to be a short while ago. People are being exploited in that way. First of all boards are being appointed, and once the boards are there they put the responsibility on the Government, and when one approaches the Government the Government hides behind the boards. No, the Government is responsible. The Government has to rule and not the boards. Nor can I understand how it is that things are so expensive in the shops. Surely, I have to believe Churchill and Chamberlain when they tell us that only one out of every hundred ships has been sunk, and that shipping is being carried on as usual. Why then should everything be so expensive? Why should England have to go and hire ships from other nations? The Minister of Agriculture said that if England did not come and fetch our products, they would lie here and rot; but now ships have to be hired elsewhere to take our goods away. Where then are England’s ships? Surely, I have to believe Chamberlain, or have I to believe the Minister of Agriculture? I should like the Minister of Agriculture to enquire into the wheat position. We also find that the wire which the farmers need is 15s. per roll dearer to-day than it was before the war at Riversdale, and plough-shares are very much more expensive; yet the Government tells us that people have been appointed to watch against prices going up unduly. But those people who have been appointed to watch are a shopkeeper and a woman—the woman lives on a farm. Those people have to watch whether things are going up in price—they are there simply to console people —to let people live in a fool’s paradise. I wanted to buy a bottle of aspirin to-day. That also had gone up 3d. since last time. Why are the poor being exploited in this way? The Government says that they want to see the war through, but I cannot see how the Minister can justify an expenditure of £14,000,000 on the war while he is at the same time telling the poor people that he does not see his way to do anything for them. I do not know whether it is any use appealing to the Government. Still, I have done my duty and I have invited the Minister to my constituency, not for a political meeting, but to visit our districts after the session, and if he accepts my invitation I shall take him to the poor people so that he may behold the suffering of those people, people of his own blood. He may perhaps realise then that it is his duty to look after them and not merely to see the war through. Those people want the chance to make a decent living—they do not want simply to be told that they must join up. There is no need for all of them to be rich, but I want them to be given the opportunity of making a living in a way that is fitting to a white man in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday afternoon I found myself at Woodstock. I sort of slipped sideways out of my sector again, and once more found myself taking a bit of a service. At the end of the service more than a bit of a man came along, a man rather like Mr. Shakespeare’s Cassius, who had a lean and hungry look.

A dangerous man.

A potentially dangerous man. Those who eat too little may possibly think too much. He brought me three pay envelopes. On the one side of each there was an excellent maxim: “Don’t drift — Cultivate thrift.” That is very good advice, especially when we look at what is on the other side. It says there, Mr. Speaker, “Hours worked, 46; amount enclosed” — I am glad they had the grace not to call it wages—“£1 14s. 5d.” The second envelope is the same. On the third is worse news. It says, “Hours worked, 46; deductions, 4s. 6d.”, leaving a nett amount for the man of £1 9s. 11d. Mr. Speaker, that is 6s. 3d. per day, and for a full month of 24 working days £7 10s. The point of this particular story is that this man is employed by the Public Works Department of our own Government. He helps painters and plumbers and other stout fellows to repair the fabric of public buildings, for example, the houses in which Ministers reside in Cape Town during the sitting of Parliament. He has worked in this way for several years, and his present age is 48. Suppose this man has a wife and family to keep? Is 6s. 3d., in the opinion of this House, enough for that purpose? It is not enough, and that brings me back to the suggestion that we should consider paying the unskilled labourers a minimum wage of 10s. a day. I have fifteen minutes only in which to discuss this, so I shall have to present a sort of skeleton case, which is perhaps fitting, because the people of whom I shall speak are more or less skeleton cases too. Behind this matter of very low payment we have the background of starvation for hundreds of thousands of our people. From the most recent observations and experiments figures are available which tell us that 60 per cent. of the European population of South Africa are properly nourished, but the balance of 40 per cent., representing 800,000 European South Africans, are not. This is a ghastly state of affairs: 800,000 under-fed out of a total of 2,000,000. The contributory causes are stated to be, firstly, ignorance. I am satisfied that they would know at least how to eat ham and eggs if they could only get them on their plates. And as for the second cause, improvidence, I am prepared to admit that this is not unknown in South Africa. I am willing to admit that our poor should not take the turkey and cut a little bit out of the breast and throw the remainder, the legs and things, out into the garden for the cat. They should put the residue into the refrigerator, and no doubt they would but for the technical difficulty that they do not possess a refrigerator, nor have they the turkey either. Although there is a certain amount of ignorance and improvidence, the state and not the citizen is responsible. The state has the training of the masses of the people, and if they are not properly trained they can reasonably blame the state. The state cannot reasonably blame them. But, Mr. speaker, that is not the basic trouble. The basic trouble is that hundreds of thousands are paid an uneconomic rate of wages; they are not paid enough to get these necessary things. A trader was saying to me the other day that he could not sell the stuff in his store, not even when marking it down to a 10 per cent. profit. I pointed out that if he marked his stuff down to a 10 per cent. loss I could not buy it because I had not the money, and that is frankly the case of hundreds and thousands of South Africans to-day. The physical consequences of this is disability and disease. We have had erected in Durban a new tuberculosis hospital, and my information is that that hospital cost £140,000, and in that institution are 140 beds, which thus cost £1,000 a time. Now, sir, the disease is spreading throughout the Union, and the main cause is under-feeding. The hospital will accommodate 140 patients, and I am told it may cost £140,000 a year to maintain. If one sick person costs the country at the rate of £1.000 a year, it would surely be better economics, and better sense, to pay the sound person £100 a year extra, and keep him on his feet, supporting himself and his family. I submit it is more economic and more in accordance with commonsense as well as humanity to pay a sufficient wage to properly nourish these people. There is a moral side to this which I would touch upon. It is a fact that in more than one of the great towns of South Africa if you get up early enough in the morning—many of our members probably do not — if you get up early enough you can see native children of our country scouring the gutter for bits of refuse, which peradventure they may eat. Now how can we expect these people not to steal? When you are hungry enough you also will steal, or perhaps I had better say that I would. The privations and sufferings of these hundreds of thousands of South Africans constitute a national danger; they are the natural prey for propaganda of many kinds, mostly evil kinds. They are open to Communistic and Bolshevik suggestions; and it would be for the safety of our country to see that these people are better fed, and that can only be done by paying better wages. After all, Russia broke down in 1917 when there was no food for the people there, and Germany followed suit a year later for the same cause. I suggest it is tremendously important that the people should be adequately fed, and with food that they have bought with then-own money, money which they have earned. So I come back to the original suggestion that we should pay the unskilled labourer 10s. a day, and I recommend that to the consideration of the Minister. It will be objected, of course, that they don’t earn it; they cannot earn it. Sir, there are many wealthy people who don’t earn what they get. But I do not press this, as it does not constitute a logical answer. I will admit that there are certain citizens in the country who cannot earn it. When a man is physically unfit we cannot reasonably expect him to support himself and his family. If he earns their breakfast and lunch, it is for the rest of us to provide their supper. There may also be other people who can do it but who won’t, and they constitute a different problem. If a man is lazy and will not support his children, that is not a case for compassion, but a case for training in better courses. But that is not a general case. The average man can and does earn 10s. a day, but the trouble is he does not get it. The time is very near at hand when he will have to have it, otherwise in a few years the problem will be entirely out of control. The lowest safe wage to give the unskilled labourer is that amount which is sufficient for him to provide food and shelter and house-room for himself and his dependents. There is no other safe wage. The only question is, what is that amount? I suggest here 10s. a day because that seems to me the lowest sum upon which it can possibly be done. The sum of 10s. a day is not £15 a month, for there are only 24 working days in a month. Therefore, the amount of a man’s earnings would be £12 a month. Should there be six children it is only £1 per head, per month.

Why did you withdraw your motion?

I had to, in order to be able to discuss this matter now. That is 8d. per head for food, clothing, school books, medical fees, and amusements. Is anybody prepared to say that is too much. If we gave them 10s. a day it would be tremendously for the good of South Africa in every way. Not only would it be for the good of the people immediately concerned, but extra money thus widely divided and available regularly, would build up the primary industries of the Union. A vast sum of money in the hands of one man does not do as much good as the same sum of money widely distributed. It does not matter how rich a man is, he cannot eat more than five meals a day or wear more than one suit at a time. If a man were to win a sweepstake of £100,000 it would be very nice indeed, and I should not unduly object to winning it myself. But what would he do with it. It would be possible for him to help deserving causes. He could decide that the member for Durban (North) even apart from his good looks was the most deserving cause of all. He might therefore send the member a cheque for £10,000, but on the other hand he might not. He would be more likely to buy a ranch in Patagonia and put half a hundred buckaroo cowboys on the ranch to ride his money away. It often happens that such large amounts are wasted. But imagine the sum of £100,000 divided weekly amongst 100,000 families. That is £1 per week extra each. It would practically all be spent in the purchase of foodstuffs, for milk, butter, cheese, meat and other products of the South African farm. That sum would amount in a year to roughly £5,000,000, only £5,000,000, and that would make all the difference to the farming industry in this country, and to all the natural products and industries of the country. I have so far dealt with this question only, as it were, with light skirmishing troops, with the bow and arrow men. I propose now to bring up the heavy artillery. This matter of 8s., 9s. or 10s. a day minimum wage was discussed in this House on the 26th May, 1939. The then Minister of Labour took definite opportunity of the discussion and said—

The Minister then went on to say—

Sir, like the charming lady in the ballad, “I am poor, but I am honest.” I therefore do not for a moment seek to persuade the House that the Commission declared for a national uniform minimum wage, but they recommended that the fullest possible use should be made of the existing wage regulating machinery towards that end, towards raising the pay of the unskilled workers as highly as can be. The Minister then added—

Here I think the Minister began to go a little bit weak. He returned to what we have heard too often before—

The man that I speak of would need to have more frugal habits still, or instead of “coming out” he would “go inside” in respect of a matter of imprisonment for civil debt. Then the Minister says—

That is not the sort of thing we want. We realise that rehabilitation and amelioration must go on together with more constructive work, but not in substitution for it. We are interested not so much in the cure, but in prevention. This stuff about environment making all the difference leads me to ask what sort of environment can they have when their fathers earn five or six shillings a day? Vague talk leads us nowhere at all. I protest against the taking for granted that improvement of conditions must of necessity be very slow. If we take up that attitude it will be more slow than it need be. There is not any reason for this caterpillar method in dealing with the welfare of other people. The Minister admitted last year that there was this great need. Since then the war has come on, and if there was a need then there is a greater need to-day. Prices have gone up, and rents have been raised as much as 50 per cent. in some cases. Therefore, if the need was great then, it is greater still to-day. I say this to finish with, that we could do more if we tried to do more, and we could do it quicker. It is no service to recite the formula that every day in every way, things get better and better. Things don’t “become” better. They have to be put right every time. If I had mentioned the question of this £5,000,000 last year, I should have been laughed out of the House and probably laughed out of Cape Town. But since then we have had to find £14,000,000 for war purposes. I support the unflinching conduct of this war. I am certainly not against the £6,000,000 that Great Britain is paying to-day to fight for the right. I am a hundred per cent. for the expenditure, because I believe it represents the only chance for the survival of liberty and humanity. But if she can find £6,000,000 a day in war-time for destruction and death, it should be six times as easy to find in peace-time £1,000,000 per day for construction and life. The point I make is that the money is available, both in the Union and in Britain. I say that we could do a whole lot more, and accomplish it much more quickly, if we were not quite so easy-minded in looking upon the misfortunes of other people. One German at least has said one true thing, though I admit it was some time ago. The German philosopher, Kant, laid down this principle: “What we ought to do, we can do.” I submit to the Minister for his sympathetic consideration whether we ought not to pay out this 10s. a day. I am sure that we ought to do so. I believe that we can. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will.

I was surprised that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) should have criticised here in the way he did, but I must respect his honesty. He explained, “We have a bankrupt farming population to-day.” I must say straight out that the farming population of South Africa is deeply disappointed at this Budget, and quite rightly too. On the one hand they have to pay higher taxes, they have to pay higher prices, especially for farming requisites, while their own prices for their products are below production costs. A great deal of money is being spent, war is being waged, but we fail to see a single ray of light, as we used to in the days of the former Minister of Finance when we could expect some relief for the farmers when they were in difficulty. Nothing is being done for the farmer now, and if one looks at the Platteland, especially my constituency, it must be realised that the farmers, as a result of the difficulties of the last few seasons, are in practically the same position again that they were in a few years ago. In spite of the relief that was granted by the Government nature has been so inclement that they have suffered great losses. I want to prove this by quoting a resolution passed by the Caledon-Wepener Farmers’ Association, a non-political body. This is what the resolution says—

The fact is that they have to pay from 20 to 40 per cent. more at the moment for all their farming requisites. And then the resolution goes on—

Even though there are very few working farmers on the other side of the House, there are yet a few of them who have the interests of farmers at heart, but that peculiarly constituted Government sitting opposite certainly has not got farming interests at heart. There are only a few people on that side of the House whom the farmers can trust, but I am sorry to say that those people will first have to come and acquaint themselves with conditions in the rural areas, before they will be able to discuss matters in this House. We are being menaced from all sides, and we realise the danger. Since the beginning of the war farmers have been faced with disaster. I have a case in my constituency where the owner of a farm died on the 8th December last, and on the 20th February the widow received notice that she had to leave the farm within thirty days, because the interest on her mortgage was in arrear. She has to leave her house before the 20th March. Disastrous things are happening. That mother cannot stay, she has to get out within thirty days. I blame the farmers relief board for this, and I do not think they knew anything about it. Is this position of affairs due to the number of officers that have been created for defence purposes—is it due to the fact that officials who are conversant with the position are taken away from their offices while others, who know nothing about the position, are put in their places?

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

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I was just pointing out the distress and troubles the farming community in our country were having, and how disappointed they are that there is not a single ray of light indicated to them in the future in the budget which is now before us. I had a motion on the Order Paper in which I asked that the calling up of mortgage bonds should be suspended during the war. Unfortunately I had to withdraw that motion because it was from time to time put down on the agenda for a later date, and consequently I would not have had an opportunity of discussing it here, and on the relative vote in the estimates if that motion had remained on the Order Paper. To support what I asked for in that motion, I want to quote a report from the Rand Daily Mail of a case of a bond which was called up which came before the courts. The report reads as follows—

I quite agree with that. Here we have the case of a man who was not absent from his farm for three months, and the judge from time to time has to deal with cases having similar facts, and he expresses the view that there ought to be a moratorium to protect farmers like that. Now compare with that statement the resolution of the Farmers Association of Caledon West where they say that they have during the last few years lost stock on such a large scale that their wool clip has become negligible. I know what the position there is. We had our last wheat harvest ruined by drought, and I know personally that parts of my constituency were severely tried by the wintering of locusts there, and a few years ago were always suffering from the cold; and then we find that the Land Bank, from time to time, acts so drastically that all my time is taken up going between the Land Bank and the Farmers Relief Board, stopping the people being sold up. There are also other cases where the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) had to rescue people when I went to him, by sending telegrams a few days before the time saying that the sale was to be cancelled, where the Land Bank was actually on the point of selling the people up. Hon. members opposite are in power to-day, and if, as the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) says, they are in sympathy with our farmers, why then for the sake of love not get the Government to take action to stop the ruining of those farmers? Those people are in a nervous state to-day. They feel that they are in the hands of the Land Bank and others. A large sum has been placed to the suspense account, but they are responsible for interest and redemption and the Land Bank sometimes acts drastically against those people. I put a question in this House as to what the number of bonds was which the Land Bank had called up, and how many people had been sold up since last June. It is astonishing to see that the Land Bank can act so severely from time to time, and that they force people in one direction or the other, and if those people had not been able to go to the Farmers Relief Board when bonds were called up, then I wonder where they would have landed. I make a serious appeal to the Party opposite to at any rate give the farmers who are in these unfortunate circumstances a glimmer of life that they will be rehabilitated. In my constituency we possibly are the central point of dairy farming in the whole of the Union. There are no less than 26 dairy industries there, and what do we find there now? Not a single one of them is showing a profit. They are producing below the cost of production. Drought destroys the harvest; the people allow the crops to be grazed over by their cattle, and the result is that in those circumstances they are not able to fulfil their obligations. And then the Minister of Agriculture comes and shields himself behind the control boards. They are not to our minds control boards over wheat or mealies or over the dairy industry; they are at the moment boards of control which control the rising of the price of our produce, so that we have to sell for a price that is not profitable. In those circumstances the farmers will struggle along and never make any progress. People have got into arrears and they cannot fulfil their obligations. If they had a normal wheat harvest, a normal mealie harvest, a normal harvest of calves, a normal harvest of lands and a normal wool clip, then they could fulfil their obligations. But droughts come along, and those things do not happen. In addition to that the position in my constituency is that most of the farmers sheared at a time—a thing which has already been fully discussed here—when the wool market was depressed, and the level of prices was such that the farmer did not make a profit on his wool. My people sheared during that period, and sold their wool, and I say that when the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) presses for a commission of inquiry into the conduct of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow)—with which I agree as I will show in a moment—I ask whether it is not also right now that we, so far as agriculture is concerned, should also have a commission of inquiry to come to our aid in our difficulties. But at the moment those matters are neglected by the Government. The interests of the farming community are not borne in mind, and it is not only the farming community that are neglected. I gave an account here of the case of a widow who was thrown out of her home for 30 days, so that she had neither hearth nor home. Take our unfit and physically semi-fit people, as well as women pensioners, they have to go and beg. They eventually get the allowance or pension, which proves that they were entitled to it. Why then should we have to go and beg for it, and why should it take such a long time? Why cannot the local committees follow up the cases and do justice without our intervention from time to time? I referred here to the request of the hon. member for Rosettenville for a commission to go into the charge against the hon. member for Gezina, and nothing would please me more than for the Government to institute this inquiry for which he is asking. The hon. member for Gezina got up manfully here and said to the Prime Minister: I challenge you, if you said too little then say the rest of it, so that I can ask for a select committee, or else say it outside the House, so that I can go to the courts. If the Prime Minister said too much then he should, as an honourable man, have withdrawn what he said. It is not right and honest for a charge to be made without its being enquired into. The man in the street believes the story that the hon. member for Gezina, on the day when we voted here on the 4th September, was not allowed to go by aeroplane to Pretoria. The man in the street believes that his office in Pretoria was closed up by order of the Prime Minister, and that terrible revelations would follow. Everybody was in a nervous state, waiting, and I also stood and waited and followed with interest what the revelations would be. They did not come. That suggestion and arousing of suspicion against a man of position and influence, who has done the things that the hon. member for Gezina has done and is still doing, is surely the last method of fighting in order to outwit a man. I ask them, if that Government have the least self-respect, to appoint that select committee and inquire into the matter, so that we can get clarity on this subject. The hon. member for Rosettenville can then get his way, and be brought to his senses. The Minister of Railways and Harbours said here, “I should have done precisely the same thing that the hon. member for Gezina did.” Why then all this terrible fuss on the part of the hon. member for Rosettenville and others? Then presumably the Minister of Railways is just as guilty as the hon. member Gezina. If you can criticise, criticise honestly, and when you say things in this House you should be prepared to say them outside of it, and if you arouse suspicion give the other side an opportunity of stating the defence, and of putting things in their right light. I say again, I make an appeal to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and other farmers on the other side to advocate the cause of the farmers along with us. Do not let us make a political matter of it. Our farmers have not the least confidence in the future. They feel that they are in a fix and they feel that disaster is threatening them. Let the Government look things seriously in the face and do constructive work in regard to the future of the farmers who are in such a deplorable position. There is yet another matter that I want to refer to. In my constituency there was a man interned, a Mr. Gerhardt. He is a born German, but was a teacher at Wepener for very many years. He is an artist and draws animals and landscapes. He was arrested and taken away from his family, and what did they find on him? He has interests in the Bushveld, where he goes to, shoot game year after year, and to take photographs and draw sketches of landscapes and of cream of tartar trees, etc. Those drawings were found in his possession, and that constitutes the terrible treason that he committed. That is my information, and owing to that terrible crime the man was taken away from his wife and children. I make an earnest appeal to the Government. Do not punish the wife and children. That person is very popular with us, and I cannot find anyone there who says that he has ever stood up for the Germans, but unfortunately for him he was born in Germany. An injustice has been committed against a quiet citizen, and his wife and children will be embittered against South Africa because they put the innocent father in a concentration camp.

Before I say a few words in connection with this Budget I just want, in all deference, to correct the Minister of Finance a little in regard to the result of the Kuruman by-election. We heard how the Minister, in his speech during the Part Appropriation debate, tried to show that this Government was actually a constitutional Government, and that the Government had at least 60 per cent. and more of the population behind it. The Minister reached that conclusion on the assumption that three-eighths of the Afrikaans-speaking electors of Kuruman had voted for the Government and its see-the-war-through policy. We have never yet questioned the capability of the Minister, and we are prepared to agree that he possesses special gifts to work out figures favourably to his own supporters. This the cold mines will readily support, as witness the tremendous rise on the share market immediately after the Budget speech. But I do think that the electors of Kuruman of both parties, and all who were really au fait with conditions there, and all who took an interest in the working out of election figures, were tremendously shocked in regard to the capacity of the Minister in that respect. The Minister says that three-eighths of the Afrikaans-speaking people of Kuruman voted for the Government, and about 95 per cent. of the English-speaking people. But what he neglected to mention is that 100 per cent. of the coloured people and Jews and other Asiatic-disposed people, not even to speak about the “Van de Mervies” and the “Van de Bails” and the “Clootes,” voted for the Government.

And the Olivers.

Yes, there are also Olivers, but I am certain of it that not a single Olivier has become an Oliver. I say that all the sections, if combined on the percentage basis mentioned by the Minister, should have given the Government a majority of over 300, but instead of that the Government suffered a defeat by more than 800. In my opinion there are only one of two things open to the Minister, and one is that if he really believes in the correctness of his data then he should immediately demand a recount, because then there is a person sitting in this House who ought not to be here, or otherwise he should just acknowledge that his data were faulty. I want, in anticipation, to assume by way of excusing the Minister, that he was wrongly informed. I even want to assume that the same people who wrongly informed him, also kept the Unionistic Press supplied with news during the by-election, because they always maintained that the Government was going to win the election. I wonder whether one of those persons is not possibly even a member of this House, possibly even more of those persons. They have so much confidence in their own judgment that they even risked quite a lot of money on the result, of course always on the assumption that three-eighths of the Afrikaans-speaking people of Kuruman stood by the Government. Unfortunately the event proved that the Government did not have three-eighths but hardly two-eighths of the Afrikaans-speaking people of Kuruman on its side, with the result that the Government was disillusioned, and that quite a number of hon. members opposite lost their money in the by-election. With regard to the war expenditure in this Budget, we on this side of the House say that enormous financial burdens are being nut on to South Africa against the interests of Afrikanerdom, and to a great extent for the purpose of upholding British sentiment in South Africa, and upholding British interests. Unfortunately we cannot call the Budget a farmers’ Budget this time, nor can we call it a national Budget, in the broad sense of the word. We can indeed possibly call it a gold mines Budget, but in any case it is an Imperialistic Budget, a Budget which is the result of the Imperialistic policy of the Government. It is provisionally estimated that in the course of this year we shall spend £14,000,000 in connection with the war or £11,000,000 more than we would have spent on defence in ordinary circumstances. It is humanly impossible to say what proportions this war will yet assume and what the nature of it may be in future, and consequently it is also impossible to say what the monetary obligations may be that are involved in it. But I want to say that if it should be possible for the Government to reveal in their full nakedness, the true facts to the public, then the public would disapprove of that expenditure. The Minister has already shown how he proposes to find the money, but what he neglected to tell us was, in the first place, how he thought the money should be found which will still have to be found during the course of this war, and that amount may possibly run into £100,000,000 or even more. Secondly, we have not been told who will have to approve of the expenditure. Most certainly it will not be the population of the country, and probably it will not even be the Parliament either, but only the loyal followers of the Prime Minister. We know the country will not be consulted in regard to the expenditure on this war, just as little as the country was consulted in the participation of South Africa in the war. No, the only part which Afrikanerdom will have will not be by way of having a say, but only in the carrying of the burdens by the payment of taxes, and by partially controlled commerce, and a more bitter racial division, and into the bargain we will also have to assist in paying the war debt, and if, possibly, things do not go well, the people may possibly also have to pay the price of blood. I say, the country will not be consulted in regard to the incurring of expenditure, and yet it is a matter of vital interest to the country to the extent that the people of South Africa have to incur tremendous obligations from which we shall not be able to get a single advantage. The Prime Minister knows just as we do on this side, that if the choice were given to the people of spending this gigantic sum for war purposes, not for the defence of our own fatherland, but for an imperialistic war in some far distant part of the Continent of Africa, or other, and whether this money will have to be spent—which apparently can be so easily found—for the development of our secondary industries for agricultural purposes, for building up the health of our people, for insurance, for education, for better railway connections in those parts which are to-day deprived of many privileges, for lower telephone tariffs on the countryside, for a better scale of wages for the unskilled labourers in South Africa—then I say no voters will be found in South Africa who have all their senses about them, who will choose the first alternative. The Minister and the Government know that if the people are given the choice of using this expenditure for constructive purposes, or for destructive purposes, not a single vote would be given for the latter object, except in the circle of those whose interests are directly connected with British imperialism. Besides them there will be nobody else who will approve of this foolish wasting of public money, which generations after us will still have to bear the burden of. We know that we did not break the commercial agreements with Germany, and incurred heavy financial burdens, in order to retain our trade. England, in any event, requires our markets and our produce. She can only maintain two-thirds of her population, and in regard to the one-third, she needs the produce of other countries, and in any case even apart from that, South Africa is of the greatest importance to England for financial investment. Everyone of us who is not prejudiced knows what the so-called love of Great Britain for South Africa really means. It is not love, but only a good means of investing money. All the constitutional liberty that we possess to-day and which forsooth was so generously given to us—as if we did not fight for it ourselves—is in my opinion nothing but a smokescreen behind which they are hiding. Let South Africa venture to decide to-day to follow its own self-dependent, independent economic policy, then you will find that this same constitutional liberty, which has been so generously granted, will come into the picture again; or let me put it this way: Suppose the gold mines which are such an excellent field for investment to-day, become worked out, then I ask what will become of the great love of Great Britain for South Africa? It will vanish like mist before the morning sun. But to come back to the question why we are asked to spend these tremendous sums for this war. I want to say that they are not really being used for the protection of Christianity. That will readily be admitted by at least thirteen hon. members on the Government side. Nor do we pay the tremendous war expenditure for the protection of South Africa by England. There is no sufficient reason for incurring this colossal expenditure. The ruins of Poland witness to that kind of protection, and we are not spending money for that. Not even South-West is sufficient reason for the war expenditure, because it is still a question whether we are entitled to drag South-West into the war with us, without the consent of the League of Nations, more especially when the great majority of the members of the League of Nations have kept out of this war for economic reasons. And what applies to the League of Nations also applies to us. Many of us, and I am certain the Prime Minister also, know that many selfish motives are hidden behind this waging of war by England, than that so-called protection of democracy, of Christendom and of the smaller nations about which so much is said. The man on the street, and some hon. members, regard this matter superficially. They believe that they are fighting, or they pretend to be fighting for the maintenance of British sentiment, they believe that it is only against Great Britain, or in her favour, not for or against South Africa, and in favour of themselves, as is actually the case.

If we investigate the matter then we cannot come to any other conclusion but that this big expenditure on the war is neither more nor less than a crime against the people of South Africa. If this money had been spent for the defence of our own country, then I say that no sacrifice was too great, but this participation in the war is not at all concerned with the defence of this country, no, it is only in connection with the defence of Great Britain. I say Great Britain, and not the British Empire, because it is becoming clearer every day that the interests of Great Britain and those of the Empire or the Dominions, are no longer identical. Great Britain, owing to her retrogression economically, is no longer protected against the competition of Europe and America, and because her insular position does not any longer protect her as before, I say Great Britain is more and more being forced to take part in purely European matters, and European military conferences. The Prime Minister of England has time after time said that the boundaries of England stretch right to the continent of Europe. That is a very true statement, and it ought to serve as a warning to us. In any case, South Africa does not take an interest in the same Europe that England takes an interest in to-day, and certainly not for the same reasons. But what is more, the boundaries of Great Britain extend not only to the continent of Europe, but also to the continent of America. My hon. friends opposite laugh, but we shall see in a moment whether they continue to laugh. Although the two countries are still working in cooperation, the day will most certainly come when although they may in the near future even be fighting on the same side, the day will nevertheless come that they will be opposing each other. The enormous American economic domination came into existence during the last war, and it has developed and this has become clearer today in connection with this war. The day will come when England will have to decide whether she will submit, as she has always done in the past, to the American economic domination. The question is whether they should become a second grade nation, or whether they want to maintain the position which they are occupying to-day. If they want to oppose the former, then it can only take one form, and that is by way of war. If that day comes and South Africa is still in the unfortunate position of still being ruled by this Government, then we shall be asked to fight for democracy against Yankeeism, as we are being asked to-day to fight against Hitlerism. It will not be because America has done us any injury, or because our position in the world has been threatened, but simply because England will be obliged to fight for its own economic existence. The Conservative press in England is already issuing a warning to the Government to-day against the American economic domination. Not so long ago the following report appeared in the Daily Chronicle. It says—

I say that if statements of this kind appear in the Conservative press in England, then it is indeed a sign that there is serious unrest, and it means that the day will come when England will have to make a choice between offering resistance to America, and if not then they will become a second-grade nation. I only mention this possibility with the object of showing how the interests of South Africa and England are diverging more and more. It is a noteworthy phenomenon that when we become involved in a war like the present, it already shows that owing to our union with Great Britain we are not asked to fight in our own territory, not even within our own boundaries, but in a far distant part of Africa. That is what makes it so difficult for England to put its war motives clearly. It is not that she has no war objective, but she dare not reveal it to her own people and to the world. She dare not ask the dominions to sacrifice the lives of their people merely for the protection of the economic existence of England. They dare not ask us to sacrifice our sons on the plains of Northern Africa in order to make the budget of Great Britain balance. That is why the Government has had to appoint an information officer in order to assist the Prime Minister, who understands this struggle perfectly, to blind the eyes of the people to the terribly selfish object of this war. These people are appointed to do the work, and then they have to think out tales of a struggle of the democracies against Nazism, but how untrue it is, and what a scandalous lie is hiding behind this spate of propaganda is best exposed by two news paragraphs which appeared in the American press. This is information which is, of course, carefully withheld by the information officer, and the Government, from the men whom they are to-day assisting to join up, in order to shed their blood later on. It is moreover quite interesting, in view of the recent prohibition of the Union Government against all private trading with Germany. In France, one of the Allies, the same prohibition exists, and there the French farmer is threatened with death if he sells a single pig to the enemy. Nevertheless, in the American commercial journal “Iron Age,” there was recently a complete article devoted to the possible exchange trade which was taking place between French and German firms. French ore is given in exchange for German coal; accordingly, while thousands of people are sacrificing their lives, and the farmer in France is condemned to death if he dares to sell a single pig to Germany, the French industrial magnates are carrying on a profitable trade in the very articles which will be used later on to mow down thousands of French lives. This matter is referred to by the Conservative newspaper, the “New York Times” of 27th September last. There was another reference in the United Press of the 28th September, and it was pointed out there that although there were general blackouts in France and Germany, the iron ore and munition factories of Germany and France, which were situated alongside each other in the Saar and Bricq valleys, were never darkened, because the industrialists on both sides had entered into an agreement. While, therefore, on the one hand people are called upon to sacrifice their lives, the big capitalists are entering into agreements behind their backs, so that their profits shall not be reduced, and their property not be damaged. Is that not the reason why the belligerents cannot put their objectives in clear language. I therefore think that it is wrong to spend money on that war which involves the loss of lives, crippled trade and racial embitterment. We do not see our way to vote that money, because many of us, and I think the Prime Minister as well, know very well why this struggle is being carried on with the strongest competitor of England. He knows that it was not begun for the reasons which are stated to the people; he knows why this war is being waged, although many Union citizens, and Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Johnson in London did not know why their husbands were being killed at the front. Mrs. Jones will think that her husband fell in the struggle of democracy against Hitlerism, and Mrs. Johnson will think that her husband fell in the struggle for Christendom, but Mrs. Jacobson, whose husband was interested in the munition factories and who did not go to the front, but remained at home, along with the bellicose members of Parliament in South Africa, will get more fur coats, she will get more jewels and she will get extra shares, because the big capitalists are sitting behind the scenes and pulling the strings; while the husbands are being killed at the front. No, this war is only concerned about the commerce of the world, and England is only fighting this war for her own economic existence. In England there are also big capitalists sitting behind the scenes, and they have influence in the army, the navy, the air force and the Press. They are making money to-day, while the ordinary man has to sacrifice himself for the cause for which he thinks he is fighting. We can establish this very easily if we will only be unprejudiced, and allow our thoughts to go back a little to the scandalous revelations we came across after the great struggle from 1914 to 1918, and what happened then is also happening to-day. We can appreciate it if we will read this kind of report as to what is going on now in this war. A report in the United Press of the 28th December states the following—

Commenting on this, the Appeal of New York writes:

No, I say that it is facts like these we ought to make known to our young men when they are asked to join up and to sacrifice their lives for this so-called war of democracy and civilisation, and it is this kind of facts which the Prime Minister should first of all make known to the country, before he asks South Africa to impoverish itself economically for the sake of Great Britain, in this fictitious struggle for supposed rights and liberties of humanity. Every single life which is sacrificed in this war is nothing more and nothing less than a murder, and we can only participate in this war in one way, and that is by sending our young men unnecessarily to their deaths in this war, which at bottom is not in a war of one state against another, but a war which in its naked reality, is nothing else than a war between the general staff of the army and the soldiers of that army. The Government can enter into such a war only in one way, and that is only by forcing the sons of the people, or commanding them to take part in it. I say that we cannot vote money for such a hypocritical fictitious struggle as the one that is being waged in the world to-day, and the man who votes for expenditure on such a war is just as guilty of the death of the ones who are killed, as if he himself had committed murder. When then we see what this struggle is about, and what there really is behind the scenes, then the question arises in our minds: What is the inference which we must draw in connection with all of this? The inference is that peace is necessary for progress, and peace can and peace will only be obtained for South Africa if she is separated from those nations in the world who are always poking their noses into all the wars of the world. That is the only basis on which we will really be able to obtain peace. We will give an illustration Take Ireland, which to us was the symbol of divisions, but when Ireland came into this crisis it was not only the national hero De Valera who voted that Ireland should remain neutral in this struggle, but Cosgrave, the leader of the Opposition, agreed with him. The former divisions were changed into unity. Why? Because De Valera cut off bit by bit that red thread of British imperialism which was intertwined with the history of the country, just as it is bound up with the history of South Africa. I say that when we have gone along that road then, and then only, shall we get peace, progress and prosperity in South Africa. It will at once be said from the opposite side now that if our country is independent, how can we maintain that independence? The Prime Minister has already given us a lead in this respect, when he made a speech in his constituency at Standerton. He started from the point of view that we could actually remain neutral to-day, seeing that we were in the British Commonwealth of Nations, but of course duty and honour had kept us back so that we did not remain neutral, but he also said that if we were independent, we should have a guarantee of our independence, and he asked: Who else but Great Britain could give it to us? Now what are the facts? We know that there are many small and independent countries in the world, because England, thank God, does not own the whole world. But how many of those countries who are independent have a guarantee of their independence. Only two, namely, Belgium and Sweden? Why is not the independence of all the others guaranteed, and why should that of South Africa be guaranteed. The Prime Minister went still further. He said that we would have to enter into an alliance because we could not stand alone. He mentioned a defensive alliance. But what actually is a defensive alliance? We know that there is such a thing as an offensive and defensive alliance, and also a defensive alliance alone. We know that a defensive and offensive alliance is only entered into between two countries of equal strength and status, while a defensive alliance is entered into between a greater power and a smaller nation. Hon. members may ask what kind of an alliance is being advocated, with which one side should fight and not the other. Now let us examine the position and see what it is. Are there any such alliances? We have the one between England and Rumania; we have the one between England and Greece, and we have the centuries-old alliance between England and Portugal. Have we ever yet heard of those countries hastening to the help of England in time of war, or of them getting ready to go to the aid of England? Why is such an alliance entered into? It is entered into in the interests of the great power, and in this case in the interests of Great Britain. Great Britain has to enter into those alliances simply because she, as a commercial nation, has to keep her trade channels open, and if it is in the interests of Great Britain to keep the Suez Canal open, then it is also in her interests to keep her sea route via the Cape open. She must do it because it is in her own interests. I want to end by saying that the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Government in 1914 as well. The present Leader of the Opposition was then also the same person who is now the Leader of the Opposition, but the people of South Africa are no longer the same. He, the right hon. the Prime Minister, is to-day dealing with a more enlightened people. We do not only get our enlightenment from writings and from public platforms.

We get it also from the knights of truth.

They think that they have a lease over all the truth, but they nevertheless publish nothing but lies. The people no longer get their information only from writings and from platforms. The pen used to be regarded as mightier than the sword, but the big weapon of power to-day is the spoken word, which comes floating to us over the air.

From Zeesen.

Not only from Zeesen but also from Daventry. We can listen to the speech which Chamberlain makes to explain his position, but we can also listen to Hitler, and in that way we can see the attitude of one country as well as that of the other, and accordingly we are quite well able ourselves to separate the chaff from the wheat, and it is not necessary for the Government to appoint a unilingual information officer like Mr. Wilson to come and try to do it for us. So far as the people of South Africa are concerned, I want to tell the Prime Minister in the language of his followers sitting behind him—

I am not going to use the time at my disposal to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). I only want to tell him this, that the life of a prophet is very short in this Parliament. I am not inspired with the prophetic spirit, and I therefore do not know whether the war that has been prophesied between America and England will ever come about. I will leave that matter with him. I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his budget. I certainly cannot give him any greater praise than what the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) has given him. We heard the hon. member for Fauresmith say to him that the ladies would settle accounts with him. Well, I want to give the Minister of Finance the assurance that the ladies are very grateful to him for not having got as far as their stockings. I want to take advantage of the opportunity to deal with the speech which the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) made a few days ago, and which hon. members of this House and the people in the country, were most certainly shocked by. He made those speeches at Robertson and Piquetberg last Friday and last Saturday. The hon. members said there that we should institute storm troops in South Africa. Well, I think that hon. members in this House are entitled to ask whether the peace and quiet of the population of South Africa have always hitherto been a serious question to the hon. member for Gezina. He said that we should create storm troops to prevent riots and things of that kind taking place in the country. It goes without saying that when such a body is created, it will have to be utilised by a body emanating from the other side, and what would the ultimate result of such a thing be? There will be fighting when members of the two bodies come up against each other, and the side which is in the minority will have to play second fiddle, with the result that within a short time riots, possibly shooting and bloodshed will take place. The hon. member for Gezina did not say whether the storm troops were to be armed, or whether the arms were only going to be bows and arrows. He spoke about a popular front. I say again that peace and order in the country is most certainly no longer a matter of importance to the hon. member for Gezina, if he indulges in idle talk of that kind. He is a person who has played a fairly big role in the political life of the country, and for him to come forward with advice like that to the Afrikaner people is most certainly not rendering a service to the country. The hon. member in his speech said that there were many young Afrikaners who were more than fidgety about the present state of affairs in South Africa. He says further that the day will come when Afrikanerdom will settle with the knights of truth. Well, if those people do anything contrary to the law, then the law is there to settle accounts with them. Why should the hon. member for Gezina take the law into his own hands, and incite our young Afrikaners to do so? I ask whether it is proper of the hon. member for Gezina to do so? The law should be passed by and lawlessness should come in South Africa. The hon. member says that the knights of truth will be dealt with, and that matters will also be settled with the Jingo press. I would very much like to know from the hon. member for Gezina what he means by imperialism and what he means by the Jingo press? Possibly by the Jingo press he means that section of the press which does not agree with him. It may be that they are persons or that section of the press who are not telling the truth, or who do not agree with him. He will be in a better position to say what he meant by it. What I want to say here is this, that if the ancestors of the hon. member for Gezina had fought on Blauwberg beach, at Blood River, at Majuba and at other places. I am convinced of it that he would not have given this kind of advice to the people of South Africa. Most certainly not. It is only a person whose ears, whose whole heart, whose two hands and two feet are in Germany, who can suggest such Nazi methods to the people. That is all it is and nothing more. That is not the spirit of our Voortrekker ancestors to want to break up meetings and to want to cause troubles of that kind. The hon. member for Gezina is doing this with full consciousness of his responsibility. They are Nazi methods. We have never yet heard of a popular front and of stormtroops. It looks as if the visit to Herr Hitler, so far as the hon. member for Gezina is concerned, was not altogether unfruitful.

It is only a counter-organisation to the Knights of Truth.

No, because on the Government side nothing is being done by way of breaking up meetings and bringing about that kind of rioting. As I have said, only a person who was obsessed with German Imperialism could give advice like that to the Afrikaner people. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Fauresmith have most certainly never yet given advice of that kind to their followers, but be speaks here about the Jingo Press, and what the Jingo Press is doing and he says that be will settle accounts with them. I do not want to go into that, except to make one remark. I asked what the Jingo Press was, and whether it was the Press which told lies, or whether it was only a Jingo Press because it did not agree with hon. members on the other side. Now I would like to know from the hon. member for Gezina how he would deal with the following case if he were to get into power. The hon. member for Smithfield stated in this House, and also in the country, that negotiations were never entered into by him before the 4th September last with the then Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan). If that is so and we take it that it is so, and I have no reason for questioning the word of the hon. member for Smithfield, then I want to refer to a report which I have here of what took place. It contains a communication from the chief whip of the party to the other side, who was also the chief whip of the Opposition before the 4th September. This is what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said at a meeting at Stellenbosch — I am reading from the report in Die Burger—

What is wrong with that?

You cannot give anyone an assurance if he has not asked for something. He gave the assurance. The hon. and boisterous member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein)….

I have not yet said a word.

He need not have made such a fuss. He only reminds me of the progeny of the animal which, we are told in the Bible, spoke.

Let an enquiry take place.

I commenced my speech by saying that I accepted what the hon. member for Smithfield said, but inasmuch as the hon. member for Gezina referred to the Jingo Press….

Why then the insinuation about an invitation? Do not indulge in filth and then become afraid.

I am only asking the hon. member for Gezina what he would do in the case to which I am referring if he came into power. In Die Burger the chief whip said—

How would the hon. member for Gezina act if he was in power? What would he do to the Press and to the whip of the party? Who spoke the falsehood there? I assume that the hon. member for Smithfield had nothing to do with the matter, as he said, but here the chief whip says, and it was published in Die Burger, that an assurance had been given to the Prime Minister. What would the hon. member for Gezina do, if he had the power in his hands? Would he take steps against the chief whip and Die Burger? I hope the hon. member for Smithfield will not think that I have cast any reflection on him.

That is precisely what you are doing.

I am quite simply stating what took place at that time, and I would like to know from the hon. member for Gezina how he would have acted in such a case.

Keep to the truth.

If the hon. member for Smithfield says that he had nothing to do with it, then I accept it, but then the hon. member for Gezina will have to put the chief whip of the party into the concentration camp. It is constantly being said here that we plunged the country into war, and that we are Imperialists and that we want to make South Africa participate in it for some reason or other, but not in the interests of the country. So far as I am concerned there is no one who has more convinced me in the past that the step which I have taken was right than the hon. member for Smithfield. He stated in this House in April of the previous year—

And he went further in March, 1935—

If we had done what the hon. member for Smithfield wanted, and we had given the opportunity to the German submarines to make use of our harbours, then it might have happened that the submarines could have attacked the British Navy and done damage, and I therefore feel that I must do anything to assure the continued existence of the navy, because, according to the statement of the hon. member for Smithfield, the safety of my own country is dependent on the navy. He, more than anyone else, has convinced me of the fact that I should do everything in my power to assist in preventing the navy from getting into danger, because on the continued existence of the navy depends the continued existence of South Africa. I am sorry that my time is limited and that I cannot go further into the matter, but I repeat that we have to thank the navy for the enjoyment of the freedom that we have.

After having listened to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) I have come more and more to the conviction that hon. members on the other side, together with their Press, are suffering from a certain disease, namely, a Pirow obsession. They suffer from it in their sleep, and when they eat and drink. Every hon. member who has risen on the other side has had something to say about the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). They distort everything he said, and now the Whip of the Government party comes and tries, in addition, to make insinuations in order to wound the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). The insinuations are of such a nature that the best thing one can do is to treat them with the contempt which they deserve. I am glad that it has fallen to my lot to be the first on this side to speak after the hero of Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). Unfortunately he is not in his place, but I want to avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating him on his fine speech. I want to assure him that if he continues in that way he will yet be a power in this House. My time, however, is also limited, and I want to deal with a few matters. I quite agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles Cadman) when he said, “You can do what you ought to do.” I think that that is not only my view, but also that of the Minister of Finance. He also agrees with the German philosopher, that if you ought to do something you can do it. The Minister thought he ought to saddle the country with a war expenditure of £14,000,000 and he did so. But now in the company of the hon. member for Durban (North) and other hon. members on this side of the House, as well as a number of hon. members opposite, I want to ask the Minister to realise that he must still do something more than merely to see the war through. He should realise that there are interests of the country—national interests—which require his attention, and he ought not to have concentrated all his attention on the see the war through policy. We hear every day that the citizens of the Union are in a favourable position. The Union national is the man who pays the least taxation of any country in the world. The financial position, the economic condition of South Africa is so sound and strong that we compare favourably with all the states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and even compare favourably with all other states in the world. We hear that statement every day. We are glad if it is so, but we would like to know from the Minister of Finance whether he thinks that the position will always remain the same as it is to-day. Does he think that the economic position will remain sound? What is he going to do in the future? How is he going to arrange his financial business? He must surely know that everyone of us thinks that the war will not stop at the end of a year. Before the £14,000,000 is spent, he will require more money than the £14,000,000. One hon. member said that he might possibly require £100,000,000. What provision is the Minister making for the future?

Do you expect a budget for three years?

The Minister of Finance told us that he needed a sum of £14,000,000 for this year, and he also said how he was going to get it. I do not want to repeat what has been said here. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) made it clear that it was a fatal mistake, which the Minister of Finance had made, to get the £14,000,000 in the way he was going to get it, and the hon. member for Smithfield emphasised it. I do not want to go further into this, but I want to point out to the Minister that the great object of a government should be to have a happy population in the country. Everything depends on the steps which the Government take, and on the services which they render to the people to make the people, as a whole, happy. We must all do our best, and the Government cannot do anything else than to work on behalf of the people as a whole, for the welfare of the people. The Minister of Finance has been described here as an enthusiastic social reformer, and we recollect how a few years ago he was the Minister of Social Welfare. He did certain reform work, and we are grateful to him for it, and for everything that was done for the welfare of the country and the people, especially for the countryside and the poor section on the countryside. We are grateful for it, but the Minister is now in a far better position than a few years ago. He now has control over the public funds, and we therefore expect the Minister to do more for the welfare of the country and the people. Now we are a little disappointed that there are no increases on what was provided in the past so far as social welfare is concerned. We indicated certain services, as the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) showed, which have been taken away from the farming industry. Instead of more being given to social welfare and farming, there is less being provided this year. We are anxious to bring this to the notice of the Minister, that if further improvements are not made in the matter of social welfare, if the circumstances of the farmers are not taken into consideration, then it cannot be otherwise but that we must be disappointed. The Minister must admit that the cost of living, the costs of production not only of the ordinary man, but also of the farmer, are going up. It has been mentioned here that in some cases the rise has been 100 per cent., but in any case we find that the rise is taking place everywhere. But enough has already been said about this, and I do not want to say any more about it. I would prefer to say something more about social welfare. The Minister of Finance knows what is meant by the words social welfare. I think that the words mean nothing else than the welfare of the people, everything that is good for the people. I think that there are two requirements in order to see that things go well with the people, and they are that the national interests should be looked after. In the first place, the public health. The people must be made physically strong, and in the second place, I mean the economic health of the people. Other hon. members referred to the difficulties which we have in connection with tuberculosis and cancer, dangerous diseases which claim hundreds of victims year after year. I do not want to go further into that, but I want to ask the Minister of Finance when he provides the money for public health, to start with the child. It is no good our spending hundreds of thousands on hospitals, if we are only going to use the money for the man who is ill, although we have the opportunity of starting with the child and of giving the child an opportunity of coming into the world in a healthy condition. We have to deal in our country, with many poor people, especially in the rural areas, but also in the slums of the big cities, and I want to suggest that many more district surgeons, and also district nurses should be appointed. If there were only more district surgeons and district nurses on the countryside and in the slums who would go about there, then they would be able to look after the mothers who were to become the mothers of our people, before the birth, and after the birth. In that way they would be able to look after the mother and the child. It is only when the child is healthy that we can expect a healthy adult, and I think that it will cost the State less than the often unnecessary money which is spent on people who are taken to the hospitals, and which could have been avoided if the child had in early years received the necessary attention from the district surgeon and the district nurse. The service which we ask for is that the service should not only be given to the poorest people, and to the paupers, but to the middle class man on the countryside and in the villages, who usually has to bear the brunt. I would like the Minister of Finance to give the necessary attention to the matter, to see that the middle class man gets more assistance, and that the assistance is not only given to the poor man, to whom we do not grudge it in the least, but that the middle class man also gets the assistance, because otherwise he will also drop into the poor class. Then something about economic health. This is another matter which I wish the Minister of Finance to give his attention to. As has been said, to have a healthy people we must provide for an economically healthy people. The Minister of Finance has already heard a good deal about this, because unfortunatelý many other hon. members have spoken on the point, so that I do not want to repeat it, but I would like to stress a few points. As the Minister of Finance sees his way to finding £14,000,000 to see the war that we have been plunged into, through, he will also probably see his way to find a few millions or more to put our people into a healthy economic position. We have had a housing scheme on the countryside, and it was taken away, but I still know of quite a lot of people in my district who would like to be assisted under the scheme, and they cannot get the assistance now. I am now appealing on behalf of the tenant farmer scheme, because there are young farmers in my district who would like to be assisted with a loan of oxen, but they cannot get them. Last year we had big washaways in the district of Lydenburg, and the people got behindhand, and if they are not assisted they will drop into poor whiteism. I would like the Minister to consider these few points, and to find the necessary funds to assist the people. I agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) that if you want to help you can do so.

There is no doubt that if there is anything which the Government should look after, and about which it should concern itself, then it is the economic independence of the people. That includes not only the fact that everyone should be economically self-dependent, but that they should not be deeply involved in debt. You will require the cleverest brain in order to solve this problem, and I have a great respect for the brain of the Minister of Finance. We hope that he will find a solution to this problem in order to tackle the economic rehabilitation of the population of South Africa. We usually hear that we want higher wages in order to suit the circumstances, and the farmers want higher prices for their products, but is that not due to the fact that the cost of living is too high in South Africa? Our living costs too much. There is an exaggerated competition so far as fashions are concerned amongst our women, and even amongst the men the needs are becoming greater and greater, and the conditions of life are becoming more difficult. We no longer to-day have the natural simplicity of our forefathers. We shall have to decide to give up this competition, this exalted way of living, and we will have to accommodate ourselves to the changed circumstances and apply ourselves to thrift, to saving in the true sense of the word. I mean, further, that a thorough enquiry should be instituted into the methods of commerce in South Africa. The Afrikaner is still a stranger to-day, so far as this section of the community life, commerce, is concerned, but he is commencing to wake up, and I want to say that the way in which the people are being plundered and exploited today by commerce, is simply a scandal. I would like, for a moment, to let a searchlight fall on a few of those commercial methods. I have the figures here which show the income tax of the different professions in South Africa, commerce stands at the top. For 1937—38 the incomes, not including super tax, but the ordinary tax, amounted to £39,914,867.

You do not mean the income tax, but the taxable income.

Yes, quite right. The taxable incomes. For the mines it amounts to £25,000,000 and for agriculture £4.700.000. Just imagine how things stand with regard to commerce in South Africa. Now I want to give some more data, and I am now speaking subject to correction. Things are imported from America and Japan, ladies’ clothing, dresses or growns, into South Africa at 13s., 15s. up to £1, and then they are sold here in Adderley Street for £5 5s., £6 6s. £7 7s., and £8 8s. That also applies to other articles which come from America and other countries. But then you also find that there is variation between Plein Street and Adderley Street. Then in addition, we have that pernicious system of credit prevailing in our shops here. You find it amongst the girls. They work for a poor salary of £6 to £8 a month, and then they are given credit to buy clothes up to an amount of £30. Then every month a part is deducted from their meagre salary in order to pay the debt of £30. That also applies to the men. The Minister of Finance thought fit to tax articles for ladies, gloves, etc., but he must not imagine that they will not buy them. They will continue to buy them, and the men will have to pay for them. That also applies to luxurious articles like motor cars, wireless sets, vacuum cleaners, refrigerators. In these cases also we have the pernicious hire purchase system. We find in South Africa that wireless sets are bought and then they are paid for in instalments at the rate of £1 per month. Germany is not often referred to here, but we can take a good leaf out of their book. In Germany radio sets were sold to 700,000 people at 35s. They pay off a small amount per month. The hire purchase system is a pernicious system, which is bleeding the Afrikaner people. The price which is demanded for those articles is far above their value. People buy vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, motor cars" and everything on the hire purchase system, and the price that they have to pay for those articles is far above the value of those articles. Now I come to another department of commerce, namely the chemists. The farmer cannot always afford to go to a doctor. He goes to the chemist, and there he buys a home remedy like “Witdulsies”, backache pills and the rest. I now have the prices of a number of these remedies. Clarke’s Blood Mixture costs 1⅓d. to make up, and it is sold at 2s. 9d. Sarsaparilla, which is known to the women, costs ⅓d. to make up, and it sold at 2s. 6d. Headache powders cost ⅓d. to make up ten, and they are sold at 1s. 6d. each. Steedman’s Teething Powders cost id, to make up and they are sold at 4s. 6d. for 60 powders. Doan’s Pills cost 2d. to make up, and they are sold at 2s. 9d. Pink Pills—for pale people—cost ⅓d. to make up, and they are sold for 2s. 6d. And so I can multiply examples. But I want to add to that that it is the Afrikaner nation which is being robbed in that way. They not only have to pay extremely dear for what they need in life, but when they are ill and they go to the chemist then they have to nay beyond their means for remedies. I honestly think that it is high time that the Government, that any government should have a thorough enquiry instituted into the methods of trading in South Africa. As a people, we must guard against our commerce getting entirely into the hands of the alien. Here and there attempts have already been made to remedy the state of affairs. We have union shops, and also farmers co-operative societies which take part in the trade. We must see to it that our sons and daughters also get their rights in commerce, and that the whole trade does not fall into the hands of aliens, who make our boys and girls work at a penurious wage, and then sell their goods to those same young people at excessive prices. It is high time that we, as an Afrikaner people, also started developing on those lines. It is a big field which lies untrodden before us, and we must try to get our sons and daughters a living there by getting hold of a large share of the trade. To-day a boy goes and devotes himself to agriculture, and when he produces the product then it is the merchant who fixes the price that he is to get. It is a crying scandal when we look at what happens with some of the products. I am not a wine farmer, but I do want to point out that the wine for which a farmer gets 1½d. is put into a bottle, and then 2s. 6d. has to be paid for it. The middle man gets the profit, although he has not sweated and toiled for it. Yet we find that governments throughout the centuries, have not touched this state of affairs. The farming population has always sweated, and the middle man gets away with the profit. The distribution system of farming produce ought to be changed, and that is the chief reason why there is such a poor price to-day for farm produce. It is due to the rotten and scandalous distribution system. It ought to be different, and I have expressed these few thoughts in the hope that the Minister will give his serious attention to the matter.

After the excitement which the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) created here, things have now become fairly quiet, and the dust has disappeared a little. The hon. member for Klip River was so excited that he referred to me, although I have not yet spoken one word in this debate. He probably expected that I would say something, and that it would be so much to the point that he is already calling out now as if I had said it. I only want to reply to a certain charge which he made here. He also made the charge which we have so often heard from the other side, namely, that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in season and out of season, was being attacked by his former supporters, and the hon. member, amongst others, accused me that I was the ringleader of the P.P. brigade. He said in a mocking way, and we therefore have to conclude that the P.P. Brigade means the “Protect Pirow Brigade.” When reference is made in that mocking way to a P.P. brigade, it makes me think of another brigade, or rather I should call it a squadron, and it is the L.S.D. squadron, which has been created by legislation of this House as a squadron for Government members of Parliament in which they can go and serve, without it being necessary for them to go to the front. It is the squadron which has been created for khaki jobs for khaki pals, in which members of Parliament can go and serve, and keep their parliamentary salary, without doing any work in Parliament, while they in addition get a salary without their having to go and fight. That is the brigade which has been created for them, so that they apparently can go and serve for duty and honour, but in reality in order to fill their own pockets. The hon. member for Klip River repeatedly referred more particularly to an episode which took place here on the 4th September, an episode to which the Prime Minister, in his first speech after the 4th September, also referred, namely, that a letter had been written on the 4th September from our side of the House to the then Prime Minister, that we would support him in case he decided on neutrality. The Prime Minister, in his speech at Bloemfontein, charged the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) with having plotted with the Nationalist Party, and we heard the same thing again here tonight. The hon. member for Klip River was making that charge here, but he is not now in his place. He has shot his bolt, and now he has gone away. He is acting now just in the way that I expect hon. members on the opposite side will act in this war. They will not be there, where it will be possible for them to be fired on. I want to refer to the speech by the Prime Minister, the first public speech which he made, and in which he made the charge that the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister, negotiated beforehand with the Nationalist Party. I want to quote from the speech which he made at Bloemfontein on the 3rd November, in which he, serious as usual, said—

Then he goes on to mention the episode which was referred to again to-night—

By that communication he wanted to suggest to the House that there had been negotiation between the Prime Minister of that time and the Nationalist Party. He and the hon. member for Klip River have forgotten that for six years the Nationalist Party in this House had been using every opportunity to say that we stood for a policy of neutrality. The hon. member for Klip River heard that here dozens of times, and the Prime Minister also heard it dozens of times, and when the war broke out we only communicated to the Leader of the Opposition that we still stood by that policy, and if he were to adopt that line then we would stand by it. That is what the Prime Minister now calls intriguing, and the hon. member for Klip River wants to put his imprimatur on it. There was no intrigue in it. What took place there happened in broad daylight, and the public, the whole country and the whole world knew where we stood. What constitutes the difficulty to the Prime Minister is not that there was an intrigue, but the fact that there is now a united and common Opposition sitting here. That is what they are worrying about, and it is for that reason that they are trying to act in this way against this united Opposition. If even we refer to that speech by the Prime Minister we see that he is so much hurt about it that he is trying to poke fun at the amalgamation of the Nationalist Party with the supporters of the hon. member for Smithfield. He says at the end of his speech—

And then he tries to poke fun—

If that is the level which the Prime Minister chooses in the first public speech he made after we were plunged into war, and if I am to adopt that level, then I want to say that when he speaks of marriages in connection with the amalgamation of these parties, then I prefer to be associated with this marriage, because everything was done in a proper way, the courting took place, and there was a proper ceremony; but when we come to the so-called marriage on the other side; and we look at what passed amongst them on the 4th September, then it was not a marriage but it was, as we say in our simple Afrikaans, just a concubinage. What went on at a given moment when the present Prime Minister had to form a Government for South Africa? He is in office with a Government which does not enjoy the confidence of the people. Since 1924 the people have never told him by way of an election that he is entitled to be the Prime Minister of the country. That was the last occasion when he made an appeal to the people, and the people expressed a want of confidence in him. The people clearly told him that he should not occupy the position of Prime Minister. And how has he now crept into that position? I cannot describe it in any other way except by referring to the initiation speech which he made in this House in 1932. That was on the occasion of the establishment of coalition, and I said that it reminded me of Reynard the fox. He felt very much inclined to steal the fat fowls in the convent grounds, but he could not get in because there was a wall round the grounds. He then said that he would just be converted, and would get in in that way. As penance he would get within the walls of the cloister and get the fowls into his power. He did so, and when he was inside the walls he could not help looking sideways at the fat fowls, and when the priest said to him, “Reynard, surely it looks as if you are still looking longingly at the fowls,” he replied: “I am looking at those fowls, but I am praying for the souls of all the fowls who have already lost their lives through me.” In 1933 I said that that representation of the case suited the action which the Prime Minister had taken, and it made me think of that story. Now when I look at the occurences in this House on the 4th September, then it seems to me as if we were having the sequel of that story now. I looked at the game in the lobbies when an hon. member opposite asked whether there was a coalition, or a pact or an agreement for co-operation. The first hon. member told me that there was no coalition, and he said that in my constituency. The second, on the other hand, said that they were a coalition; and the third said that they had formed a “national government.” What took place? On the 4th September, in order to get into power, if I may put it in the same terms in which the Prime Minister put it in his speech at Bloemfontein, on the 4th September he saw that he could not carry on the Government with the part of the United Party that he had with him, and then he suddenly fell in love with the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, and a marriage took place. At the same time he also fell in love with the Minister of Mines, and then that was not sufficient, but he also embraced the representatives of the natives. There was not even a lobola paid, because we did not see the cattle in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. When there is a reference to the marriage on this side of the House, and the co-operation by the two, parties is mockingly referred to, then I want to say that I would a hundred times rather be responsible for the marriage on this side than for concubinage that is going on on the other side. Here two things have happened to-day to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. Hon. members opposite are so ready to hurl charges on this side of the House. From the start of the session there have been charges repeatedly made in this House, and also out of it, against the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), and when the challenge was given to appoint a proper commission to investigate the matter they did not have the courage to institute the enquiry. This afternoon there has again been a reference to it. The matter is hardly cold when we get the scene of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend), who makes charges against this side of the House. When the hon. member for Smithfield said “Institute an enquiry” the challenge was again not accepted. The fact of the matter is that they are not inclined to allow an enquiry to take place. What is more, they are not able to allow the light of a proper enquiry to shine on those things, because then the whole position will come to light and they will come very badly out of it. The statements of the hon. member for Gezina are ridiculed here, but we heard of the band of 50,000 knights of the truth who had to be appointed. They are people who have to go throughout the whole country now and publish the truth to the public. Hon. members on the other side are not courageous enough to tell the truth themselves in this House, and I may say that they do not even see their way of telling the truth to the public in the country, and, accordingly, 50,000 extra knights of truth have to be appointed, and they have to go into the world and, forsooth, tell the truth. What have we heard since the 4th September about the knights of truth? Let me just come to the revelations of the knights of truth. The truth which they publish is that which you should hide under a bushel; you may not allow it to be openly seen; it must be done in an underground way. It cannot stand the light of day. I should be glad if hon. members opposite will pay a little attention to what the knights of truth actually are and how they behave. I have a report here from a certain knight of truth somewhere in the Transvaal, and he was then asked to undertake certain obligations. What were the obligations? The knight of truth was told that he must take an oath of loyalty to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance said the other day that I asked pointed questions, and that he also wanted to do so now. To the pointed questions of the other side they got direct answers from this side, but in this case I hope the Minister will also follow my example, because it appears to be a good method. Now I want once more to put a pointed question, and it is whether it is true that the knights of truth were asked to take an oath of loyalty to the Prime Minister, whether it is true that they are being asked to associate themselves with the policy of the Prime Minister, whether it is true, as is stated in the Press, that such a knight of truth must ascertain, within a radius of 250 yards from his residence, what Afrikaners are listening in to Zeesen, and which of them are reacting to the news and talk which come from Zeesen? We therefore see that the knights of truth have to look inside human nature, and that they have to decide whether the man believes what he hears. In addition, he has to ascertain who listens in to the talks that are broadcast by our Government, to which the Prime Minister referred as being first-class propaganda. It is stated in the public Press here that these things have to be ascertained by the knights of the truth. I would like to know whether that is true, because then it is nothing else but smelling out. That is a real Gestapo. Then it is possibly also the explanation of how in our country honest Union nationals are put into the internment camps on false charges. That possibly gives us the explanation as to why they do not also dare to allow the search light to shine on those false charges. Possibly the knights of truth are by their action the cause of honest Union nationals being put into the internment camps owing to anonymous letters. Is that the work of the knights of truth? I think that it is high time that the country should know what the functions of the knights of truth are, and I think it is necessary that we should know whether these things are true or not. If they are not true then action ought to be taken against the Press which spreads those things.

Tell us what you said at Malmesbury.

I have listened to the arguments of the other side, and there was especially one hon. member who spoke in an interesting way regarding farming in our country, namely, the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). He felt very much hurt by what he called the parlous position of the farmers; those were his own words. He felt hurt that the farming population to-day were in the bad position that they were, and then he came and cast the blame on the old Nationalist Party, and then he criticised the old Nationalist Party of six or eight years ago. They were responsible for the parlous position. The hon. member, however, did not give one single hint as to how the farming population could be saved out of that terrible state, not one single thing did he suggest. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) was the only speaker on the other side, so far, who discussed farming interests in this budget debate, and who felt concerned about the farmers and their position. The hon. member’s speech, when analysed, takes us back to the hon. member himself. He has felt aggrieved ever since 1903 or thereabouts, about something or other. The hon. member said that he was going to reveal secrets, caucus secrets.

Tell us what you said at Malmesbury.

The hon. member over there understands nothing of what I am saying. I think he is thinking of Russia. I just want to say for his information that peace has been made between Russia and Finland. I hope he understood that.

I understood your treacherous speech at Malmesbury.

The hon. member is again referring to Malmesbury, but he has already had to withdraw four or five times because he said things which he was not entitled to say. I can quite understand that he is still swallowing now what happened there.

Under your friend Hitler you would have been interned.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) said that inasmuch as Cabinet secrets had been revealed, he was going to reveal caucus secrets. The House listened, but the secrets were never mentioned. We know that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) has a personal grievance, and I do not know whether I may say this, but his speech this afternoon practically amounted to this, that if he, for instance, had been Minister of Agriculture since 1932, or possibly Prime Minister, then South Africa would have been an unrivalled paradise. That is the impression which he gave. Here we are now being asked to vote for a budget which was rightly called a war budget by the Minister of Finance. We have a War Cabinet, and one of the members of the War Cabinet was sent overseas, and he did certain things there in order to compromise us. He said over there that South Africa was unanimously taking part in the war. The Minister of Native Affairs told the people abroad how unanimous South Africa was in its support of the war policy. Why has the Minister of Native Affairs not yet got up and told the House what stories he told the people abroad? We definitely object to a Minister being sent overseas, to South Africa being compromised, and to the state having to pay for all the expenses, and he does not come and make any report. I think we are entitled to hear a speech by the Minister as to what the things were that he said, and how he compromised us. We are now being asked to vote war expenditure up to an amount of £14,000,000. The question is now being put, and I hope the Minister of Finance will answer it, whether that will be the total amount which will be required in the course of this year. He asked the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) whether it was expected of him to introduce a budget for three years. No, but he must plainly state the things which he was now engaged in hiding. Will the £14,000,000 be enough? Will he not later on ask for additional expenditure over and above the £14,000,000? I think we are entitled to a reply to that question. It is not only that a tremendous sum of £14,000,000 is being asked for in connection with war expenditure, but there are a few questions which must be put in that connection. How is the money going to be spent, where is it going to be spent, when will it be spent, and on whom will it be spent? Is it going to be spent in connection with South Africa and South Africa alone? Then comes the question which I have already put, whether that will actually be the total amount. A veil of secrecy is being drawn over all these important questions. In connection with the questions, the veil of elasticity is drawn, to borrow a word from the Prime Minister. It has been repeatedly asked whether they expect an attack, whether they think that South Africa will have to defend herself. Where do they expect the enemy to attack? The answer of the Prime Minister is that the borders are elastic. We do not know how far they may be stretched. I think after, what has taken place in Europe during the last few days, the Government should take the public into its confidence and say whether they expect a development of the war in the east, and if so—I put the question chiefly because now that peace has been concluded in the North—what does the Government expect; will South Africa be drawn into it? Those questions are simply toyed with, and the public is being deceived. They are engaged in robbing the Treasury of tremendous sums for imperial purpose, with which South Africa is not concerned at all. They are commandeering the Treasury for imperial purposes. Let the Prime Minister, or someone else on that side, get up and say that they have not commandeered the Treasury. They first of all commandeered the Treasury, and in the second place, the possessions of the public. The Minister of Finance said that he did not want our descendants to pay for the war. That also is a deception which is being committed on the people. Where is he going to get the money if he wants to see the war through? Our descendants will pay for the war just as the descendants of the war generation of 1914 have to pay for the war of 1914-T8. When we are asked to vote millions of pounds to participate in such a war, are we not entitled to know what the object of the war is, may we not be told where it is and what its object is? There has been secrecy about the whole matter, and all we know is that a member of Parliament need not go to the war, he will be able to get an administrative post while he will also at the same time get his pay as a member of Parliament. That is the only thing we know. When a war is going on, we should always first of all ask who is going to be injured in the first instance, by such a war, and who will suffer most owing to such a war. The people who will be most injured are in the first place, the poor people. I was astonished to hear from the Minister of Finance, when the question was raised in the House that there had been a tremendous rise in the cost of living, that the Minister of Finance did not know of any rise in the cost of living. I do not know whether he knows it now, I do not know whether the pictures of distress which the farmers’ representatives have painted here have made him realise what the rise in the cost of living has been, as well as in the costs of production of the farmers. If he does not know that yet, then I will tell him. I might almost say that though he is unmarried, he should try to live on 5s. 6d. a day, he should try to live on 5s. 6d. a day with a wife and children for whom he has to provide food and clothing. When he tries that then he will most certainly find that there has been a rise in the cost of living. While there are complaints from all sides of the House about the rise in the cost of living, there is not a word in the budget that provision will be made for the poor section of the population, who will be the first and worst sufferers. I have laid down the proposition before that if the Government really wants to govern, then like the patriarchs of old they will first have to provide for and give their service and love to those who are having the worst time and suffering the most. What has our Government done for the low-paid section of the people? Unemployment is constantly increasing, and the people can no longer keep body and soul together. I make this statement, and I challenge the Minister to deny that the cost of living has gone up. Prices have gone up and the people can no longer live as they did before the war. They cannot live more cheaply than before, and what relief is the Minister going to give when the poorwhites, who are always the first to be affected, are going to suffer so severely. In a debate of this kind one would have expected that the majority of the members of the Cabinet would have been in their seats, but that is not so and it struck me that the Minister of Labour was very little in his place.

Where are your front benchers?

I will just allow that hon. member to go on shouting, because he has to do something, anyhow. This chamber still resounds with the voice of the Minister of Labour and his comments, for all these years, on the serious malnutrition in our country, which we have had throughout the whole of South Africa. I asked the hon. member opposite why he withdrew his motion for the introduction of a minimum wage of 10s. and his reply was that he had to do it. Who made him do so? The Minister of Labour knows what the position in our country is, what is going on, and he knows that malnutrition and hunger are prevailing to an increasing extent. He has been pleading all those years for those people who had to suffer from malnutrition, but, he is now sitting in the Cabinet of Unionists, imperialists and capitalists, and be no longer dares to open his mouth since he has been sitting there.

*Mr. STEYTLER [inaudible].

If there is one hon. member in this House who makes a mistake every time he opens his mouth, then it is the hon. member for Kimberley (District). I have already said he does not feel upset about his past, but in consequence of his sitting there now. There is a considerable amount of unemployment, and every time people lose their jobs it is said: Join the army. That is denied, but I have already pointed out that the diamond mines at Koffiefontein are being closed. There are men running into 50, 60 and up to 70 who are now being put out of work there, and what will be done for them? I do not see a word about it in the newspapers, but I see that the price of diamonds has actually risen, and Hoggenheimer is once more busy filling his pockets with money, not only out of gold, but out of diamonds., but the people who are doing the work are put on the streets, and then they have to buy their bread with their blood, because they cannot get any work. I want to ask the Minister for an answer. What is he going to do to make provision for those people who are being discharged from their work on the mine at Koffiefontein? My time is short, but I want to point out that there is one section of the population suffering particularly owing to the war, and the extravagance which is connected with it, and that is the farming population. Now I want to put a few direct questions, and I want to know whether it is a fact or not that Great Britain is making a profit out of the wool which we had to send to them under the wool agreement? Let someone deny it.

It is not certain.

I must say that I sympathise with the hon. member for Kimberley (District), and if I have some day to render him the last honours, then I would put up the following inscription on the white cliffs of Dover—

In his own interests for the sake of his past, I will add to that—

I am putting a very direct question here. Was it so in the war of 1914-T8, or was it not a fact that the British Government made a profit out of the wool farmers of South Africa, and the answer comes as clear as the rising sun: Yes, it is true. I cannot understand why we should to-day expect these indirect contributions to the war from the wool farmers of South Africa, why these contributions should, without their consent, be laid on the altar of the Empire. I also want to ask, is it so or is it not that owing to the agreement which the Government made with Great Britain on the 4th September, that immediately after the agreement buyers would be withdrawn from our market, and that a drop would immediately take place on our market, that in consequence of that drop the farmers suffered loss. Is there an hon. member who can deny that the farmers suffered a loss at that time? I want to ask the Minister to give a reply to the question whether anything has been done to compensate for the loss which the farmers suffered owing to the action of the Government? I just want to mention one other matter, and it is in connection with the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha). He advocated, and I assume that he did so honestly, that special assistance should be given to the widows and children who needed it, I mean those which resulted from the Boer war. Surely I am right in stating it that way?

Yes, it is so.

When we moved to make special provision for those people, the hon. member for Frankfort heartily supported it, but when it came to a division, he voted against us, and in favour of no provision being made. I think that the same thing will happen again now. I assume that he is honest, that his plea was bona fide, he is pleading on behalf of those people, but there is not a single thing in the Budget which is held out as being something the Government will do for those people. Just as the hon. member for Kimberley "(District) painted the deplorable position of the farmers, and then turned round and congratulated the Minister of Finance on the Budget, in which nothing was being done for the farmers and to remedy their parlous position. He is here asked to vote £14,000,000. I do not say for the current year, because we are asked to vote the amount for the war without the guarantee that it is sufficient for the current year, and I want to ask him what is going to happen. What will be the cost when the war is over which will be put on to the shoulders of South Africa? We are entitled to ask this. When we look abroad, then it appears that the war will continue until the nations opposed to us will become totally insolvent. Accordingly we say: Save South Africa, and pull us out of the war, which is only a waste of money in our opinion. I actually want to point out that it is said here that the money is being spent in connection with the protection that we enjoy, and I only hope that when it is said that it is for the protection of South Africa, that it will be spent in such a way that the protection South Africa will receive will not be the kind of protection which Poland got, or like the assistance given to Finland. All the Poles got was the sympathy of Great Britain, and we read in the newspapers that the sympathy of Great Britain is still very great. But South Africa is not able to pay for that sympathy.

The way in which this Budget has been received by the country and the general satisfaction which it gives, and the way in which this Budget has responded to the test of the best financial critics in this House is the best proof that the Minister of Finance, in addition to his many-sided outstanding capabilities as a great Afrikaner, has won new spurs as a great Minister of Finance. I want to cherish the hope, seeing that he was obliged to introduce this Budget, probably at one of the most difficult periods in the history of South Africa, where he for the most part had to base everything on guesses, he will nevertheless at the end of the financial year come as soundly and well out of it as the Budget gives promise of at the start of the financial year. If there is one thing in the Budget to which I must take exception, then I say that I am sory that the rebate of 30 per cent. on income tax has been withdrawn. But on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I must at the same time acknowledge that the former Minister of Finance repeatedly said in this House that that rebate was only of a temporary nature, and that sooner or later it would have to be withdrawn. If we want to be prosperous in this country then it can only happen if we have a prosperous and financially sound agricultural population. The question has involuntarily risen in my mind, if we want to make our agricultural population financially sound, whether we should not be without a Government and all go and sit on the Opposition benches. It is strange that you constantly get from the Opposition benches the best and the most acceptable schemes to uplift and to rehabilitate the farming population. What particularly surprised me was that former United Party members, who for years under the United Party Government always described as impracticable the schemes that were suggested by the Opposition, and who were not able to support those schemes because they seemed impracticable to us, now that they sit on the other side of the House, preach those schemes as a solution of the difficulties of the farmers. I say that it is better for the agricultural population to have no Government, than for its difficulties to have to be solved in that way. Let us all go and sit on the Opposition benches and preach that doctrine and see who will carry it out in practice. But that is only the difference between party politics and irresponsibility on the one hand, and responsible Government on the other. We can be inconsistent, and stir up feeling, and make a gamble of it. We can in that way mislead people by deceiving them in the interests of a political party, but when the hard-working farmers, who have a bitterly hard time in keeping their heads above water, and who struggle and fight to make a living, have to be exploited in such a way for party political purposes and to be treated as a party political football, then let it, for heaven’s sake be done by the professional politicians in this country and in this House, but not by their fellow farmers, who have a higher calling as farmers’ representatives in this House. Our farming community who are carrying on the agricultural industry, have had a very severe time since 1929.

What about the hard times that are lying ahead?

If my hon. friend will give me an opportunity of finishing, then he can have his opportunity of criticising later on. Since 1929 they have passed through a very severe time, and they are still struggling to-day with the burdens that were laid upon them during those ten or eleven years, with insuperable economic conditions and with problems which were created in those days. It demands the greatest persistence and courage to be able to carry on in the circumstances they have had to battle with, without giving in hopelessly. Many of them have already been ruined and broken as farmers, and many others are in distress and are being threatened with ruin. What are we, as their representatives in this House doing to improve that state of affairs; what are we doing beyond talking and making a noise, and exploiting their troubles for party political purposes and for the benefit of political parties? If we are really in earnest about their difficulties and their interests, then we would be less concerned about party politics and party political gain, and give more time and attention to their interests both in this House and in the country. If a small half of the force, energy, enthusiasm and time which are spent in this House on party politics were devoted to the interests of the farming population, all the farmers would be saved, and we would in a short time have a prosperous farming population in the country. It is doing a cruel injustice to the farmers for them to be constantly kicked about for political purposes, as if they were a political football. We can continue on those lines, but it is scandalous behaviour towards this tried farming population, whom our friends opposite are so keen on making out that they are representing here. The day of the awakening will come as happened in 1933. Ten years ago we had a comparatively prosperous population in the country, but what is the position to-day? Farms are heavily mortgaged, debts have accumulated, notarial mortgages have been entered into over movable property, stock, implements, etc. The farmers are stooping under intolerable burdens. They are slowly disappearing, sometimes quickly, but most certainly. And all this while their leaders and representatives are more concerned, in more than one respect, about their votes than about their interests. It may be very kind and nice for some hon. members to act in that way, but it is an unpardonable sin which they are committing against their vocation as representatives of the interests of farmers in this House. It is dishonest and unfair to come and trade in this way on the existence of that important section of the population which is now in great distress.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is an hon. member entitled to read his speech?

hon. members know that a speech may not be read. I understand that the hon. member is referring to full notes.

I did not know that these blows were going home to such an extent that my friends who have now been woke out of their sleep, make charges of that kind over the floor of the House. I say that that state of affairs is of too deep a kind to be tolerated and justified by any right-minded person in this country, or by any right-minded person in regard to the interests of the farming community. It wounds me, as a farmer—often very deeply—to see this state of affairs, and to see the position which is revealed in this House towards the interests of those people. There are two causes for the condition which our farmers are in. The first is the result of the gold standard trouble. The gold standard drove the farming population into this unfortunate position. They have never yet been reinstated from the consequences of that. They are still suffering to-day from the consequences, and since that time they have always been carrying the burdens arising from the gold standard and the collapse of the prices of their produce, which were the consequence of the gold standard. There is also a second cause, and that is that we have in recent years developed quickly in agricultural matters in order to become an exporting country, where we are obliged to compete with agricultural countries who are in a more favourable position in the world, in producing their products. It is indeed true that since that time much has been done by the Governments, and also by the last Government, to improve the position, to try to keep the people going and to enable them to continue their industry. But it is also equally true that the people have never yet been reinstated since that time. There are repeated references here to a commission of inquiry being required. How many commissions of inquiry have we already had in the past and what has resulted from them. We have had three succeeding Governments since that time, we have had three Ministers of Agriculture and two Ministers of Finance, who (I am prepared to agree) all tried to the best of their ability to do something. There is not one of those Ministers who was unsympathetic towards the conditions with which the farming population had to battle. But where do we stand to-day after all that? Has the position improved? No, when there really was a golden opportunity to get the position improved, when the Coalition Government came into existence, what did those hon. members do who represent today that they are so concerned about the interests of farmers? The interests of their political party weighed more with them, and they created a breach, and instead of their being in earnest and helping to look after the interests of the farmers, they went into opposition against that Government which came into existence to save the farmers. No, those are the pretended friends of the farming population who are so concerned about their position! It is sometimes extremely painful to listen to the speeches on the opposite side, speeches of people who have not got the least idea of the agricultural interests and of the needs of the farmers. It is all camouflage, and we have already been dealing with it long enough to prevent us being misled by it any longer. All this camouflage, all these injections, all these restorative and quack remedies will not save our farmers, and will not heal that economic position of the farmers. Something more drastic and effective will have to be done; something which will totally change the position; something which will go much deeper and suit the extraordinary agricultural conditions of South Africa. In agricultural matters we are a poor country. It is in vain that we close our eyes to it. The yield per acre and the fruitfulness of our soil is lower than that of most other agricultural countries, and the more we produce and develop the more we will become dependent on markets in overseas countries for our produce. Not only is our yield per acre low, but our rainfall is very uncertain. I know that the whole agricultural world is involved in the greatest agricultural difficulties; they are all looking for markets and better prices, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is not worth while to find out what other agricultural countries are doing to deal with their agricultural problems, and to solve them, and whether we cannot get some of their remedies as well in order to solve our difficulties. Try to get into touch with them, to see whether we cannot gain good ideas out of their experience. It is unpleasant and humiliating for us as a farming community, to constantly go with our hats in our hands like beggars, to ask the Government to assist us to make a living and to progress. It is humiliating, and it destroys our self-dependence and undermines our independence. We have a good Minister of Agriculture. His ready sympathy has been shown in the past. He is always approachable and prepared to give advice, and to show the necessary sympathy, and where it is necessary to give help. We not only have a sympathetic Minister of Agriculture and one who is ready to help, but we also have a sympathetic and helpful Agricultural Department. We have a Department of Agriculture which goes out of its way to assist the farmers with advice, and to meet them as much as possible, under the laws of the land. But we are faced here by a much larger problem than the one we have to deal with under normal circumstances, a much larger problem than the one the country would have to deal with in the normal course of events, and which can only be efficiently attacked in a calm, moderate and non-political way. The appointment of a commission of inquiry is constantly being asked for. Shall we be able to get the experts to investigate every branch of agriculture separately, as will be required? I need not go into the details. We all know that there are many-sided developments of agriculture. Just take one branch, namely, wool. Let us ask ourselves the question what the position of the wool farmers would have been if the war had not come. It is only owing to the increased price in consequence of the war that the people have been able to make a proper living again to-day.

Are you going to continue the war in order to keep the price of wool high?

May I ask the Minister, seeing that we are dealing with such an extremely important matter, whether it is possible and desirable to appoint a select committee of Parliament to go into the whole agricultural question fully, in order to thresh it out to get all the information and the evidence, and then to have a scheme drafted by a parliamentary commission composed of farmers belonging to all political parties, together with the officials of the Department of Agriculture. Then it will perhaps be possible to put an effective scheme before Parliament provided we eliminate party politics. If it is necessary a special session of Parliament might even be summoned to deal with this great question, even if we have to spend six months on it. When we have eventually put the agricultural population on a sound economic basis then it will be worth the trouble. There is, for example, the question of meteorological stations in the South Pole sea, or somewhere in the far south. Weather forecasts are commencing to develop quickly of recent years. Research work in that connection has already gone quite a long way. It is already possible to make reliable weather forecasts with a great amount of certainty. The weather can already be prophesied for a considerable time ahead. We also know that the loosening and drifting of the ice blocks in the South Pole region are regarded as an indication of the tides, and of the climatic conditions. Meteorologists are able to draw inferences from that, and to prophesy whether our rainfall will be normal or otherwise for the season. If we can get anything useful and reliable from that source, it will tremendously assist the farmers. It will assist them in knowing beforehand how to arrange their affairs. It will enable them at least to meet the future with a greater amount of security. I make bold to say that if it becomes practicable, at least 50 per cent. of our agricultural problems will in that way be got rid of. To-day we only have weather forecasts for 24 hours in advance, and for the rest we have to fall back on Dr. Stubbs’ prophecies for the year, and they are, with all deference, be it said, extremely unreliable. And notwithstanding that, it is almost incredible to believe how many people attach the greatest value and credence to them. I want to ask the Minister to give these few humble thoughts the consideration which they may deserve, and to try and provide us with something more reliable, and to see whether these matters which have been mentioned by me cannot be tackled with the seriousness they deserve.

A document was laid on the Table of every hon. member this afternoon which suggests that this Parliament should give assistance to Finland to the extent of £50,000. The deep tragedy in connection with this motion is that it comes just at the moment at which the defeat which Finland has suffered is being known here. Here you have a democratic libertyloving people which fought to the very end against wild hordes, against whom you can practically call armed barbarians, and that liberty-loving people are now in the stranglehold of the Bolshevists. To us in South Africa probably more than anywhere else, more than in any other country of the world, these events have come with a very great shock, because the struggle of the Finns which was such a tragic one, reminds us of what we ourselves passed through 40 years ago, of the struggle which just like that of the case of the Finns, cost the best blood of our men, women and children, a struggle which also cost us our freedom. We who have followed the fate of Finland since December, when the struggle started, have felt that it was not merely a question of the freedom of the Finns, but we also felt that if they had confidence in the assistance of the other democratic powers, then their expectations would be disappointed, and according to the broadcast speech of Tanner, the Minister of External Affairs of Finland, which is published this afternoon, that is precisely what he felt and has experienced, namely, that the Finns had to yield to the conditions of the Bolsheviks, because they did not have sufficient armaments and because they had no faith in the promises of others. That is the conclusion which Tanner came to, and he said that Finland had to fight against an enemy which was powerful in numbers, and that she had to fight alone. “Our surrender was caused by our having been left in the lurch by the other democracies,” he said. That is an arresting accusation. Finland, in the past, has conducted a similar war against the same enemy, and in the beginning obtained more or less success. When the enemy thought that they had already gained the victory, the young poet Hjalmar Procopé, when the position appeared hopeless, at the time of the bitterest humiliation, the then enemy (who is also the enemy again to-day) had already rejoiced at the end of Finland, and then the poet wrote a bitterly sarcastic poem about “Finis Finlandiae,” but he also at the same time prophesied that a day would come when the yoke of the foreign hordes would be shaken off. The words were prophetic, because that happened, as a matter of fact. But now again the Finns are subject to the Bolsheviks. I thought that I ought to pay a few words of homage to the brave Finns. The Finns live in the most northern democratic country in the world, and we are the most southern democratic country, but notwithstanding the fact that we lie at the extreme ends, it is not too far to think of each other with special sympathy. The £50,000 which I find here on the additional estimates is certainly not the measure of the sympathy which we have for Finland.

The item can be debated when the motion in connection with the second additional estimates comes up.

Women and children are suffering in Finland to-day. Thousands of men have been killed, homes have been ruined, terrible distress has been caused. South Africa has also conducted a struggle for freedom and independence, and feels deeply sympathetic towards the Finns, and I hope that we will make every effort to show our sympathy towards them. Democracy, for which the Finns fought to the uttermost, is a priceless possession, and one feels sorry when you notice signs amongst us, even in this House, amongst hon. members, which you would not in the least expect, that the democratic freedom which we are all striving to get, is actually so little appreciated. I did not in the least expect it from the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) that he would preach the very dangerous doctrine that in war time a citizen who is not prepared to follow the political policy of the Government was necessarily a disloyal citizen. I must protest against those words. I have already on a previous occasion made a protest against them, and I thought that the hon. member for Potchefstroom would have reconsidered the matter and been converted. But what did he say last night? He said that he had reconsidered the matter, but had not changed his mind—on the contrary, he is more than ever convinced of the doctrine which he preached. That doctrine departs from the most sacred principles and from the most noble things of our ancestors, both on the English and on the Afrikaans side, one which they always held high. Our ancestors fought for 80 years for democratic freedom, and their wives and children were also murdered by the thousand. On the English side, they have been fighting for more than 700 years for that freedom, and they drew up a Magna Charta more than 700 years ago, and to-day it is still the foundation of their freedom. Then there are hon. members like the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who apparently do not feel that. Why does he not feel it? He says here that martial law may be proclaimed. Certainly that may happen, and Hitler may also come here, and will he then be satisfied? We feel this very deeply, because the feeling of liberty comes from the very depths of our nature, and any attack on our liberty goes to the depths of our hearts. Then we intend to spend a large sum on the putting in order, I think, of the camp at Baviaanspoort. I have just been sitting here thinking what the intention is. Is it possibly the conscience of the hon. member for Potchefstroom that is troubling him a little? Some of our own people have been put into the camps, and sometimes one thinks that the day may even come when he himself may land there. I do not know whether the hon. member for Potchefstroom has thought of that, and I hope it will not happen, but if he does land there some day, then he will find things a little better than the people who are there to-day. I just want to refer, by a few words, to what I heard as to how the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) said that this was a generally approved budget, and that immediately after the speech of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). Surely that is going a little too far, a little optimistic. The hon. member for Caledon will agree with me that this budget has all the farmers’ representatives against it. I would like to remind him how the gold-mining industry is being treated, and to compare it with that of the farmers. We notice that the rate of interest on farm loans is being put up to 5 per cent., although we know that the farmers are dropping out of the race because everything is going against them. When I listened to the Minister of Finance, I thought in consequence of his splendid eloquence, that it really was a beautiful speech, because we must admit that the Minister of Finance is eloquent, but when I read it through I find that it is not so nice. The Minister reminds me of the well-known story of the three people who were having a jolly argument. One of them was a surgeon, the second a mathematician, an accountant, and the other was a politician. After they had some nice wine they quarrelled, and you know when one has drunk wine, then you can sometimes lift yourself out of yourself, and you can criticise yourself. They were arguing as to whose profession was the oldest. The doctor said: Our profession is the oldest, because Adam had to be operated on to give life to Eve, that was the first operation. But the mathematician said: No, my profession is the oldest, because long before that time we had to create order out of chaos. And the politician who had taken a few glasses of wine, listened to them and said: No, neither the profession of the doctor nor that of the mathematician is the oldest, but my profession is, because where did chaos come from? Of that the Minister of Finance reminded me, because it is only a few years ago when the Minister advocated the maintenance of the gold standard, he was not the Minister then, but the price of gold was then only 84s., and now he is the Minister, and acts in exactly the opposite way. Although he has the power to fix the price of gold, which is now much higher, at 150s., he now says no, let it run on. I am afraid of the economic chaos which is going to happen. I think that the Minister of Finance is too good a man to allow his powers to be used in that way, not for the maintenance of the welfare of South Africa, but for the creation of chaotic conditions in South Africa.

I have only a few minutes at my disposal, and have so much to deal with. On this occasion I feel in a much better mood than last time. I am calm and collected, and yet I am touched to the deeps about the economic position of our people, just as I am affected by their sacred things. As I am taking part in the budget debate, I want first of all to dwell on the speeches of a few of the last speakers on the Government side. In the first instance I want to congratulate the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) on the first attempt, since I have known him in the House, to address the House in Afrikaans. But he nevertheless did venture to attack our leader. What did he say? That the time had come when he had to state that Great Britain was our greatest friend. Certainly, I as a business man regard my best customer as my best friend, because if my friend is not there for the purpose of coming over my doorstep, then I shall have to close down my business. No one can deny that the commerce of South Africa has, to a great extent, owing to British diplomacy and British capitalism, become commerce with Great Britain.

At 10.55 p.m. (while Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe was addressing the House), the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned, to be resumed on 14th March.