I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned last night I was saying some things to the Minister that were intended to be complimentary, but I have to modify my testimonial to some extent. I want to refer to the new Superannuation Bill (clause 30), which involves the forfeiture of money paid into the pension fund by railway servants who go on strike. I want the Minister to see this thing from the point of view of equity and justice, not only to the railway servants themselves, but to those who depend upon them. The fact that by striking, railway servants lose the contributions which they had paid into the superannuation and pension fund, as well as their employment, is grossly unfair to the wives and children who depend upon them. It is a vicious principle. I hope the Minister will see the thing from that point of view. In the ordinary way if a body of men go on strike, you have the ordinary machinery to deal with them; and in the ordinary way they would be dismissed, but for them to have to forfeit what they have paid into the fund is grossly unfair, especially as under the same Bill a servant who commits grave misconduct is entitled to a refund of his contributions to the fund. The disciplinary regulations and superannuation fund should be kept entirely distinct. There is one exception that perhaps might be made, and that is where a railway servant has been guilty of misappropriation and has taken substantial funds belonging to the administration. In a case of that kind, I think the man should be liable to refund the amount that he has misappropriated. Attention has been drawn in the “Railway Review” to large credit balances which are standing to the credit of some of the railway funds. In this connection I would commend to the attention of hon. members some comments which appeared in the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 31st March, 1924. There is this undoubted fact that by the elaborate system of bookkeeping carried on in the department and the application of railway revenue to various funds, we may be carrying very substantial balances which are lying untouched, while at the same time we are being told that the railways are not paying their way. It seems to me that there is something to be said for the point of view that these balances should be kept as low as possible, and, having regard to the importance of rate reduction and fair treatment of the staff, I think the Minister will probably agree that these balances should be kept as low as possible in the future. Then there is the old story about railway revenue being debited with certain charges. Year after year we have been hammering away at the need of the railway revenue being credited with the economic rate in regard to everything that it carries. We know that rates have in some cases been reduced below what is called an economic rate in order to attract traffic, which is, of course, permissible, but it ought to be the policy of any Minister, however, to see that his department and his revenue should be credited with the economic rate within this limitation in respect of all the traffic that the railway carries. When that is done, we shall begin to see what a splendid asset we have in our railways and harbours. As to the question of branch lines, I ventured last evening to express the opinion that the time had arrived in South Africa, seeing that we now have Union and that the old colonial system under which each colony looked after itself and pursued a railway policy to suit its own requirements is a thing of the past, when we should go in for a comprehensive system of linking up of our railways from a South African point of view. The whole policy of railway construction should be looked upon from a broader standpoint in future. It may be necessary to construct to begin with, one or two more main or trunk lines in addition to those that we already have, with the ultimate idea of extending the branch lines in both directions. When you have a comprehensive system of main lines with branch lines spreading out in both directions and linked up to those main lines, you will have in South Africa a system of railways which will be of great advantage to the country, and really give the farming and commercial community a chance of showing what a national policy of development really means to South Africa. In my opinion it is grossly unfair to saddle the branch lines with a proportion of the losses due to mismanagement of the past. Means should be found for the loss to be paid off some other way, so as to relieve new branch lines, and encourage railway development. I should also like to see a broad national polity adopted in regard to the construction of new lines. Every year we have this farce of scores of members all over the House getting up and asking for new railways, each member insisting that the line he wishes is the only necessary and possible one to be considered. The question of railway construction should be tackled on national lines, and only those lines should be commenced and constructed which form part of a complete scheme. Then I hope the Minister will make it a part of his policy to say that no more narrow-gauge lines shall be constructed in this country. Although the cost of a narrow-gauge line is less, this is more than counterbalanced by the inconvenience, and the cost of transshipment to the broader gauge, etc. On the matter of electrification of the railways, I hope this also will be tackled with a view to future requirements. There appears to be a tendency to electrify the railways in piecemeal fashion, but we should keep in view the probable requirements of 25 or 50 years hence. At present we may only require two sets of rails to Simonstown, for instance, but twenty years hence we may require four, and we should lay out our present scheme with an eye to future needs. I understand, at present, in electrifying the Sea Point line, it is intended to proceed on the single-line basis. If you do this, then in the end it will cost the country twice as much, and be far less satisfactory from every point of view. In regard to the main line also, I could never understand why, after all these years, and considering the enormous amount of time that has been lost by business men in travelling between Cape Town and Johannesburg, and the delay in transporting goods, etc., the whole line has not been doubled. That would have been a good policy for South Africa, during the depression, and would have provided employment, which would have been much better than adopting the bad economic system of spending hundreds of thousands on relief work. Then I want to reiterate what I said last night, that we as a Labour party do not want to hurt in any way the interests of the farming or commercial community. We want development, and development means a bigger civilized population, which in turn means more production and more work for the children of this country. All we insist on is that the first charge on the railway revenue should be a living wage for those working on the railways. I understand also that, in America, private railway companies make a practice of conveying fertilizers for use on the land free. By doing this they get, in course of time, such an enormous amount of freight, in return, that they are amply repaid for this policy, and I think that such a policy might well be adopted in South Africa, and I venture to predict that if this were done, the traffic on the railways would increase tenfold as a result. I wish in conclusion to say a word in regard to the new policy of extending the field for civilized labour. The Minister will be criticized no doubt for doing this, but we of the Labour party are with him heart and soul in this matter. We consider that, whatever defects there may be in the present railway administration, the policy of employing more civilized labour is a good thing for this country, not only for the Europeans and the coloured people but the natives as well. If you increase the spending power of any part of the population you increase the prosperity of the whole, and it would be a good thing for this country if the native were paid higher wages. The idea that because natives are not employed on the railways they cannot be found work is ridiculous. I have travelled thousands of miles in this country, and in my opinion, we have not begun to realize its possibilities. I do not think we need worry as to whether the native can get a job or not if we go on with a policy of development, and I think that there is far more need to worry when thousands of our young men are walking in the streets of our cities, and natives are brought in even from outside the Union to work in their places, whereas their proper sphere is in agriculture, and far more natural too. Why should you persist in a policy of attracting natives from outside to work on the railways to the detriment of our own children? I wish again to compliment the hon. Minister on having the moral courage to adopt that policy, and although it is costing more money, that money is being spent in this country, and will assist in building up its resources in the years to come.

We listened yesterday evening to a characteristic oration from the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth)—the orator par excellence in this House of the flambuoyant phrase and sweeping gesture but, like so many of his orations, it seemed to be phrase and nothing else. When I listened for a little logic and even less fact I was unable to find them. Whatever figures he gave were ably answered by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). He seemed to be addressing an audience, not one of responsible parliamentarians including the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), but an election meeting which appreciates denunciation and is not critical of the facts and the statements which the speaker is making. His facts and statements were, to put it mildly, such as could not be received as representing anything like the truth. I remember the hon. member’s speeches in this House when he first entered it. I always listened to them with pleasure. I remember his first financial speech in 1921, when he emerged upon a dazzled and bewildered country as the apostle of inflation and propounded a scheme for the issue of ten million pounds in paper money.

That is not true.

That was to save this country from any financial trouble, and the ex-Minister of Finance would have been in the eyes of the hon. member a Daniel come to judgment if he had flooded the country with paper money and so provided for the inflated demands of the provincial councils. I am afraid the hon. member for Kroonstad, whose whole outlook on finance and other questions is that of a school teacher—

That is not fair.

He cannot forget he was a school teacher, because in every speech he refers to provincial finance and teachers’ salaries on that basis. I wonder whether he does not look forward to the time when he will desert the hurly-burly of this House and return to the calm groves of the academic profession. I did not refer to him as a school teacher in any disparaging sense. Surely it is a matter of honour to have belonged to that profession? I was merely making the point that his attitude, especially in regard to provincial finance, is that of a school teacher, and he speaks in this House as a mouthpiece of a section of that profession. In his attack on the financial policy of the late Minister of Finance, the hon. member declared that the late Minister was responsible for the starving of education in this country. The late Minister appeared to him as a modern Herod, who, in an educational sense, slaughtered the school children of this country and deprived them of their chance of education. Personally, I approve of his financial policy in regard to the provinces in every way. The offence of the late Minister, according to the hon. member, consisted in this, that he was not prepared to allow the provinces to continue the mad, reckless orgy of extravagance on which they embarked. His attitude to the provinces in 1921 was this: “We have had to cut our coat according to our cloth in Union finance, and so you will have to retrench. As our public expenditure has increased by only 3 per cent., and we cannot afford more, so will your expenditure increase by only 3 per cent.” If that is a policy of starving education and holding up the future of this country, then I am sorry for the outlook of the hon. member.

What was the result of that policy?

At a time when we were having the greatest difficulty in making ends meet, were we to allow the provinces to go on multiplying expenditure as they were doing? Does the hon. member not know that the expenditure of the provinces was nearly trebled; and did a word ever come from him or his party in denunciation of that increase? They took up the attitude that if the word “education” was mentioned there had to be a holy silence. Any form of extravagance or reckless expenditure, if only done in the holy name of education, was sacred. They might—as they did in the Transvaal—multiply high schools indefinitely in little drops, where there was scarcely need for a primary school, and they might, in order to tout for pupils, offer free scholarships, and inflate the salaries of teachers to a degree unknown in any other part of the civilized world. But you must not utter a word of criticism, for if you did you were accused of being an enemy of education. I am not an enemy of education, and hon. members here who pleaded for efficiency and economy were not enemies of education. The only offence of which Mr. Burton was guilty was to say to the provinces, “You must draw in your horns.” But, nevertheless, he is held up to the opprobrium of this House as if he were a modern Herod destroying the infant life of South Africa. Don’t forget that Mr. Burton did allow for an increase in provincial expenditure of 3 per cent. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) last night described the new preference to Great Britain as a friendly gesture, although the value of that preference is to be reduced from £860,000 to £300,000. If that be a gesture of friendship, the action of the late Minister of Finance in cutting down the increase in provincial subsidies from 15 per cent. to 3 per cent., but still increasing them, was a gesture of love. And yet he has been denounced as the arch-enemy of the progress of education! When you come to analyze the statements of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) you see that, despite its wealth of denunciation and picturesque facility of expression, there is very little justification for them.

Deal with the figures I gave you.

Does the hon. member suggest that the reduction of the number of scholars is due to Mr. Burton’s policy?

Yes.

If you choose to pay excessive and increasing salaries to your staff naturally there comes a time when you cannot open new schools. Where does the responsibility rest? Surely on those who condone this extravagance. Are we to find money by borrowing in order that provincial councils may continue on their extravagant path? The hon. member accused the late Government of saddling the country with an additional burden of six millions for pension funds. That is an irresponsible statement to make, for he knows that these funds are all pre-Union funds, and that their insolvency is due, in the main, to the recommendations of the Graham Commission of 1921, which recommended a sudden jump in salaries of the public and railway servants. He knows that the pension drawn by a public or railway servant is based either on his last or last three years’ salary, and if you make a sudden jump in salaries you are bound to throw a burden on the pension funds which they cannot stand. Yet the hon. member held the late Government up to opprobrium for saddling the country with this extra burden! But he did not give them credit for this little nest egg, which the Minister of Finance has produced—a surplus of £3,400,000 from the funds of the Custodian of Enemy Property. I can’t understand how the Minister can reconcile it with his conscience to use that money, or how he can, with a straight face, tell us that he has this nest egg, and that he proposes to use it for wiping off the deficit and for other purposes. How does the money come into the Treasury? As the result of the Enemy Property Act passed in 1916. I remember how the rafters rung with the then Opposition’s denunciation of that measure. They said, “We were despoiling our afflicted brethren, the Germans,” and they told us what good people the Germans were and that they should not be touched. They also asked—

The present Prime Minister asked—

When the present Prime Minister asked what was to be done to this property after the war, I don’t think he looked forward to the day when his own Minister of Finance would produce a surplus arising from the Enemy Property Fund. I would have expected that the conscience of the Prime Minister and his first lieutenant, the Minister of Finance, would have been troubled, and that they would have said, “All this money will be returned to the original owners of the property.”

You know that is not true.

I should also have expected the Prime Minister to have been a little more considerate of South-West Africa. He made the rafters ring in 1914 with his denunciation of the proposed campaign against South-West Africa, but now he is telling the inhabitants of that territory that they can never look forward to the resumption of their German nationality and must remain part of the Union for ever. Returning to the Minister of Finance, I was very glad to find, when I saw that one of his first acts on coming into power, was to attach a sinking fund of 1 per cent. to his first loan. But the Minister did not continue in this good course, for there was no sinking fund attached to the next loan. The chief whip of his party told him yesterday that his sinking fund provision in a time of expansion such as this, is entirely inadequate, and I agree with that criticism. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) also pointed out that our expenditure on transport rose under the late Government to £400,000. I would like him to say whether anything is being done by the present Government to retrench in that line. As a matter of fact, I would like the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) to point to anything whatever on the estimates which shows that the present administration is retrenching or reducing expenditure. I would like him to show anything that shows a desire to economize in the services. Now I want to say a word to the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I was interested in his speech because it was the first Labour speech after the first real Budget of the Pact Government. From a Labour point of view it is a remarkable document, not for what it contains, but for what it leaves out. I don’t see in it any provision or hint of a provision for raising the exemption limit on the income tax, and yet that was one of the things the Labour party have promised the electorate. It seems that the exemption on £300 was far too low, and they declared that if they got into power they would raise it to £500 or £750. Formerly they were fond of raising amendments on that very point. I wonder if they are going to do it again? There was no allusion to State banks, one of the pet idols of the Labour party, and even the hon. member for Troyeville cannot forbear to express his disappointment at this omission. The Labour party professes to stand for the average working man and the poorer man in the urban districts in the country. If there is one thing more iniquitous than another it is the dumping duties on flour, which help to make the price of bread nearly 50 per cent. higher than in England, a country which has to import the whole of its wheat or flour. If anything has happened in the last fifteen months more humiliating to the Labour party than what happened over these duties, then I do not know of it. They promised the electors these duties would be removed if they came into power. When the Pact came into power they were removed, but for how long? Two hon. members (Messrs. de Waal and Bergh) went post haste to Pretoria and demanded that these duties be reimposed. The political strength of these two members outweighed in influence the total membership of the Labour party, and they were forthwith reimposed. The hon. member for Kroonstad said that this Budget would secure the enthusiastic support of every farmer. I am not a farmer, but I do know something about the urban residents and the townspeople, and I wonder if anyone will get up and say that there is any townsman who thinks it is a fine Budget. I recommend hon. members to consider the pamphlet written by Mr. Gawitt. The case he makes out for the removal of the duties on flour is most impressive and he says that if we could get our bread at the same price as Australia we should save £2,500,000 per year—more than enough to provide for an adequate scheme of old age pensions. The figures are given of the price of bread taken from the official statistician of the Union Government. In December it was 3.7d. per lb. as opposed to 2.38d. per lb. in England. Under this Government of the people by the people it has risen in January last to 3.98d. per lb.

What is it to-day?

I am afraid I cannot tell you, but perhaps the hon. Minister will tell us what he proposes to do to place a cheaper loaf on the breakfast table of South Africa, and if he will do that, then I say more power to him. As long as he keeps this dumping duty on flour and helps to send up the price of bread—

Are you against the principle of dumping duties?

Where the dumping duties hurt the farmer, like the dumping duty on superphosphates, he takes them off, but where they hurt the average man with a wife and family to keep, he keeps them on. I am dealing with the Budget from the point of view of the townsman and the point of view of the Labour party. Is this Budget going to reduce the cost of living? The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) had to admit last night that it would have the opposite effect. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has shown that there has been an increase in customs duties of £400,000. Is there going to be applause for such a Budget from the constituents of my hon. friends in the corner? There may be applause from the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), but the applause will be lacking from his constituents. I want the hon. member for Liesbeek to ask himself what would be said to a distinguished member of the Labour party of England or Australia who was brought into this House and lunched with some of the distinguished leaders of Labour in South Africa? The distinguished visitor would begin by saying, “Like all other Labour parties in the world, you go all out for women’s suffrage?” He would be met with the answer, “Yes, we are strong supporters of women’s suffrage, but we would rather see a provision on the statute book that editors must sign their leading articles, so we’ve dropped it.” He would ask if they stood up for the rights of man, and the answer would be, “Yes, so long as he is a white man.” He would add, “We told the country we didn’t like colour bars, and that instead of a colour bar we wanted a minimum wage, and we have got a minimum wage, but we still want the colour bar.” His distinguished friend would say, “In common with the Labour party in England and Australia, you are doing your best to keep the cost of living down?” and the answer would be, “Yes, but we are voting for a Budget that is going to put up the cost of living, and which refuses to remove the duties on bread.” This distinguished visitor would say, “You are doing your best to make the income tax bearable for the average man?” And the answer would be, “We are doing nothing with the income tax; we are letting off a lot of hot air on the question in the country and in the House, but we are doing nothing to make it practical politics.” I am sorry the hon. Minister of Defence is not in the House, because what I have to say now is a reflection upon his policy. When we English-speaking members of this Commonwealth of South Africa saw a new Cabinet was being created and that the Prime Minister had, in his wisdom, placed the present Minister of Defence in that portfolio, and had kept the man we dreaded, the present Minister of Agriculture, out of that portfolio, then we felt that we were able to feel fairly safe in his hands. I really did feel that, because I have sat in the House with the Minister of Defence for ten years and there is no member for whom I have a greater respect. What has happened? I am going to read the answer that the Minister himself was bound to give to a question which I put on March 3rd. I asked what was the result of the voting for the position of commandant of the Johannesburg Central Rifle Association, and whether the man appointed was a man who had been sentenced for taking part in the rebellion of 1922. The answer received was that the following were nominated for the position, and received the support indicated:—F. J. Roberts, 212 votes; D. J. de Beer, 204 votes; H. J. Botha, 137 votes. The reply went on to say that F. J. Roberts was the man appointed, and it had been ascertained that he was concerned in the industrial disturbance of 1922 and was sentenced to a fine of £15 or six weeks’ imprisonment. Two years after the events of 1922 the Minister of Defence appoints as commandant of a commando in Johannesburg a man who had been convicted for participation in that rebellion. He was one of the commando which attacked the Newlands police station, and he was also one of the crowd that went round in the early morning pulling women out of their houses and terrorizing them. Do not forget that he had only a majority of eight votes over the next aspirant. Then the same F. J. Roberts wrote a letter to the press attacking me. Oh that mine enemy would write a letter! This is the letter which he wrote, after he had seen the question that I put, and the supplementary question by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), together with the answer by the Minister—

He calls it a clean piece of work because he polished them off. This is the man who is proud of his participation in attacking the police. I say, with all the power at my command, that it is a scandal and a disgrace. What are we to think if the defence of Johannesburg is to be entrusted to people of this kidney? That particular crowd were probably responsible for more casualties than any other. I have no desire to persecute in any way any of the persons who were connected with that affair. They were released with unparalleled magnanimity by the late Government. No Government can expect to be respected which places people of that type in authority over the life and liberty of the people of Johannesburg.

What about the reformers?

The reformers were sentenced to gaol and served their sentence.

No, no.

Does the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) suggest that it is right to appoint a man to such a position who two years previously was instrumental with others in shooting down people in Johannesburg? Is it right that such a man should be placed in command of armed forces over such people? One of the great leaders of that regrettable affair was a man called Erasmus. He was one of the Big Three that ran the rebellion, and he was sentenced to ten years for high treason. I have a cutting regarding the remarks of the judge who sentenced Erasmus, Mr. Judge-President Dove-Wilson—

Sentence was passed on this man and he was imprisoned, but he was let out by our own Government some 12 months or two years later. One would have expected that this party would have been willing to allow those things decently to bury themselves and allow them to be forgotten, but the Minister of Defence has the unparalleled effrontery to bring this man Erasmus again into the limelight by appointing him a lieutenant in the Melville branch of the Defence Association. To-day he wears the Union uniform with two stars on his shoulders as a lieutenant of the Defence Force. Contrast this with the action of the Minister of Defence in refusing in a large number of cases to appoint a South African party man a commandant, even though he has got a majority of votes. Here are the names and the voting. I say this to the Minister of Defence that any hopes which we had, based on his past record and on our knowledge and belief that he was a fine English gentleman, have disappeared, and it seems that he has sold his political conscience to the Nationalist party. I now want to say a word to the Minister of Justice. I want to deal with the extraordinary series of actions which the Minister of Justice has been guilty of during the last six or nine months. There used to be a well-known South American patriot who was called “the Liberator.” Well, I think the Minister of Justice will go down to history in South Africa as the liberator, because he seems to have done little else since he came into office but release people from gaol.

The other side put them all in.

Some 1,298 people were put in gaol for various offences and 851 for offences against the liquor law. All these people at one swoop were released by the Minister of Justice.

A good job, too.

I do not know whether that interruption came from a member of the Labour party or a Nationalist, but I wonder where we are coming to in this country. Is crime not to be punished? Are people to have the idea that “it doesn’t matter if I am caught; the beneficent Tielman Roos will let me out.” I now want to refer to the release of the farmer van der Merwe. I have never read in my experience in the House any document more extraordinary than the answer of the Minister of Justice to the question put to him by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). He was acquitted by the jury, wrongly, as the judge said, without a shred of justification of the major charges of contravening the insolvency law, but they found him guilty of failing to keep proper books. The failure to keep proper books is a criminal offence, which under the insolvency laws may be a very serious matter indeed. After this man had served a short time, the Minister of Justice released him. The Minister was asked a question by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) and, in the course of his reply, he said that the prisoner was released on his recommendation. The jury found him guilty of not keeping proper books.

added the Minister in reply,

The insolvency law makes special provision for dealing with cases of that sort. Section 139 of the Insolvency Act says that if a man’s estate is sequestrated or assigned within two years after the commencement of this Act and he has failed before the commencement of this Act to keep such proper books of account or records as it was then his duty to keep, etc., and it then goes on to deal with the person who has failed since the commencement of this Act to keep a proper record of his transactions in English or Dutch. What is a “proper record”?—

Therefore, this law was drafted with an eye on the farmer and it does not expect the farmer as such to keep the same elaborate books as the trader. Having regard to that fact and the occupation of the accused, the judge sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment. The Minister issues a declaration to the farming community of South Africa that in future they need not keep books, whatever the nature or their transactions may be. Even if they are speculators in cattle or do a little trading, so long as they label themselves “farmer,” they need not keep books. It is a scandalous thing that the Minister of Justice should be allowed to alter the criminal law in this fashion, and say “I, the great Tielman Roos, will let out any farmer found guilty of a contravention of the Insolvency Law in not keeping books.” He did another unfortunate thing when he released those men at Barkly West who were found guilty of a deliberate contravention of the electoral law. Several of them were convicted of impersonation, and one of double voting. I listened to the Minister of the Interior with great edification the other day when he spoke of the necessity for purity in our electoral contests; of putting down with a firm hand any machinations calculated to interfere with that purity, or to give money power or corruption any influence in determining the result of an election. But here you get these men caught, apparently, in the act, and convicted by a court, and the Minister of Justice lets them out almost immediately afterwards. I would be glad if the Minister of the Interior would take up with the Minister of Justice, and say to him “What is the use of my getting an electoral law through, if people who are convicted under it are going to be let out by you a week or two later.” And the impression is being created that these are venal, trivial offences, that can be committed with impunity. I hope his colleagues will try to curb those activities of the Minister or Justice. There may be cases where a proper application can be made to him for release, or for reduction of a sentence, but speaking as a practical lawyer, who is in touch with judges, magistrates, prosecutors, etc. I say that the only result of that unfortunate, ill-considered release of prisoners was to encourage the criminal class to think that crime might increase and flourish.

How many of the released prisoners have been convicted again?

A return has been asked for, but not hitherto supplied. I may tell the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that a large number of these people were before the Court again within a week. The hon. member may shake his head, but I know it was so. I was at Johannesburg at the time, and was in touch with the courts. In conclusion I wish to refer to the question of imperial preference. I think we should not agree to the Minister’s proposals to abolish the flat rate preference of 3 per cent. and substitute the preferences on particular articles as proposed, unless we have the Minister’s assurance that one of two things will be done. Either he must give us his assurance that Great Britain will be on the minimum scale, or, if he will not do that, he should give us the assurance that if and when any other country is placed on that minimum scale, and is given most-favoured-nation treatment, automatically Great Britain will be given the same. If he is not prepared to do either of these things, then I say that all this talk by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) of a “friendly gesture” is eye wash. England might very well say—

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) endeavoured to point out yesterday that where a country is not a protectionist country it has nothing to bargain with. And as has already been emphasized, Great Britain is our best friend and best customer. And may I point out that according to a calculation made by an hon. friend of mine in this House, at the time of the Imperial conference in 1923, the proposals of that conference, if carried into effect—and they are to be carried into effect by the Baldwin Government—in regard to the three commodities which we export largely will give this country a benefit to the extent of three-quarters of a million pounds. I refer to wine, a quarter of a million, fruit £300,000, tobacco £200,000, according to that calculation.

I thought she had no quid pro quo to give.

I said so, in general. England is a free-trade country, we are protectionist. England certainly has a tariff in regard to certain specific articles—the articles dealt with in the proposals of the conference. But these never will be used as bargaining counters by Great Britain, and if they come into force under the new Conservative Government, this country will benefit by an additional three quarters of a million. We ask in the name of South Africa, not in the name of Great Britain, that Great Britain be put on the minimum scale and that, if this cannot be done, it should be accorded the most-favoured-nation treatment.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has rightly said that I have recently taken a very little part in discussions in this House. It is quite right, but the Opposition is so frightfully weak that it is not necessary for us to speak. Usually, after one or two speeches from this side, the Opposition is flattened out, not that it is not necessary so far as the estimates are concerned. With one exception, hon. members opposite have completely run away from the Budget, and the few hon. members opposite who have spoken have only made my old friend, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) angry, and because I have so much sympathy with him and do not wish to see him get angry, I rise. As long as the House discusses the Budget, the great financial question, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort sits and listens attentively, but as soon as anyone—from whatever side of the House—gets up and talks about the appointment of a commandant and the release of prisoners, then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort immediately gets angry, and I do not want this, and I want us to allow the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to be quite calm and composed. Yes, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would rather we spoke about administrators. Let me just say that as for the criticism of the Opposition, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is the only one who quoted figures and dealt with financial points, but the second member of the Opposition, the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), immediately dealt with secession apart from the Budget, and now the hon. member who has just sat down comes, and he also has spoken about everything except the Budget. He attacked my friend, the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth), because he critized the late Minister of Finance about the bad policy in connection with educational matters, and he (Mr. Blackwell) defended the former Minister of Finance. That is what he did. That is all he said about financial matters, except a few words more about preference at the end of the speech. I understand that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is one of the leaders of the Opposition, and that is all that he can do. He attacks the hon. member for Kroonstad about educational matters, but he does not speak about financial matters.

What is the hon. member himself talking about?

It is not necessary for me to talk about financial matters. I said so when I got up. The hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. members for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) and Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) have beaten the Opposition entirely to tatters. Hon. members opposite have nothing more to say about the Budget, that is why they run away from the Budget and have to have recourse to the old stories of what happened in 1922 and to refer again to the appointment of commandants. As regards the Budget, they are entirely finished, and when they repeat the old stories then they only anger my friend the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Now the hon. member who has just sat down said that he did not speak on behalf of the farmers of the country with reference to the dumping duty. He said that he was talking as a town man and a representative of townsmen and that he had nothing to do with farmers. That is exactly what we know about the South African party. They know nothing of farming and farming interests, that is what I understood from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. They represent the traders.

What about the Labour comrades?

The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is a master perverter. I wrote down what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said: “We represent the townsman,” and “my electors are townsmen.” That is what we hear from one of the leading men of the South African party. I think he must be a leading man, in this instance he regards himself as a leading man and he talks on behalf of his party. I know, too, that he talks on behalf of his party because it to-day consists of traders and of friends such as the hon. member who sits next to him, the member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), a mine owner. There are only a few lost sheep left on the other side. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and I are both farmers, but I should just like to know whether the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) agrees with him with regard to dumping duty. The hon. member for Caledon is one of the farmers opposite who have lost their way. Do they agree with him with regard to dumping duty? I should like to know that. But the hon. member for Caledon has retreated. He is not here. He knew what would come from the hon. member who sits behind him (Mr. Blackwell); and the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), does he agree with it? No, I will not speak of the hon. member for Ermelo, but the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), does he agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with regard to dumping duty? I do not wish to say more about the matter. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), and most of the hon. members opposite, represent the town dwellers, and they have no sympathy at all for the farmers.

I just want to say to the hon. member that we go out from the point of view that the interests of the town dwellers and those of the farming population are now united and must be so, and that they must work together to develop agriculture in the land. We do not say that the farmers have nothing to do with the interests of the town dwellers. I know hon. members opposite do not take much notice of me, but perhaps they will take more notice of what Sir Horace Plunkett has to say about the matter. His view is our view. We want to co-operate as much as possible with every section in the country and to offend nobody, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gets up and says on behalf of his party that he is a townsman, and has only to do with the interests of the townsmen. That is our difficulty, to find out whether hon. members opposite are talking on behalf of their party or not. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) speaks and he is attacked on his industrial policy, then it is said that he expresses his personal views and does not speak on behalf of the party. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gets up, then he also speaks on his own behalf and not on behalf of the party. We want to know, the House wants to know, and the country wants to know when members speak whether they are speaking on behalf of their parties, whether their party consists of an organized party or of members with different opinions. We will be glad if the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will announce, as members of his party rise, whether they speak on behalf of the party or not. We ought to know this. One hears all kinds of nonsense from the other side, and as soon as they are brought to book, then they are speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of the party. Did the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) speak on his own behalf or that of the party when he spoke about the development of industries in our land? Nobody answers. Must I take it that he spoke on behalf of the party? Hon. members opposite do not know. If he spoke on behalf of the party, then I should like to know whether the hon. member for Fort Beaufort agrees with him. Yes, on behalf of the Nationalist party. When I get up I speak on behalf of my party and I stand by it. We do not contradict each other. It is not necessary for us at a given time to get a Minister to resign on account of his policy. My hon. neighbour, the member for Fort Beaufort, knows that the country is tired of that sort of thing; he is no doubt the practical leader of the Opposition, and let me ask him to tell hon. members of his party to tell us beforehand whether they are speaking on their own behalf. It is difficult for us to find out where they stand. Now I come to the budget. As I said before, it is not actually necessary for me to refer to the budget, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is anxious to hear me, and objected that I spoke so little in the House. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about the budget. And when I commenced I am really still more astonished at their attitude. The only speech of any value on the budget has come from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He, at any rate, began and ended with discussing financial points as well as he could. He began by announcing that a reduction of taxation was not taking place. We are convinced of it that it is indeed a fact. He has pointed out how the burden of taxation is increasing and has read out the same old figures that we mentioned again and again when we were on the opposite side of the House. I am glad that he is converted, but sorry that he did not assist us when he could have done so. He allowed the expenditure of the country to mount up when he and his Government were in power, and now the taxation cannot be brought down fast enough for him. But I do not wish to speak about taxation. On that a sufficient reply has been made by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) and the hon. Minister of Finance at the time he introduced the budget. I am convinced of it, and the country is likewise convinced, that notwithstanding what hon. members opposite say there is actually a reduction of taxation. Well, a good thing one can never say too often. It requires repetition. The reduction in taxation is in the first place £200,000 in connection with the repeal of the tobacco tax. This—as we remember—was one of the big nails in the coffin of the South African party Government. The postage stamp tariff is being reduced £130,000 in respect of this year. The removal of the turnover tax in all provinces, and the companies tax in the Cape Province, means a reduction of £245,000. These figures thus show a reduction of £575,000 in taxation. To this must be added at least half a million pounds in provincial taxation which has now become unnecessary.

And the medicine tax?

Yes, that was repealed last year. That hon. members opposite forget, but I now want to leave taxation and to talk about the want of logic of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I sat listening to him and was surprised at the ambiguous view that he expressed. When I got my newspaper yesterday I read it again. Really the hon. member states two different things in one speech. Speaking about imperial preference he said that the preference to England under the existing tariff amounted to £860,000 and that it was to be decreased to £300,000 under the new tariff. Then he goes on and says that the amount of £860,000 does not mean a benefit to the British trader but it was a benefit to the consumer in our land. There is less taxation and consequently the consumer pays less. The extra £560,000 which is still to be raised must be paid by the consumer and the taxpayer. He clearly said that under the existing preferential rates the British manufacturer gets nothing, but that the consumer in this country gets £860,000 and that they will get £560,000 less under the new proposals. But then he goes just a little further and says that the preference was given to England because England is our best and largest purchaser client. And because we also enjoy the use of British Consuls—that was the chief thing—the advantage of the protection of the British fleet. I know that members opposite do not take much notice of our words, but if the hon. member at one moment says that the preference which to-day exists is not for the benefit of the British trader but for the benefit of the inland consumer, what objection can he raise to the taking away of the preference? If one does not have a thing now how can it be taken away? I should like to know from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) (because the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is not here) what the protection of the British fleet has to do with the withdrawal of the preference of which England gets nothing. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) made it very clear to us—this is at any rate what other members and I think ―that the whole preference to England means nothing, that England has no benefit from it. What is his grievance then? Why should England be angry if we take away something from which it has no benefit? One cannot have it both ways. You must say that the preference means something to England—much or little or that it means nothing, and that if it means anything England in return protects us with its fleet and lends us money cheaply, or that it means nothing, and then I ask how can there be a grievance if it is taken away? Perhaps the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) can make it plain to us? Is the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) right when he says that England does not benefit by the preference but that the consumers in South Africa enjoy it, or is he right when he says that the preference is an advantage to England and that we in exchange therefor get protection and cheap money and good markets? Which of the two is right? I am sorry that I must emphasize this question so, but we are anxious to know. Does the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) happen to be able to give us the information, because he also regards the taking away of the preference as a slap in the face of England. Is the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) right when he says that the preference means nothing, or is the hon. member for Standerton right with his statement that the removal is a slap in the face of England and that England will be injured by it? You see it is these sort of ambiguous statements of which the country is so tired and was so tired last year when it for once put the South African party aside. The hon. member for Standerton still comes with his ambiguous statements, no longer in this House but at women’s bazaars. The country is tired of hearing one day this and to-morrow that, and the hon. leader of the Opposition tries here in the House too to put blinkers on us. But I will now shortly deal with the difficulty of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), namely, about the costs of living in South Africa. Suppose now that under the existing tariff a piano of English manufacture worth £100 comes into a Union port. I take round figures. The purchaser would have to pay £117 for the piano because there is an import duty of 20 per cent., but this is reduced by 3 per cent. preference to the English manufacturers. Under the new tariff the piano will cost £120, so that the purchaser must pay 3 per cent. more. If a French piano is imported which costs here £100 at the port, the purchaser will have to pay £120 because he does not have the advantage of the preference. Under the new tariff the purchaser will also have to pay £120 for an English piano. This is the point of view that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) takes up. Am I right? If that is so then the consumer will thus have to pay £3 more. But is this the true inwardness of the matter? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is a leading business man but he must not become impatient if we examine his figures a little. If these are actually facts then the British dealer or manufacturer can take no offence if we take away the preference because the £3 extra the piano will cost comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer in our country. But the position is that in practice the matter works out differently. Let us again take a piano which, landed in our ports, costs £100, irrespective of whether it comes from England, France, Italy or Germany. The piano costs at the port here £100. In the case of France, e.g., a tax of 20 percent. has to be paid and the cost to the purchaser is therefore £120. For a piano coming from England, on the contrary, the price ought to be £117 because £3 has to be deducted, but is this so? We know by experience that it is not so and I am quite convinced of it that it is not so but that the 3 per cent. preference places the British manufacturer and trader in the position of putting up his price because if that were not so what interest will England have in the preference? And what does England lose if we take it away? Now hon. friends on the opposite side say nothing. How can I then agree that the preference of £860,000 does not in any way go to the English manufacturers or dealers. No the hon. member cannot put me off my point. Now I am positive that I am right because when one is right, attempts are always made to put one off one’s point. But in any case if the British manufacturer or trader does not, according to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), get the preference of £860,000 what does England lose? Nothing at all. If it has had nothing how can it lose anything? But I will give my own view. I admit that I am not such an expert on business matters as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) but I use sound common sense. In my opinion the three per cent. does actually go to the British manufacturer or rather dealer. I do not speak of the Admiral of the fleet, the British fleet gets none of the £860,000 because it does not go into the British treasury. The British manufacturer or trader is the man. This three per cent. gives, we think, the British dealer the opportunity to land his pianos here at £103 while the French dealer gets only £100 for the piano landed here, because in the case of the English piano only 17 per cent. goes off in this case or in this case £17. and in the case of the Frenchman 20 per cent. or £20, and so the price to the purchaser in both cases is £120, while the British dealer puts £3 more into his pocket. The Frenchman gets £100 for a piano which is sold here for £120 and the Englishman gets £103. I am certain that the preference means something to England. That is why my hon. friend opposite, and especially the flag-waggers, are so anxious to prevent this, but this is not a matter of sentiment but hard business. We say that the British manufacturers should be able to compete with the French manufacturers. We will then give the preference to the pianos of British make if they are better instruments. I do not know if the French are better.

The German.

Yes, or the German, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) talks about the increased cost of living. It will help us. Of course we will be glad of it and I will say why. It will put us in the position of getting more for our fruit in England than in any other country. But the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) must also acknowledge then that the three per cent. has helped the British traders. We shall certainly be glad of the 10s. 6d. because we have been giving for years this preference of 3 per cent. and in some years it meant an amount of more than £1,000,000. We gave it all these years for nothing. We never get anything back. Yes, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and other members opposite take no notice of what we say but let me tell him that I have hitherto always shown him the honour of listening to what he says. We admit that the 10s. 6d. will help us and we are prepared, as the Minister has shown, when England gives preference to do the same in return for it on its importations. The power has been taken for this. But on the quid pro quo basis and not gratis. Now the friends opposite ask what is the value of the protection of the fleet that we have always enjoyed. But we surely remember that we previously gave £80,000 for it. I admit that this is an insignificant amount in the eyes of hon. members opposite for the protection we enjoy. But how must we then understand the hon. member for Fort Beaufort who scrapped the £80,000 when his Government was in power. The £80,000 was given, as far as it went, for protection. But what is my opinion about this protection? I do not wish to underestimate it nor to undervalue it but is this protection of great importance only to us or also to England because it is protecting a very good client? In whose favour is the protection? I admit that the protection is reciprocal but I want to know if it is not of importance for England to protect the great exports of our produce to England and which in England again are sold at home or abroad? Do hon. members know that approximately from £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 in value is exported annually from here to England? Is it of no importance to England to protect the trade and the export which it has to our country? I suppose that England understands how to do business. But I come then to the question of my hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) as to why he abolished the £80,000 which we contributed to protect the trade of South Africa? And if England is not pleased with this any longer then there will very soon be other countries—only think of America—who would only be too pleased to stand in the same relation to South Africa.

No.

I don’t know. I don’t know if it will bring us greater benefit or not, perhaps it will be more, perhaps less. We have no means of calculating it. The matter is like this, that if England wishes to trade with us then we will trade with England, and to-day England is undoubtedly our best business friend, but we must nevertheless ask what preference we are getting. How can we be friends if we alone are to give preference? It must be reciprocal. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) will surely not give away anything for nothing. I have never thought that he would give anything away for sentiment. Therefore I say that we shall be good friends on the quid pro quo basis. I therefore do not wish to go into the matter further. I have made it clear to my hon. friend for Cape Town (Central) where he is wrong, and we all know what the position is, except a few “Saps.” We shall be heartily glad if perhaps the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), or another, possibly the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan)—because I do not think that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort can or will make it clear to us—will explain what standpoint we should take after the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

I should like first to make some remarks regarding what has fallen from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I am sorry that he should have raked up again the unfortunate events of 1922. It seems as if some hon. members can never let them rest, and the hon. member is one of them. I would remind him that men who he says were condemned, were condemned by a court, specially constituted; they were not tried by a jury of their peers; and therefore did not receive the rights to which men are entitled under the British system. Therefore, are they always to be hounded down and prevented from once more lifting their heads in respectable society?

I object not to their lifting their heads, but to their lifting their rifles.

Yes, and there were other men who lifted their rifles. The hon. member accused the Minister of Justice of opening prison doors and releasing prisoners. What did the friends of the hon. member who lifted their rifles do? They did a much more dreadful thing—they shot prisoners who had surrendered under the British flag.

Who did?

Your friends. One of them was of the same profession as the hon. member, and he lowered the prestige of British fair play in this country for ever by shooting prisoners who had given themselves up.

That is quite untrue.

Well, we have pressed for a reopening of the enquiry, and would welcome the re-opening of the enquiry. I ask the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell), if he is the fair-minded man he would make us believe he is, to join us in asking for a re-opening of the enquiry.

You asked for a judicial enquiry, you got it, and you are not satisfied with the decision.

No, we are not. Will the hon. member join us in asking for a re-opening of the enquiry?

No.

I know he will not. I regret that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) is not in his place, because I wish to refer to one or two things that he said last night, when I suffered the hon. member for an hour and a half, which should be accounted to me for righteousness. Now he disappears, and we have not an opportunity of drawing his attention to certain portions of his lengthy oration. He took up the cause of the native, "the overtaxed native," who has so many friends in this House, and who, so long as he is a cheap commodity, will continue to have many friends in this House. I wish briefly to say that those who talk so lightly about this have never studied the figures in regard to the taxation of the native and what he really contributes. He contributes £850,000 a year to the revenue. That works out at 3s. per head per annum, and, if you take his family at five, you find he pays 15s. a year, and we know the privileges he gets in return. I see the hon. member (Sir Thomas Watt) is now in his place. I desired to call his attention to the fact that the native, whose cause he was espousing, is not so heavily taxed as the hon. member indicated. Not only has he the privileges that the European has in civilized government, but he has in addition polygamy and a labour market always at his command, in which he seems to be preferred, and he has the advantage of the South African party in espousing his cause in this House, that party, which, I think, are more concerned about his votes than his virtues. The Opposition attack on the Budget speech has taken the form, firstly, that there has been no relief of taxation, and secondly, that it is hostile to Great Britain. Out of that attack came the question of the provincial councils. It has been pointed out, and very rightly so, that the Minister of Finance has reduced taxation considerably in having increased the subsidy to the provincial councils. To the extent of which the councils have been relieved there is less necessity for taxation. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) stressed the point that "money should be left in the pockets of the people.” If there has been any tariff proposals which would leave money in the pockets of the people, it is this one, compared with the Budgets which have preceded it. I think the hon. member must admit that under this Budget money will remain to a far greater extent in this country than under the previous system. I would remind the hon. member that his friends, and particularly his friends the capitalists, have advertised and still advertise this country as being the most lightly taxed country in the world. It is their slogan. Not only is it the most lightly taxed country, but the burden is fairly well adjusted. It is, however, not a question so much of taxation and the amount derived therefrom as the capacity of the people to stand it. Under the system which has obtained hitherto the people were getting less and less able to endure the taxation that was placed upon their shoulders. Under a tariff which will encourage industries, and under conditions which will enable people to earn more, you get power to bear burdens.

A great deal has been said about patriotic preference to Great Britain. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) rather flung to the winds his favourite doctrine of supply and demand and absolute free trade, urging rather that the patriotic idea should be uppermost in our minds. I am sorry to confess that conventional hypocrisy is the curse of my race. You get it in Great Britain and here also. What did these hon. gentlemen do who now claim patriotic preference for Great Britain? During the last five years they have had £7,500,000 worth of goods from Germany, £5,500,000 worth of goods Holland £5,000,000 worth from Japan, and £50,000,000 worth from the United States. Why didn’t these gentlemen say: We are going to send our indents to Great Britain and be patriotic? Of course, it was “business as usual,” and it was “business as usual” in regard to the rebate of 3 per cent. At times this country has been flooded with Japanese, German and American goods, but, after the patriotic professions of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) towards Great Britain, I feel sure that one would not find in his great establishment goods which might have been obtained in England and were imported from foreign countries, in spite of the British preference in duty. No, he could never have been guilty of any such unpatriotic action as importations to the detriment of our imperial connection. I am not charging him with hypocrisy in his attitude of patriotism in attacking possible foreign preferences in the new tariff. I think the hon. member frankly confessed that 3 per cent. never reached the manufacturer in Great Britain. So let me put it this way: A trader imports, say, £100,000 worth of goods from Great Britain and applies for the rebate of £3,000. Is he going to put clerks on to find out where that £3,000 should go back to? No, he credits it to his business and it helps to swell his resources. It may be said that the consumer gets it, but he does not. How can 3 per cent. be allocated in retail sales? No, it remains in the pockets of the middleman, and it is the middleman who is howling. He sees this £900,000 escaping him, and he is afraid it may go into the pocket of the consumer after all. Of course, England is not howling: Why should she? What is £900,000 to her? Her exports amount to £900,000,000 a year, and this £900,000 would work out at a farthing in the £ of her total yearly exports. Therefore the hon. gentleman knows he is simply amusing himself at the expense of those who cannot quite follow him. The 3 per cent. has never operated in favour of the overseas manufacturer, never can operate; and England will never ask what has become of it because she really has not had it. In regard to British preference, we are told we should continue the rebate because of what we owe to protection by the British navy. I would be the last to say anything in deprecation of the British navy or what we owe to it. This is recognized by hon. gentlemen on these benches and generally throughout the House. But what party was it that gave up the £80,000 a year which we formerly contributed to the British navy?

It was the South African party.

There is silence on the Opposition benches. That £80,000, which was an acknowledgment of what we owe to the British navy, was given up by the other side when this rebate was introduced. Well, let gentlemen who agreed to this, and those who proposed it—I think it was the Smuts Government—let them cease throwing stones from the glass house in which they find themselves. I look upon reciprocity under the new system of rebates as one of the very best things that could happen to Great Britain. It is time Great Britain awoke to the fact that she must deal with people on a commonsense basis. We are reminded that England has given us a free market. But England has to give a free market to the world as she is dependent on foodstuffs and raw products, and it would be absurd for her to shut up her markets in any possible way. But the workers in England are beginning to realize that they have to deal with the outside world on the basis which it decides upon. I have spoken of our conventional hypocrisy. What are we to think of England—a shipbuilding country—allowing an order for new steamers to go to Germany? What is the use of attempting to camouflage the whole question and speak as if we were traitors, when it is the big financiers who are quite content, in order to effect certain savings, to see the shipbuilding of their country go to Germany, the foe which it has cost so much to defeat; and if England does not wake up to the fact that it must hold its markets by reciprocity, it will be a bad day for the empire, because there will be large emigration of workers from England. The Labour party there has been misled on this question of free trade and are realizing now that their advantage lies in protective and reciprocal traiffs. We must not forget that England is watching over her own visible imports and exports, amounting to over two thousand millions a year; not forgetting also the value of freight, insurance and other profitable business in addition, all of which require a strong navy to ensure continuance. The products we send her are of importance, as if she did not import she could not possibly have her exports of manufactured goods. The curious thing is that both in Canada and Australia they have to make stringent regulations to prevent foreign goods being dealt with in England, and sent out to them. I think an hon. member opposite was holding up Canada as an example of a proper system of preference which we should adopt towards Great Britain. Well, Canada is complaining of foreign shoes made in Germany, coming through England, with British trade marks. In Australia they propose to allow no rebate whatever unless at least 70 per cent. of the value has been added in England. So you get plenty of hypocrisy on the part of traders in Great Britain. We know of instances of German-made shawls imported here for native trade only the fringe being attached in England, and imported under rebate as of British origin. I am sure that could not have been Cape Town importation. While we on these benches are willing and glad to give a real preference to England, we want this humbug of 3 per cent., which was supposed to reach England and never did, to be abolished, and something more substantial put in its place. A good deal of criticism has been made in regard to provincial councils. I thank the hon. Minister of Finance for the way in which he has now dealt with this question. The provincial councils have been unpopular institutions ever since their inception, but not through any fault of their own. They were given us in lieu of a federal system, and from the first were starved and their actions misconstrued. I would remind the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and himself brought up a report condemnatory of provincial councils though I believe they afterwards hedged.

We never did. Don’t you worry yourself about that.

I accept the statement of the hon. member. Now the councils are brought face to face with the Baxter report, of which a good deal has been made by those who have never read it. Mr. Duncan Baxter was chairman, and one of the narrowest-minded men was appointed to replace another member, Mr. Aiken—a gentleman who is a free trader, a “supply and demand man.” A man after the heart of the hon. member. One who would be content to balance human lives with financial economies. Then there was the administrator of the Transvaal—Mr. Hofmeyr—who recently demonstrated the advisability of sticking to “jobs for pals” by refusing to resign after a resolution had been passed in his council asking him to do so. There was also Mr. Scott, of the Education Department. These gentlemen went into the whole financial question, and I think if anything is a disgrace it is the Baxter report. It recommends itself to some because it flung mud upon provincial councils. Provincial councils have their specific duties to perform and do so fairly well. They have been a cheap branch of the Government of this country in close touch with the requirements of the people, but they seem to have been expected to perform their duties without money, and have been hampered by a system of direct taxation which was meant to make them inoperative from the start. They have to provide roads and bridges, hospitals and education. Why is this Baxter report looked upon as one of the most precious documents by the party opposite? It is because it lays down that we spend far too much on European education and far too little on the education of coloured persons and natives. Here is one statement they make—

And they go on to point out that the salaries of coloured teachers are far too low, and the salaries of European teachers, particularly women, too high. That is dwelt on not once, but again and again. They further say that the money spent on the education of non-European children cannot be reduced and should be increased. I ask members to read for themselves; particularly that portion stating hospital nurses are too well fed and should work longer hours; also that coloured persons should replace white labour. I do not disapprove of economies, which should be practised, but I am surprised that there should be any question in regard to economies in education from members on the other side. South African party representatives owe their position to education, though we recognize, at all events from our point of view, money spent on the education of two-thirds of the members on the other side has been wasted. The material was not good enough! Their principles are mainly wrong, and they show a shallowness of mind and an inability to grasp problems which lie before the country which mean the prosperity of the race. Undoubtedly education has been wasted on them, but that is no reason why we should not have a large amount spent on education, because widespread expenditure produces now and then the extraordinary man. It was the spread of education which produced “the greatest statesman of the age,” and in view of that, do hon. members not think expenditure was not worth while? In regard to the Budget itself; we on these benches are unable to approve of the whole of it. We appreciate what hon. members have said in jeering our party, but we say that, however much we may be disappointed in details, it is a far better Budget than we could have ever had from Mr. Burton or his predecessors, with all its faults. We expect the taunts of the other side and recognize that we are making a certain sacrifice in regard to assisting the present Government in power, but we were between the devil and the deep blue sea. We had sad experience of the devil.

And now you are in the deep blue sea?

Well, we can swim in the sea instead of being in the furnace of his Satanic Majesty who ruled us before. Whatever sacrifices we make have been thoughtfully made, and will meet with the approval of the people who sent us here. We regret that there has been no greater remission in the income tax, and that the Minister of Finance has become so orthodox in regard to his policy, that not only has he not said anything in favour of a State bank, but he has been praised by the capitalist press for following so closely in the footsteps of his predecessor. I do not think that he deserves praise from such a tainted service as has been given him. I trust not. A Budget acts as a switchboard does in electricity, and we ask, “Does it direct power to the right channels and assist production?” The more it secures remunerative employment, particularly for white workers, the more it fulfils the purpose of a good Budget. Mere balancing of accounts does not appeal to us. Hon. members know how these accounts are made up by heads of departments, who either overestimate expenditure or underestimate revenue. A Minister Budgets either for a deficit or a surplus—generally for the former, as that enables him to resist appeals to the Treasury and ultimately come along and produce a surplus—the little white rabbit out of the hat. Balancing accounts is often mere bookkeeping. What we look for in a tariff is that it should be operative in regard to the industries and expansion of a country. The proposed tariff is mildly protective. I am a protectionist out and out, and England has to learn from the United States and Germany that unless it becomes more protectionist it is going to be wiped out of the competitive field. What is it England is afraid of? The competition of protected countries. The fault in regard to the proposed Union tariff is this. A two line tariff, a minimum which may be increased to a maximum, is not a tariff of stability, but it is stability that is wanted for protection of industries, for people will not invest their capital—their savings—in any industry unless protection is on a stable basis. Under a two line tariff, however, a manufacturer does not know where he is. Under a sliding scale the manufacturer of one article may be deserving of increased protection, but another firm manufacturing the same article may not be deserving. Protection which does not protect should not be called protection. If you want protection, go straight out for it, and put on the biggest amount possible, such as 40 per cent. on boots, and don’t make any allowance on materials imported for the manufacture, but encourage their local production. I was one of the earliest persons to run a newspaper in this country with a protectionist policy, and 30 years ago the only two newspapers in South Africa which were frankly protectionist were the “Free State Express,’” which is now defunct, and the “Cape Mercury,” King William’s Town. I am glad to say the gospel has spread, and people recognize that the first essential for a country’s prosperity is not cheap living but ensured work. Protection secures employment. I wish to ask the Minister for an examination by him regarding our balance of trade. Papers which declare the policy according to the South African party will never discuss the question of the balance of trade, but it should appeal to our big financiers and commercial men. As to the balance of trade being in our favour, I do not think it should be looked upon as a “bull point” in any sense. In the fifteen years of Union our exports, including the gold premium, amounted to £1.052,000,000. Our imports for that time were £740,000,000 and if you add the 8 per cent. which the Minister of Finance gave to me as the average value of freight and insurance that is another £60,000,000, a total value of our imports of £800,000.000. Now in the fifteen years of the Union that leaves a balance of trade in our favour of £252.000.000. I think the hon. members opposite will admit that. How is it that this £252,000,000 never comes back? We have more than balanced our accounts, and after discharging all trade debts the average yearly withdrawal of capital from this country has been £17,000,000 a year since the Union, that is capital we created in this country. Is this the frightening away of capital about which we hear so much. We are entitled to claim credit for being creditors of the world, and to ask the big financiers, and those gentlemen who are considered an authority with regard to trade, why is it our balance of trade never comes back. I will tell you why, it is because we are an exploited country. We are entitled to claim credit for more than £17,000,000 a year because 70 per cent. of our State indebtedness is held oversea, and to the extent of 70 per cent. of the loans we have raised we ought to have goods. You must either import goods or specie in transference of capital.

You had better leave the subject alone, it is easier to look wise than to talk wisdom.

I notice the hon. gentleman’s newspapers never discuss this question of balance of trade, because they come to the unpleasant point that capital has not been introduced into the country. We create what is abstracted in excess of exports over imports. I admit there are certain individuals who may be credited with introduction of capital, but I am dealing; with our national Dr. and Cr. account. I am entitled to claim that we are entitled to be debtors to the extent of 70 per cent. of the £82,000,000 raised since the Union. £55,000,000 of Union borrowing is still unpaid on the other side, and we have to send the interest for it. We are entitled to import goods to the extent of our indebtedness overseas and taking that into consideration we come to a yearly withdrawal of capital from the country of twenty and a half million per year since Union. The Minister will see on this question of trade balance, I am perfectly right, and the only thing that can be alleged is that we have to export a certain amount of interest to meet our obligations on the other side. That would be about £6,000,000 a year at present. Against that is the importation of goods to which we are entitled for our indebtedness and should be taken into the account in calculating the extent of our exploitation. The public debt on the period of Union amounting to £116,000,000 has been more than balanced long ago by previous trade balances in favour of the four provinces. I say definitely our balance of trade never comes back. There is one other criticism I would like to put before the hon. Minister of Finance, and that is to take into careful consideration the taxation he obtains on mutual life insurance companies. It is wrong to take such taxation out of the thrifty. I am not referring to shareholders of fire insurance companies because they can pass it on, but to the mutual life societies. I find that the taxation of one company is £8,583 per year. In taking that the Government Collects a sum which if invested at 5 per cent. per year for 20 years, the average life of a policy, would represent £22,716. At compound interest for 20 years, you are taking from one company, on this basis, £300,000. That amount you will take from the pockets of the people who are putting their money aside for dependents. You might just as reasonably take the amount from credits in a savings bank. I ask the Minister of Finance to pay some attention to that injustice and give the life assurance companies the relief they have a perfect right to expect. With regard to the abandoned tobacco tax we would certainly prefer cheap bread to cheap tobacco. We have no wish for cheaper tobacco and the fault of this taxation was its foolish incidence. It was taken from the farmers at the point of production instead of from smokers at the point of consumption. It does not say much for the intelligence of the previous Government in thus violating one of the very first principles of taxation. Bonded stores for imported merchandize exist for this purpose. The farmers should never have been required to pay the £200,000 p.a. which has now been remitted. In our opinion the tax should have been collected as the Cigarette tax is, by means of a stamp on the packages, and then the amount could easily have been doubled without injuring anybody. Another matter which is personally of importance is the promised diamond cutting industry. We had a promise by the Prime Minister, endorsed by members of the Government, that we should have the diamond-cutting industry on a large scale; but I am afraid it is now still a dream. You only establish diamond-cutting on the tariff system; there is no other way and this is not provided for in the Budget. I should be failing in my duty to the people who sent us here if I did not express disappointment at 18 months more having to pass without any decisive step in that direction. I hope it is not too late to rectify the matter and that we shall be able to see the promise fulfilled, but it looks as if the diamond “ring” was again on top. You can pitch them out at the front door but they creep in again at the back. So it has been for thirty years.

I must express my sympathy with the Minister of Finance in view of the criticism which has been levelled against him. My respect for the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Hay) has increased. He has proved to his own satisfaction that the more money we have in this country the less remains in it, and in spite of that we have sufficient money for financing the rest of the world. That I cannot follow, but I do not propose to deal with the criticisms which he and his friends have levelled at the omissions and commissions of the Minister of Finance. I can assure the Minister, however, that there is no need for him to worry about it. They do not like some of his omissions and commissions, but he is perfectly safe in ignoring what they say. I think it was Mr. Merriman who once said in this House that the true test of a Government’s merits and intentions was to be found in the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. I want to look at the merits and intentions of the Government on that basis. The Government, it seems to me, has lost a great chance. They came into power at a time when the worst of the trade depression of the world was over, when the Government that had preceded them had done their best to cut down expenditure—and how necessary it was to do so is shown by this table of accounts which has been placed before us. The Government came in with a great flourish of trumpets. It has got a solid majority, a very large majority, which would enable it to take a strong line. It has no fear of revolt from the cross-benches to deal with, and I think we were justified in expecting something better than the Budget that has been placed before us. We had hoped that there would be some definite sign of an intention to economize. We had hoped also that the Minister would have done something to control the expenditure of the provincial councils. He allowed us to think by what came out as regards his meeting at Durban with the various provincial administrators, that he had really grasped the question, that he had given the administrators to understand that expenditure must be checked and that he was really contemplating steps which would have that effect. We have got nothing of the sort. We had hoped also, some of us, that the Minister would have found it possible to announce some definite steps in the way of developing the material resources of the country, agricultural, mineral and other. But we have got very little in that direction. We have got some suggestions which come out of the tariff with which I propose to deal presently, and I think it will be agreed, when that question is calmly examined, that the steps which it is proposed to take under that tariff are not going to have any very far-reaching effect on the development of industries in this country. It seems to me that the steps proposed will tend to increase the cost of production, to increase working costs, and to increase the cost of living, and so they will probably end by defeating the object for which, we may suppose, they have been introduced. We might have overlooked the fact that there had been no reduction of taxation if we had been assured that the money that was going to be raised was to be efficiently and fruitfully spent. We are to have an adjustment of taxation, the net result of which will be to lay more burdens upon the ordinary taxpayer of the country and which flouts the sentiment of a very large section of the people both in this country and overseas, and we are face to face with the fact that the taxation which we now have must continue to be borne and must continue to exercise a wholly prejudicial effect by diminishing the amount of money which is available for industrial development in this country. On the question of economy, I quite admit that the Minister had a difficult task, because he has a large number of people on his side to deal with who have not the remotest conception of what economy means. The hon. member who sat down just now (Mr. Hay) said that they were not the least concerned with balancing the Budget. He never said a truer thing. I really think that the time has come when the Government and the people of this country must insist upon some reduction in the ordinary expenditure on administration. I take up this schedule which has been so opportunely placed before us, and here we see that the ordinary expenditure from revenue, excluding railways, has risen from £10,661,000 in 1914-’15 to £19,908,000 in 1924-’25, and the Minister has told us we have got additional expenditure of £1,900,000 to face. In addition to that, the provincial council expenditure has grown by leaps and bounds. In 1914-’15 it was £3,358,000, and in 1924-’25 £9,394,000. Therefore, the total expenditure, provincial and Union, has risen from a little over £14,000,000 to £29,302,000 this last year, and £1,900,000 still to go on to Union expenditure and how much more provincial expenditure we do not know. These figures show one thing which is hardly ever admitted by hon. members opposite. They show that after the year in which the expenditure reached, so to speak, its peak, namely, 1920-21, when it was £30,000,000 and over, the late Government then took the matter in hand, and, in the face of the greatest and most stubborn opposition from hon. members opposite, insisted upon bringing about reductions. There was a drop in Union expenditure in 1920-’21 from £21,660,000 to £19,496,000. and there was only an increase of £100,000 in provincial council expenditure in those two years. It does seem to me that, now that Ministers have been put in with a strong majority, they can afford to do a great deal. I do not think they will encounter any opposition from these benches if the reductions in expenditure which they propose to make are reasonable and fair, and there is no reason why they should not be We have been told over and over again by hon. members opposite that it is the fault of the South African party Government that there is no increase of the European population of this country. Well, if there is no increase of the European population, why do you want so many more officials? What are they to do? I find that the total number of people in Government employ (Europeans), excluding railways, is now 26.554 whole-time officials. That, I suppose, includes the police and Defence Force. Those 26,554 people represent an increase this very year of 384 officials. Will anyone say that more Europeans reside in this country now than did a year ago to justify the appointment of 384 more officials? They are not highly paid The average salary is about £350 per annum; but it seems to me that we have far too many people. It would be better to pay somewhat higher salaries to a smaller number, but it cannot possibly be necessary for us to have so many officials as we have now for our small population.

Where did we get them?

They grew up during the war. The South African party Government did their best to keep the number down, in face of great opposition from hon. members opposite, and now we have a Government with a strong majority, which is in a position to carry out reforms of this kind without serious opposition, and I think it is their duty to do this. In connection with the administration in the various departments, I find the number of men in the Defence Force has decreased, yet I find an increase of seven officials in the head office. Then in the prisons I looked for a reduction, as it seems to be the policy of the Minister of Justice to keep the number of prisoners as low as possible; but I do not see any sign of any appreciable reduction. I think it is high time this matter were taken in hand. Now I come to the provincial councils, in connection with which expenditure has been allowed to grow. Members opposite have attributed this to the policy of drift, which they state was adopted by the late Government. There is hardly anyone on this side of the House who will not admit that there is some truth in that statement, but there was some justification for it, as any idea that there should be a reduction was received with protests from hon. members opposite. The late Government had not the advantage of such a strong majority as the present Government, and it was more difficult for them to carry out reforms. They did, however, limit the expenditure, as I have shown, and there is no doubt that if the late Government had continued in power, steps would have been taken to give effect to the Baxter report, which has been quoted with so much approbrium by hon. members opposite. Of course, they do not like that report, because it suggests limiting expenditure, and deals with the question of making both ends meet, with which they do not concern themselves at all. Of course, it is said that the main expenditure is on education. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) pointed out that it is quite possible to make too much of a fetish of education. There is nobody on this side of the House who is opposed to making the most liberal provision for education, but it should not be excessive without adding to its efficiency. Taking the figures from the Baxter report the expenditure in the provinces in European education between 1913-’14 and 1921-22 has increased from £2,137,987 to £6,355,198.

There was an increase of pupils.

Of course there was an increase, but the cost has not only increased in the aggregate, but per head. In the Cape the cost per head increased from £10.39 to £17.04. In Natal from 8.83 to 21.76; in the Transvaal from 11.23 to 21.53; in the Free State from 10.37 to 19.93, and in the Union generally, from 10.51 to 19.46. I do not think there is any other country in the British Empire that can show anything like that. I very much doubt if there is anything in the world to equal it. I have had some small experience in a neighbouring country where, with a smaller number of pupils to provide for, the cost per head was lower than this figure, and if you think of the large number of children over which the overhead costs must be spread in the Union, I do not think these figures are creditable to the management responsible. This is a matter which I think the Minister should have taken in hand. And not only education, but the whole question of control of provincial council expenditure. But what has he done? He has expressly given them power to add to the things which, by common consent, it is not reasonable that they should do. He is perpetuating the duplicate system of taxation, and giving every possible facility for spending money in excess of what is required. The only result will be that in the two larger provinces there will be a growing demand for the abolition of these provincial councils. The people in this country will wake up to the fact that the policy of hon. members opposite is to take money out of other people’s pockets, and that cannot go on. There is bound to be an agitation for the abolition of these provincial councils, and I cannot see why the general administration of provincial matters, including education, should suffer if that were done. I admit the case is different in the two smaller provinces. There, greater attention is paid to economy, and there is not the same tendency to spend money recklessly, and if the people of these two provinces like to continue the system there is no reason why they should not do so. We have got no sign of economy and no sign of control of provincial council expenditure. All we have got is an adjustment of taxation which is bound to result in greater burdens being put on the people, and that, of course, is going to be done through the tariff. The Minister, in speaking on this subject, did not make any attempt to disguise the fact that what he is going to do is in accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Trade. It is not difficult to see what has happened. Hon. members opposite decided on a certain policy, and they said: “We must be fortified in that policy by expert advice. We must have some reasonably intelligent people to work out the details. So we will reorganize the Board of Trade and put in some good stout fellows who can be depended on to carry out our ideas.” And so they have done it. The report gives the reasons for the policy which is advocated. In general it says that the policy of the board in connection with the revision of the tariff was based on the following considerations. There are six of them. Four of them, as put, are quite unexceptionable. The first is—

That is quite true. We are accustomed to depend on the customs as a source of revenue. I take no exception to that. The second is—

There is no objection to that. There are a few confirmed free traders and there are a large number, though, perhaps, not an overwhelming number, of extreme protectionists, but I think that most of us agree that we must have something between the two. No-one will take exception to the expansion of industries if it does not increase the cost of living. The third consideration is—

Well, there is nothing particularly wrong in that. The fourth is—

Admirable sentiments, if only they were thoroughly carried out. When we come to the last two we find the cloven hoof. The fifth reads—

That is a concession to hon. members there (Labour members) and here (Col. Creswell). Then comes the last—

And that is where the members on the back benches opposite come in. So it amounts to this: There are some harmless copy-book maxims in four of these considerations, and the last two show the real intention. The real intention is to foster the policy of white labour associated with the hon. Minister of Labour, and the second object is to show that this country is not in any way tied or bound to Great Britain, but is entirely independent of her. That was a concession to a sentiment which has been somewhat in evidence of late. That is what is at the bottom of these things, and the result is, of course, going to be that the cost of living will be raised. As the wheel turns there will be a further demand for protection, and then a further demand for higher wages, and the last state of things will be worse than the first. Is that going to do anything really important in developing the industries of this country? There are some countries which have an immense home market, but unfortunately we have not. We have one and a half million whites and six millions of black people, whose wants are very modest; therefore, if we produce on a small scale the cost of production is excessive, and if we produce on a large scale our products must be consumed in other countries, where we have to compete with goods imported from Europe and America, where there is mass production and the working costs are cheaper, and people, I think it must be said, are inclined to work harder. I suggest that this is not a sufficient return for tinkering with the British preference. One of the hon. members opposite has alluded to the fact that some revision of the tariff was considered by the late Government. That is true; but when the late Government considered this matter and the question of withdrawing the general preference and increasing the duty on certain articles so as to be of some use to the British manufacturer, they found that on the balance the consideration given to the British producer would be less than before, and so they dropped the scheme. That was perfectly right. The hon. Minister of Finance and his colleagues have no doubt found also that the balance of consideration to the British producer is less, but they have not altered their scheme and are going to carry it through in the face of objections from many parts of this country. I think it was the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) who said that the question of sentiment does not enter into the matter; it is a question of business. I differ from him; I think sentiment does come in and I think this is the last country where we can say that sentiment does not come in, considering all the events that have happened in which the force of sentiment has played a part. I think the matter of preference is capable of defence on strict business lines, but that does not alter the fact that, because the people of Great Britain are large enough not to bargain or retaliate, because they will nevertheless give us a preference, it cannot possibly be good business to be otherwise than on good terms with Great Britain. Where would be our security? Where should we get our money? Hon. members who have not studied the matter have referred to the question of getting money from America. We have heard for years past of the vast sums available from America, but I fancy my hon. friend here (Sir E. Oppenheimer) is the only one who has extracted any. Where do we get the money for the development of our industries and minerals, or of anything else that has been developed? No money has come in any appreciable quantity from any other country than Great Britain, and without dealing with the question of defence, I say that, looked at from the strict business point of view, the argument holds that it is bad business to alter this tariff and to give what my right hon. friend the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has called “A slap in the face to the British people.” As I said when I began, I was disappointed, and I think many people would be, to find the Budget speech foreshadowed nothing in regard to the development of the various resources of the country. It would be far better, I think, if more attention had been paid to the development of the main industries of the country than to the details of this somewhat pettifogging Budget.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at S.7 p.m.

When the adjournment took place I was proceeding to complain rather that, so far as we could gather from the Budget statement, nothing very much was contemplated by way of active development of the chief resources of the country as exemplified in the agricultural and mining industries. I think there is a great deal to be said for the contention that some activity in that respect would be worth more to the country than some of the attempts which are, apparently, being made through the agency of the new tariff to assist certain industries which are either just started or may be likely to be started, more especially as the proposals of the tariff undoubtedly reflect what we know to be the intention and desire of the Government to give special prominence to the promotion of what is called the white labour system. There is this to be said that the two industries of agriculture and mining are both dependent on cheap working. It is essential for both that the cost of working should be small, and it is essential, therefore, that the cost of living should be kept within reasonable bounds. I will take agriculture first; there is no doubt that there is a very large expenditure on the agricultural department. I do not find fault with that, provided we are sure the money is properly spent and that we get good value for it. There is nothing which does so much to promote the advance of agriculture as a really good agricultural department, first-class experts who can teach farmers how they should grow their produce to the best advantage and, what is more, how they should market it. I am sure there is no disposition on this side of the House to cavil at any reasonable expenditure on that account. During this session we have given very practical proof on this side of the House of our desire to assist the Government in this matter by helping to pass Bills which are designed to promote the advancement of agriculture and the marketing of its products. I am not quite sure, however, that we are satisfied that the administration of this department is always conducted with a due regard to economy. A short time ago there was an extended campaign against locusts. I do not complain of that, although I am disposed to think that if individual farmers were led to understand that they must help themselves they would do more in that direction than they have done, for they have always understood that the Government will step in and do things for them, and the result of that is seen in many cases of people being paid to do for themselves what they should do without paying. The locust-inspectors are a case in point. However that might be I think there are distinct evidences of some want of economy in this respect. I have been furnished with figures of what the department did in one actual case in connection with the destruction of locusts. It appears that under the law, where a farm is unoccupied, the department has the right to step in and act as if it were the owner and engage people to deal with the locusts. I don’t complain if the matter is done efficiently and economically. But here is a farm in the Mafeking division the extent of which is 2,105 morgen, valued for provincial council purposes at £316 or 3s. a morgen. In October and November last the department, in the exercise of its rights under the law, stepped in to deal with the locusts on that farm. I have particulars of the account they sent in to the unfortunate owners of the farm. They employed during the few weeks of October and November 37 Europeans of Dutch extraction. I don’t find fault with that.

Why mention it then.

Because they were “poor whites.” The 37 men were employed at wages varying from 12s. 6d. to 22s. 6d. as sprayers, water-carriers, supervisors and so on. The result is the owners of the farm had a bill rendered by the magistrate amounting to no less than £95 5s. 0d. for a few weeks’ work on this farm.

You make the law.

I don’t complain about the law. But it is unnecessary to employ 37 men at a total cost of £95. It would have been quite enough to have employed four or five men and a few natives. The actual result is the unfortunate owner of the farms gets a bill nearly equal to one-third the total value of his farm. It is all very well for hon. members to say that they wish to employ white labour but if that sort of thing takes place the whites in the district will look upon the locusts as a godsend. The advent of these people was worse for the owners than the advent of the locusts. That happened on a particular farm on particular days in October and November last year. That is strong evidence that in other places work is not as economically done as it should be.

In other places the farmers did the work themselves.

If we have reason to believe that work done by the agricultural department is economically and efficiently done, that the experts are reliable people, selected with due regard to their qualifications, then we shall not grudge a penny of that expenditure. Some hon. members seem to think that on this side of the House we have a grudge against farmers. I think it was the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) who accused my friend of attacking farmers. There is no justification for that. We have a number of farmers on this side of the House, and their capacity and proficiency is equal to that of those on that side of the House. We welcome farmers on this side of the House. The farmers and landowners to-day constitute the sound conservative element that stands against the type of some of our extreme friends, which is of the utmost value to the country. Some years ago we used to think the claims of that section of the community were unduly put to the front. Hon. members have now surrendered their places to people who are in alliance with labour, and they are going to pay very heavily in future. It will not be long before the result of these measures is realized, and we shall find more and more farmers deciding to throw in their lot with the people on this side of the House. I come further to the question of development. There is one thing I think the Government could very well afford to undertake. It is a matter which was not undertaken with great seriousness by the late Government for two reasons. The first reason was that the necessary money was not available, and there was in the second place considerable opposition from a section of members opposite. This is the question of promoting the settlement of desirable settlers from overseas. The members opposite seem to have a great prejudice against anything of that kind. There is an admirable association which has done a lot in that direction, the direction of bringing desirable settlers and settling them in country districts. The proportion who have made good is very large, and their presence in the country is a great advantage. I suppose in the minds of some members there is a suspicion that these people might swell the voters’ roll and vote against the Nationalist party. With that wonderful union we have opposite, surely there is nothing to be feared in that respect. Of course there is nothing to be feared. These people when they settle, well educated men and men with capital, are nothing but an asset to the countryside. This is a thing the Government might surely have given some consideration to. To do this there must be more advertising overseas. There must be advertisements in London, and let there also be advertisements in Holland. Let us try and get good settlers. There are many of them dissatisfied with the conditions in Europe who would be quite desirous of coming over and throwing their lot in with us. Give them an opportunity of taking advantage of the offers which are outstanding from the British Government which is ready and willing to assist in financing these men. I know that is being undertaken by the Government of Australia on a very large scale. I am not pretending that the conditions out here are the same as in Australia; obviously they are not, because here we have a native population and we have to recognize the fact. There are agencies and money available for getting settlers of a good class, and I think it is time the Government took this matter in hand, and brought out these people, who would be an advantage to the country, and by their very presence would increase the value of their neighbours’ land. I come now to the other main industry, the mining industry. I am glad to find that hon. members opposite, on the whole, seem to have taken a more reasonable view than they did at the time of the last election. Indeed, they would be very foolish if they did not, because we all must recognize the extent to which our finances and our trade depend upon the prosperity of the mining industry to-day. Anything that can be done to assist that industry must surely be of benefit to the whole country. If I am asked what we could do, well, so far as existing mines are concerned, I would say, first and foremost, leave them alone. It is a highly organized industry, and the thing it needs most is to be left to carry on its work. It is an industry, however, which is always subject to attack, always treated as if alien to the country, as if it was a disadvantage to the country, instead of an asset, too often treated as a means of providing concessions to people whose votes it is desired to obtain. As far as it is reasonably possible, leave the established mines to work out their own destiny. There is a great deal to be said, however, as regards the development of other minerals in the country. In that connection I would refer to the extremely interesting report which has been published on the development of mineral resources of the Union by the Departmental Committee appointed by the late Minister of Mines in 1924. The committee comprised a very practical body of men, and their report, which I commend to the attention of hon. members, is an extremely interesting one. They were asked to advise on the question of the stimulation of mineral production in the Union; on the existence of obstacles with suggestions on the most practical way of removing them; and, lastly, on the utilization of Union raw material products for the purpose of manufacture. Their report states clearly that while it is realized that private enterprise is a first essential, it is felt that there is a distinct claim upon Government assistance. It is pointed out that in the development of agriculture great assistance has been rendered by the Department of Agriculture, but similar Government assistance to the mining industry is relatively small The expenditure on mines, which included and still includes the regulation of industries, rose from £160,000 in 1914-’15 to £300,607. The total expenditure last year was at the rate of £300,000 a year on mines, as compared with £1,416,000 expended on agriculture I do think there is room for assistance of the kind indicated by the Departmental Committee. I think more assistance should be given to geological survey and, generally speaking, to people engaged in prospecting for and working less well-known minerals. The industry should be entitled to look to the department for a much greater measure of support than they have received up to the present time. I would suggest to the Government that they now give this matter serious consideration. The successful development of minerals, their working and marketing, are subjects worthy of the greatest consideration; and the successful development of them is more likely than anything else to do away with the evil of which everyone complains, that is, the slow growth of the white population in the country. The speech of the Minister of Finance, so far as it is indicative of the policy of the Government, is decidedly disappointing. There is no relief worth speaking of for the taxpayers. There is no solution of the Provincial Council difficulty; on the contrary there is every indication that the Government will look with complacency upon the demands of the provincial councils to spend more money. There is no sign of the active development of the resources of the country. What have we got on the other side? We have got a tariff which may or may not do some good to some industries, but which does not seem to me to be based upon any very wide principle. It is left in a more or less haphazard state to suit certain industries which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, who I suppose reflect generally the minds of the Government, it is worth while to encourage. The adoption of that tariff, as far as I can see, is going undoubtedly to increase the cost of living. It is undoubtedly going to cause a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst the natives of this country, who can see in it no possible sign whatever of any desire to assist them to advance in civilization or obtain remunerative employment. On the contrary, such assistance as is to be given by way of the tariff to industries is stated in black and white in the report of the board to be about to be given only to those industries which are good, so far as labour is concerned—good in the opinion of the board and the opinion of the board, in addition, is the opinion of the Ministers, whose policy they are carrying out. I do not think that is at all a satisfactory position. I am quite sure that if there are gentlemen opposite who think that in the country generally, apart from the towns, they are going to get cheap labour and so forth, they are going to be miserably disappointed. Hon. members opposite, who are engaged in farming, as I am sure such hon. members on this side do, should recognize that it is not merely a question of the cost of the actual labour they employ. The result of the policy which has been foreshadowed by Ministers, and which is about to be given effect to by the adoption of this tariff, and by the passing of various measures which are still before the House is bound to increase the cost of unskilled labour and the cost of production and, that being so, it is bound to militate against the reduction of railway rates, and it is bound to put up the cost of a great many things which the farmer, as well as everybody else, has to buy every day of his life. If there is one thing that we have been taught by the events of recent years, it is that one section of the people must work with the other, and if there is one thing in politics on a larger scale which has been brought home by the war it is that no country can afford to be entirely independent of what goes on outside. It is impossible to act in these tariff matters and matters of industry as if this country were self-contained, self-supporting and could finance itself. It cannot provide a market for its own goods on any appreciable scale, and it cannot find the capital which is necessary to further develop the country. It has got to go outside. It has got to consider the wishes, and it has also got to consider the sentiment, if you like, of people overseas, and in that respect I think the Government have acted without consideration of a good many facts which should appeal to them, and, therefore, I conclude by saying that I consider that taking their policy as it has been indicated, that policy is disappointing, and the Government have lost a great opportunity.

When the former Budget was before the House I said that I entirely disagreed with it. I also said that I could not blame the present Minister of Finance because he took over the extravagant expenditure from his predecessor. I have tried to follow the matter carefully since that time to see what would happen regarding financial matters. To my delight the Minister of Finance last September decided to appoint a National Thrift Committee. I was very pleased at this because I saw that he would put things right. I was still more pleased when I saw that my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would be the chairman of the commission. He was to teach us how to save and be thrifty, but he had another instruction, and of that he has said nothing in his speech. I find in paragraph (f) of the terms of reference the commission had to advise generally upon the line of conduct to encourage economy and thrift. He was to teach this to the Government, to us all, and also to me. I don’t think that I require teaching. When this happened I felt that we were now going to get straight and that we would bring back the country to a normal condition. But my cup of happiness was only half full. When I read the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice about the administration of the country generally my cup was full, especially when I read his remarks about the booty system and the distribution of jobs, and I then thought that it was not necessary to talk any more. He said this—

It is along these lines that we will work. That is what the Minister of Justice said, and this is what should have occurred long ago while the previous Government was still in office, then the country would not have been in this miserable financial position. I do not wish to quote everything to the House, but just this—

That is what we want and this is what we shall get when all the wasting of money of the past has been put right. When I read that speech I felt that matters would come right and that everything would very soon be in good order. Now I must say at once that I am deeply disappointed regarding this Budget which has been laid before us. I feel that it is not yet right. But to my disappointment about the Budget I must add at once that I had heard the courageous speech of the Minister of Finance in which he acknowledges that he has not yet had time to review the whole administration but that he will do it—and I accept his word, because he has already made a commencement. The disappointment is much softened. I want to say this, that the estimates laid before us still contain the high salaries, bonuses, allowances, and all sorts of expenditure which he must avoid. I hope that the Minister of Finance next year will have put his hands on a good number of these items. The Minister of Finance has warned us, has warned the people outside, and also me, that we must be very careful to economize and to live sparingly, and that we must not be as mad as in the past, running up the prices of ground and living in luxury. He went still further and said that he should buy nothing that we did not absolutely require for the work on our farms. I agree with him. It is there that we went wrong in the past. Just as I am thankful to him for his warning, I wish also in all sincerity and uprightness to warn him, and I hope he will take it in the spirit in which I took his warning. When I read the newspapers and the speeches which even Ministers make outside, then I say that they often point to further extravagance. A section in the land says that they must get higher salaries, more bonuses, higher allowances and still further unnecessary expenditure. Another section wants to build palaces for pomp and show and the people will have to pay the taxes therefor. It goes on just as if we were not already pressed down under taxation right over the ears. We are so loaded with taxation that my hon. friends opposite, who laid it upon us, are now also commencing to cry. I felt at the time that the taxation about which they are crying now would turn out so, but they then welcomed it with a chorus of “Hear, hear.” Another section wants to create new appointments in the administration of the country or remake appointments which have long since been abolished. They want to create more departments with all the expenditure that is connected with them. There is yet another section which wishes to create entirely new departments simply because they exist in other countries. It is nothing but slavish imitation which has brought our poor country financially into such a rotten condition. We always look at what is going on in other countries and immediately want to import it here. I now wish to warn my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that he must not do those unnecessary things, because if he does he will get into hot water. He already knows it, but I want to tell him so here in public. I hope the Government, and especially the Minister of Finance, will be firm and put his foot down and end the extravagance which still exists on the estimates. He has promised that he will set an example to us of economy and thrift. I entirely agree with him where he said in answer to an interjection from the opposite side, that at that time as an Opposition we had not opposed money being spent on the development of the land and on productive works. Well, we fought tooth and nail against money being wasted on bonuses and such things, and to-night we still stand on the same ground. The expenditure which is provided far that sort of thing this year is no less than £137,155 more than that of last year.

Hear, hear.

Yes, but it is still what has been inherited from that party which sits opposite which proposed the increases in the past. I want to advise the Minister of Finance to put an end to it as soon as possible. One thing I am convinced of, and I am certain the Minister of Finance will agree with me, namely, that our whole administration is top-heavy. It will be the task of this Government to alter this and to establish, as the Minister of Justice has said, a simpler administration which will be much more effective for this country. I said from the beginning that this was the only way to bring the country back again to a normal financial position. In connection with this point a prominent person has recently used noteworthy language. He has said that the taxation is becoming too heavy for the taxpayers, and that it was taxation which in the past had caused the decline of great empires. To this that now most prominent person added—

There is a strong tendency in the country to live extravagantly. The Government feels this, and that is why the hon. Minister gave his warning. I have already said more than once in the House from these benches, and I have also said it outside at meetings and at Dingaan’s festivals, and I wish to repeat it here, that the Government during the past few years was busy to make us a nation of tradition breakers, spendthrifts and imitators, and those people opposite have already taken us a long way along that road. It will be the duty of this Government to bring our people back from that destructive road.

How will you manage that with the Pact?

The Minister of Finance has said that he will economize everywhere he can. I take it that he, after the session, will review the whole administration and that he will use the pruning knife wherever he finds it necessary. He will find that he cannot use the pruning knife everywhere and that in certain places he will require a saw. I need not go into all the figures. I will only mention one case where the saw is necessary. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) has already mentioned it. Over £400,000 is spent on transport. Some years ago I spent a little time taking out the figures, because they are sandwiched in everywhere. If my hon. friend will do so again he will find that £280,000 is spent on motor transport alone. Of that he can cut off £100,000. There he requires the saw to remove this ingrowing knot. I see that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is not present, and I wanted to address a few words to him. I wanted to ask him how it is he has never given an account of his stewardship, namely, of his commission. He has never said where we can save or economize. We have not heard a syllable from him about that, and I should very much like to have heard something from him. Now I wish to say a few words about the taxes. I dare to speak about it because I, together with the members opposite, am bleeding under it. At the time they were putting on all this taxation I warned them. When the previous Minister of Finance, however, came along with his taxation, they always shouted “Hear, hear.” I then said to them that they would one day cry about it, and they are now fulfilling my prophecy. I always fought against the taxes. The present Minister of Finance has already taken off a part of the taxation, and I think he is going to take off more. The South African party must, however, not cry, because they introduced the taxes. Let us leave it in the hands of the Minister of Finance and he will put things right. I want to-night to repeat what I have already said in the House ten or twelve times, to wit, that those taxes are unreasonable and unfair. Every time that I spoke about finance I said that my electors and I were not against paying taxes for the Government of the country, but that we objected to pay taxes for the money to be wasted on works from which we had no benefit and for which we only had to pay interest year after year. The money that we pay and the income of the State, which should be used for the development of the country, is all sent out of the country as interest on money that we have borrowed. That is why we are in this terrible financial position. I accept the Minister’s word. I know that he will not go back on it and that he will, after the session, investigate the whole administration in order to economize where it is possible, because I wish to say at once that it is no good appointing commissions if they only leave matters where they were before. It seems to me that the £6,000 for promoting thrift can also be scrapped. That whole affair amounts to this, in some instances, that the parent encourages the child and says to him that it must save its money and put it in the money-box, and that he must not buy sweets or go to the bioscope. The child does this, and when the money-box is full, the father takes the money out and wastes it in drinks, or other ways. That child next year will not be thrifty, he will use the money. We also will not continue to be economical if we save our money to pay it over in taxation. If we tell people to be economical and thrifty, let us not waste their money. Let us not make all taxpayers poor whites. Who will then pay the taxes? Then we will find that there will be no money for the Government of the country. I hope that the Minister of Finance will comply with my request, and that he will give us an example of economy and thrift.

I think that the whole country has awaited with great interest the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance and without doubt all tax payers have read it with great disappointment. It was the slogan of the Nationalist party during past years at every platform in the country, the slogan of the Prime Minister and all his followers, that the South African party was a reckless party as regards the spending of money and that the South African party was engaged in an alarming way to increase the national debt. What do we find now? The eyes of the country and the people—the hon. Prime Minister always has the habit of talking about the people outside—the eyes of the people outside are gradually opening and the people are beginning to awake. The people are beginning to find out that all the condemnation in the past by the Prime Minister and other members of his party is not only untrue but sheer hypocrisy. What do we find to-day? Here on the Table lies the estimates and the estimates show an increased expenditure of £2,000,000 on the estimates of the former Minister of Finance for the previous year. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance—I feel sorry for him—shrugs his shoulders and says that the responsibility rests with the past. He says that beyond £114,000 of the all but £2,000,000 he has no control over the other large amount. Is the hon. Minister not responsible? Are he and his Government not responsible for the financial and political policy of the country? If the hon. Minister comes and says that he is going to give £2,000,000 to the provincial councils is he then not responsible, is this not a matter of political policy? The people demand full responsibility from the Minister, from the Government in respect of the financial policy of the country, and the Minister comes and gives nearly a million pounds sterling to the provincial council. What does he do? He carries out the policy in the main of the Baxter report against which the Minister and his whole party so wrongly were opposed and which they opposed. When the former Minister of Finance in his Budget speech said the South African party in the main would accept the Baxter report all the eloquence of the then Opposition was let loose and to-day the people found out that a million pounds was given to carry into effect one of the main principles of the Baxter report, giving £1,000,000 to the provincial councils.

Do you want more?

I will not allow myself to be put off by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North). When I have finished my speech he can find out for himself whether I am for it or not. £1,000,000 is being given to the provincial councils. What for? The hon. Minister has stated that they are engaged in making the provincial councils bigger and more important and to give them a firmer footing in South Africa. That is what his statement amounted to, and that without any explanation of their further development. The provincial councils get nearly £1,000,000, all deficits are paid, they are put on a sound economic basis.

Hear, hear.

Yes, so far as the provincial councils are concerned. The deficit is being paid. By whom? By the House of Assembly. We shall have to see every year—we, as House of Assembly—that the money is found and all this is done without any limit being put on the rights of the provincial councils. No, the system of taxation of the provincial councils is actually enlarged. Not one limitation is laid upon them. It appears clearly that they approve of the best policy pescscy csyvhobhr approve of the past policy of the provincial council. The hon. Minister must not think that I am against education. No one is against education but I say that at the moment our taxes have come to the stage that at any rate as far as the Cape Province is concerned the taxes are so high that they cannot be increased. Every tax payer feels that it is becoming impossible for him to pay any more in South Africa. But the hon. Minister does not try in this connection to clip the wings of the provincial councils in any respect.

Why is the money wasted?

Well I leave it to the hon. member there to decide about it. He can decide about the Free State, I speak about the Cape Colony. I say this that nothing is done to reduce the right of taxation by the provincial councils. No, the Minister comes and says that he takes off certain taxes but have hon. members noticed what is put in the place of those taxes? The Minister says that he is going to take away the tax on tobacco, to repeal the turn-over tax, and that the tax on medicines has already been removed. But what is coming instead of those? On the Table of the House there is an annexure which contains the licences which the public will have to pay. This House and hon. members must not forget that the burden of education is now taken from the shoulders of the provincial councils and laid upon the House of Assembly. And yet the House of Assembly, which for the future has to provide for education, gets no further control under the taxation proposals over the financial arrangements of the provincial councils. The previous Government tried to introduce uniformity—to a certain extent at least—in the salaries of the teachers.

Did it succeed?

It is the law by which it was fixed which is now being repealed by the new Bill of the Government. The old Act gave the Government the power to bring about uniformity by means of scales, but this Government is repealing the right to create uniformity. We shall have in the future to provide for taxation for education purposes but we have less control than in the past as regards the spending of the money. I am not surprised that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has come from Durban and is regarded as the hero of the administrators and the executive councils, because they got everything they wanted. We as a Parliament have to-day to pay the piper. There is a proposal by the hon. Minister of Finance to create certain uniformity with reference to licences in South Africa. Hon. members who represent the Cape Province should glance at the schedule a little and see what it will mean for the tax payer of the Cape Province and how they will be taxed under the new schedule. And let us admit that it actually is a tax for education. The hon. Minister says that he removed certain taxes but what comes in the place thereof? In the past shop keepers paid £7 10s. 0d. for licences. Now they will have to pay £2 on every thousand pounds of stock.

It is a good thing.

I doubt whether the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is a first class business man. We shall soon i hear what he has to say. If a man to-day has £12,000 stock he pays £7 10s. 0d. but in the future he will have to pay £24. There are merchants in my division which have a very extensive trade in wool and grain and have a turnover of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The schedule does not make it clear whether there will be a limit. During the Easter vacation merchants from all parts met me in my constituency and asked me what the proposal meant. They asked me whether if they e.g. had 50,000 bags of wheat in stock whether it formed a portion of their stock for purposes of the schedule. And whether if they had £50,000 worth of wool, it would form a portion of their stock. The turn over tax has been taken away but if it is true that this will form a portion of their stock then it will hit the merchants much harder than the turn-over tax did in the past.

If you will permit me I will just explain it. It will perhaps save much unnecessary talk. I cannot now enter into particulars but I only wish to say that the licence tax will not go right through. I can give the hon. member the assurance that he will not pay more than £100 in any case.

This shows how necessary it was for me to call attention to that point. The Minister laughs, but the public outside, who have to pay the tax, is quite uneasy, because the schedule has no bounds. I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation, and I can assure him that it will give great satisfaction to the people outside. Now I come to another tax. Under the same schedule it is proposed to tax boards of executors. There are two boards of executors in my constituency. They have hitherto paid £40 for their licence but, under the new proposal of the Minister, they will have to pay nearly £600. This is the amount which must be paid just for the authority to carry on business, and this in a free country governed by a free democratic Government. £600 has to be paid for the right of carrying on business.

Is that for licences?

The licence for a head office of a board of executors is £75, and for every branch £50.

The hon. member is dealing with a proposal of which notice has been given that it will be brought before the House later. It does not fall under what is at present under discussion.

I hope that the hon. Minister will not make such a big mistake to want to tell us and the country that the taxation proposals do not form a part of his budget. If the proposals of the schedules do not go-through, then his whole budget is hopelessly defeated, but I will, of course, obey your ruling.

The hon. member may proceed.

I only wish to say this, that if the hon. Minister does not meet the boards of executors—

That’s right—

I know that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has no time for boards of executors, but I only want to say this, that the two boards of executors in my constituency did a great deal to help our farmers during the difficult years, The boards of executors were established by our farmers themselves, and they have watched the interests of all, Nationalists and “Sap” farmers. During the two years of bad depression many of the farmers in my district would have gone insolvent, but they were assisted by the boards of executors, and did not go to the State for help. One of the two boards did not pay a penny dividend during all that time.

Then it was bad business.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has earned for himself in the House and outside the reputation as a blackener of character.

Please don’t worry yourself about my reputation.

But I just want seriously to bring to the notice of the Minister, if his proposals go through, that of the five branches of the one chamber, two will be closed down, and at least eight of the clerks of those who are now working in the branches will be put out of work. Not only boards of executors and business places will be hit by the proposals of the Minister. I have no time to talk about the professional man, the doctor, the advocate and the attorney. I am not going into that, but think only of the poor widows of whom we have hundreds in our country who keep lodging houses. They often have to maintain a family of small children and take in a few lodgers. Every year the widows will have to take out a licence of £5 under the new proposals of the Minister of Finance. Further, every person who wants to lend money will have to take out a licence at £50.

Hear, hear.

Yes, it is a very good thing to the man who advances money. He will be able to make the excuse for not lending the money, but what about the poor man who requires the money, who has to be assisted? And let me tell the consumer that the days are past that the tax can be passed on to the consumer. During the last years the competition in business has become so keen and severe that it is impossible to pass it on to the consumer. The consequence will be that many of our businesses will have to close down owing to the heavy taxation unless the hon. Minister will fix some limit under the Bill which he will introduce with reference to the proposals in the annexures. I have already said that the tax which is going to be levied will be directly with the object of fighting the expenditure for education, and I only wish to say to the Minister of Education that my experience as a business man, and as one who lives among the people, is that if one wants to make education unpopular the education taxation has only to be increased. The taxation which is now levied will be used directly for education and in the interest of education, that is why the difficulties are raised against taxation without fixing a limit and which at long last will cause great damage to the cause of education that is my conviction. The outstanding fact of this budget is that we are now living in a year of great prosperity.

And we also have a good Government.

Before the South African party left the Government benches it was said that the country was practically bankrupt. Yes, the Prime Minister never suppressed that. He said it many times, in the House and in the country and all his followers have also stated that the country was bankrupt, but what happened? During the whole of the past four or five years the South African credit under the previous Government stood second in the world.

And how does it stand to-day?

The sound state of things was given as a gift to the present Minister of Finance, and what was the result? The hon. Minister shortly after the present Government came into office was by means of the credit created by the South African party Government in a position to raise a loan in Europe on very satisfactory conditions.

What about your prophecies?

The former Government brought about the good credit of the State. The people in Europe who lend money know what the financial position is. They know what the debts and the assets of South Africa are, and the Government was able to raise money on the assets.

The members opposite surely always said that we would not be able to raise any money.

The outstanding fact of the Budget is that we are living in a year of great prosperity. On the general Budget there is a surplus of £800,000. This was expected by the previous Minister of Finance. That Minister said just before the dissolution of Parliament that we were going to have prosperous times. The prophecy of the Minister has been realized. There is prosperity. Prosperity as regards the railways and great profits, but in this year of prosperity the railway Budget and the general Budget is increased by a sum of £3,000.000 and the taxation on the people is increased by fully £500,000. Where are the hon. members for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and his party now? He has not the pluck to stand up and criticize and to propose that the minimum income tax limit should be raised to £500. He hasn’t the courage. He sits under the Pact. He does not dare to do it.

Wait until I have spoken.

I just want to add a few words about the preference to England. I do not consider it as a matter of sentiment. With me the question always is what are the actual interests of South Africa? What are the interests of South Africa with reference to preference? If one looks to-day at the economic condition of the world then the British Empire stands alone in the world as a factor of stability and security, and at this juncture in the history of the world the Government comes and instead of keeping the relationship on as friendly a footing as possible, it says: “We are going to reduce the preference to England by £800,000.” As an Afrikander, as one whose ancestors came centuries ago into this country, and as one who has never known any other country, and whose children will never know any other country, I say to-day that this is an unstatemanlike act on the part of the Government, who, at this juncture in history go and practically give England a slap in the face. I go further, and I say that England at the moment is engaged in considering the giving to our wine and fruit and tobacco farmers a preference which is astonishing in comparison with other parts of the world. I believe as far as the Western Province is concerned, Stellenbosch, Caledon, Tulbagh and Worcester, it will mean profit of at least £100,000 if the preference tariffs, which England is now considering, are passed, and at this moment, now the matter is becoming one of practical politics, our Government comes and says: “So far as we are concerned as a Government we are going to abolish the preference tariff which South Africa has granted for the past 20 years.” This may perhaps be an easy manner to balance the Budget. It is easy to say: “I take it off in order not to tax the people any more.” But it is unstatesmanlike and will have bad results so far as the economic future of our country is concerned. I am convinced of it. I am very sorry that at this juncture such a proposal is made by our Government. Before I sit down I would like just to express the hope that the hon. Minister, with reference to that Bill of taxes, including the schedules of licences, will properly protect the public and the tax payer.

I was very pleased indeed to hear the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) state that he was pleased with the Minister. I believe he stated that he had never been so happy in his life. I cannot quite say that, because it is utterly impossible for a new Government, faced with a deficit of over £16,000,000 left by a previous Government, to bring in a scheme of taxation, and at the same time a scheme to relieve the people of South Africa from taxation. We in this corner realize the difficulties of the Minister, who was faced with this deficit when he took over, really doing anything for the direct benefit of the people in the way of remitting taxation. I believe the tariff which he has brought in will not only assist the working class, but will be the means of finding employment for people in South Africa. I appreciate very much the action of the farming community, in coming forward at the present juncture and supporting a protectionist policy for the development of South Africa. I realize that in doing so the farmers will lose more than any other section of the community; but I am very pleased to see that they have put their country before their own individual interests. I realize, also, that this Government has started well. Employment has been found, during nine months, for over 5,000 unemployed. In a corresponding period, the late Government dismissed over 12,000. While I appreciate the difficulties of the Government, and thank them for what they have done, I should like to ask, not that the income tax abatement should be raised from £300 to £500; I believe the present abatement is fair (I believe, also, if we did remit the extra £200 a large number of people—over 11,000 single men—would be exempt from taxation), but I do ask the Minister if he will not consider the increasing of the abatement for children from £50 to £75 or £100. This would be one means of not only satisfying the people, but of doing justice to that section which are a credit to the country and who are rearing the children of the future generation. In regard to the criticisms of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and his colleague, the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), regarding the provincial educational policy, I am sorry the latter is not present; he stated, in ridiculing the expenses on education in the Cape Province, that he knew of a school, within 20 miles of Cape Town, which was built of bricks purchased at £40 a thousand. I hope I am not contravening any of the rules of the House when I say that that statement is untrue. I have made enquiries of the authorities in Cape Town, and they all deny that statement. I think it is a shame for persons to exaggerate facts when they are trying to prove their arguments. I must congratulate the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), not on his policy, but on his honesty and integrity and fairness in criticizing any policy. Nevertheless, I have never heard hon. members opposite criticize the Government for contributing 75 per cent. of the expenses of higher education.

We have not the details yet.

I am not against higher education, but I do object to the criticism of expenditure on primary education when hon. members do not criticize the expenditure on the education of students attending the university. I am not in favour of the reduction of expenditure on higher, technical or primary education. But the vote on higher education has increased 380 per cent. since 1914. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) criticized the taking over of the technical institutes by the Minister of Education. I hold that the technical schools are of greater value to the community than any other system of education in any country, and in South Africa we spend less on technical education than in any country in the world. I do not think my hon. friend was correct in saying we spent £150,000. I believe we only spent £87,000 on the technical education of the youth of South Africa.

I think you are wrong.

Well, I have obtained my information from the blue books on the expenditure for the year. We must realize this fact—the technical education is the foundation of any country, and not scholastic education; for one opening in the scholastic profession there are twenty or, may be, fifty, openings for the youths of this country who have learned to fit themselves to work in industries. I believe that in the Government workshops in Australia there are a far larger proportion of men who have gained their technical knowledge in that country than is the case correspondingly in this country. We have heard a great deal from the Opposition in regard to the cost of primary education. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is wrong in asserting that the cost per pupil is higher in this country than in any other. He surely knows that in other countries the vote for education is kept separate from that for indigent boarding schools, and in Germany the money spent on technical education comes under the heading of industries. I take it the vote for secondary education also comes under the vote of industries. If that were done, the amount spent on primary education would be practically 60 per cent. of what it is estimated to cost in this country. We have also to look at the fact that there are two languages in this country. Moreover, in Germany the State looks after the motherless and fatherless children, in England charity, whereas in this country the money spent in feeding, housing and clothing the poor children has to be met out of education funds, and when that is allowed it reduces the cost per pupil. To analyse the matter a little further, we find that whereas in the Cape the cost of primary education increased by 133 per cent., in Denmark the increase in the same period was 347 per cent., and in Sweden 392 per cent. My objection to the Baxter report is that the commission chose for comparison only those countries which suited their argument. In making the comparison with Canada the commission did not point out that there they have a direct vote whereby, when the taxpayer pays his educational tax, he states to what religion he belongs, and the state then allocates the schools in proportion to the requirements of the different religions. It is not solely a state-controlled education. I also object to the comparison with Australia and New Zealand, seeing that in this country our educational expenditure has to cover the cost of the training of teachers, the indigent boarding-schools and other matters, whereas these forms of expenditure are not included in the case of Australia and New Zealand. I want hon. members to realize that there is no other country which can compare with South Africa in regard to its economical educational policy.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that there was not a quorum.

House counted, and Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is here, as my figures prove that he is totally wrong, and I expect him to rise and withdraw the arguments he used yesterday. He should live up to the reputation he has got for honesty, and should not quote figures which are incorrect, and should not lead people astray who do not understand the real position. Is it honest for him to use figures without stating that he had picked out the countries which suited his argument? I object to him criticizing our educational policy at all. When he was Minister of Railways he would not employ any boy who had not passed the seventh standard, although he supported the Government which did not give free education beyond the sixth standard. In fact, I am astonished to hear Cape members criticizing our educational policy at all, if it had been Transvaal members I could have understood those criticisms, seeing that this Government assists the Cape to a greater extent than it does any of the other provinces. It gives the Cape £16 per pupil up to a certain number, £5 5s. per coloured pupil, £5 per pupil in private schools, and in addition gives £240,000 for native education. I thank the Minister of Finance for bringing in what I believe will be a working-man’s tariff. The number of articles which will benefit the working classes will, I fancy, outnumber to a great extent the increased duties which may be imposed on imported luxuries. The tariff being a protectionist, one will create a great deal of employment for the youth of South Africa as industries will spring up here. We have in the Union some thousands of boys who have had no opportunities whatever of learning any profession or trade or of finding any employment, but I hope young South Africa will reap a tremendous advantage from the Government’s policy of encouraging industries. Hon. members opposite have tried to prove that the cost of living of the working classes will be increased as a result of the new tariff. Cotton goods are mainly used, not only by the work mg classes, but by the farming community The last Government—and I hope it will be a long time before it is in power again—taxed cotton goods in the same way as it taxed manufactured clothing. The present Government, however, has not increased the duty on made-up clothing, but it has lowered the duty on cloth in the piece. The result will be that more clothing will be made here, so that consequently more work will be created for the people of South Africa. It is very wisely stipulated however, that unless our manufacturers conform to decent civilized standards and pay civilized wages that protection will be taken off. Therefore, under these conditions, we can safely assert that industry will be on a true and solid foundation and will develop as long as a policy like the present Minister’s policy will last. I also find that the last Government allowed instruments and tools used by different professions in South Africa to come in tree, but I believe the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was a party to the taxing of the working men’s tools to the tune of over £30,000 a year. Plumbers, carpenters, masons and others had to pay this amount in taxation. I am pleased to see that this Government has remitted that tax and extended facilities for all tools required by bona fide workmen to come in duty free. That is doing a great deal towards reducing the cost of the living of the people of South Africa. They have not gone so far as some of us think-fit, but the Government, having as a heritage a debt of over £16,000,000, cannot benefit the people to the extent it would wish. I wish to contradict the statement by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) where he stated the price of South African bacon had been increased. I contradict the statement that the manufacturers of South African bacon have increased their prices, but as usual the speculators and business men have seen their way clear to steal a few extra shillings from the consumers of the country. I should like to mention the class of items effecting a saving to the workers, there are other matters besides cotton goods and mechanics’ goods. Cotton piece goods £90,000, woollen piece goods £80,000, other piece goods £37,500, mechanics’ tools £30,000, sewing cotton and sewing machines £22.500. hosiery and underclothing £10,000, a total of £270,000 which this Government have thought fit to benefit the working class, by remitting taxation to this extent. I would like to mention another matter under the industrial items. On industrial machinery and implements they remitted £60,000, paper (plain or composite) £15,000, other items £25,000, a total of £100,000 which the Government has remitted for the benefit of agriculture and industry. Even revenue on raw materials have been remitted to the extent of £80,000, making a total amount of £450,000 which the Government has remitted for the benefit of taxation of the people of South Africa. On the other hand, they have increased certain commodities—and I do not think this will altogether please hon. members opposite—certain articles which members of the Opposition are more concerned with than cotton piece goods. For instance, jewellery and plate £15,000, motor spirit in bulk £30,000, on expensive motor cars there has been an increase in customs revenue of £20,000, confectionery £17,500, bioscope films £6,500, tobacconists wares, £5,500, electrical machinery £11,000, printed matter and stationery £36,000 these, with other articles £8,500, make a total increase of £750,000. The protective tariff on household and industrial articles only £100,000, and they have increased by £850,000 the duties on articles which users can do without if they cannot afford them. On the other hand they have reduced the duty on articles necessary to humanity, and therefore they have benefitted humanity to that extent. It is the first time we have ever had a scientific tariff; in fact, I believe this tariff will redound to the honour and the business acumen of our Government, I believe it is a tariff which is based not only on pure commonsense, but it is a tariff which can be applied to the ultimate development of the resources of South Africa and which will also open up wide avenues of employment. I should now like to refer to a matter which has not only worried the Opposition to a great extent but over which Opposition newspapers have been at great pains to publish versions not in accordance, in my view, with the facts. I refer to the preference to Great Britain. I would like to ask the members of the Opposition whether they are honest in their criticisms of the Government in regard to taking away the preference to Great Britain. If they are, why did they not take up the same attitude when they were the Government of this country? It is true that they gave a preference of three per cent., but they took very good care to place very few orders in Great Britain, in fact during the time they were in office the United Kingdom only supplied 43 per cent, of the total imports into this country. Since this Government came into office there has even been an increase in the imports from Great Britain. How was it that the late Government placed so many orders in Germany and that when they appointed the Commissioner of Trade, although his head-quarters were not in Germany, he spent most of his time in that country? I know that Germany was a better friend of the late Government than Great Britain was. I am in favour of a preference to Great Britain, in fact I go so far as to state that we in South Africa will be doing wrong by treating other nations on the most-favoured-nation principle. We are producing certain commodities and it is only those countries which live according to our economic standard which are in a position to purchase what we produce. I believe if Great Britain played the game with the dominions she would say” “We will give a preference on what you can sell us and you give us a preference on the goods y ou purchase from us,” but I believe that Great Britain has given greater preference to South America than she ever gave to her dominions.

Absolutely incorrect.

If it is incorrect that the United Kingdom gave this preference, did the hon. member give preference to Germany or to Great Britain, I would like to ask? He cannot answer that question.

He cannot understand what you are saying.

I want to ask this question. Did the hon. member (Mr. Jagger), as a member of the late Government, give preference to Germany, in placing orders in Germany, to the disadvantage of Great Britain? If that is so, I hold that the members of the Opposition have no right to criticize this Government, if, in their wisdom, they do away with the preference. I believe the Government is wrong in that matter, but I object to members of the late Government criticizing the present administration for not giving a preference to Great Britain, seeing that they themselves gave no preference to Great Britain, but placed orders in Germany. If my hon. friend states that he buys in the cheapest market, then, why does he blame the Government for doing the same thing? My point of view is that we should give the preference. I also believe Great Britain should give us a preference if it expects one in return. I would like to see a better feeling between Great Britain and the colonies, by an interchange of commodities, but I do not think it is right for Great Britain to give a preference to foreign countries, over the products of the colonies.

They don’t do it.

Then why in 1916 or 1917 did they give a preference to the Argentine or South American cold storage over Australia on meat needed in Great Britain?

Britain gives no preferences to foreign countries at all.

My hon. friend may look at the matter from his own point of view, but I can also form my own conclusions. We have had statements made about Great Britain being a great manufacturing country, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) spoke about an interchange of commodities, and stated that only by that method we could live. If that is so, I would like to point out one or two facts. Let us analyze. The statement that Great Britain is a manufacturing country is wrong. Great Britain is a commercial country, as borne out by the statistics of 1913-1914, whereas the total value of exports from Germany to Britain were approximately equal to the value of exports from Britain to Germany. But 81.7 per cent. of the total value of exports from Germany to Britain were either manufactured or partly manufactured goods, whereas the exports from Britain to Germany, manufactured or partly manufactured, were only 39.4 per Cent. of the total value, showing quite clear that Britain is not a manufacturing country. After all, the late Government had the majority of its commodities manufactured in Germany, just like the British Government and British municipalities are doing at present, and I say that this must be put a stop to, not for the benefit of the English people, but for the benefit of South Africa. We must have a sale for the commodities we have produced, and the only countries that can purchase our raw commodities are the people living on our economic standard. It has been stated that Great Britain can manufacture commodities as cheaply as any other country, then why was it that in the year 1921, £27,483,000 of English capital left Great Britain to be invested in Germany? The result was that the products of Germany were utilized by the British people to such an extent that a great deal of the unemployment was caused in England at that period. My hon. friends are always talking about Great Britain and the Union Jack, but these are the gentlemen who import all their necessaries and encourage the Government in importing from foreign countries in every shape and form. In Great Britain they are living practically on our economic level and if we create a good spirit with Great Britain, whereby she gives a preference on what we produce in return for a preference on her manufactured articles, we shall have solved a great deal not only in regard to the sale of our commodities, but also the question of supply and demand. I believe you can only trade with people who purchase your commodities, and if Britain does not give us a preference we are justified in refusing her a preference on her manufactured goods. If the members of the Opposition would use their influence along with the Government to bring about an understanding with Great Britain, we shall find a sale for all our raw materials and Great Britain will have a market for her manufactures, but it is absurd to give Britain a preference while she refuses to give us a preference. I have great pleasure in supporting the proposals of the Government and will do all in my power to help them.

It was not my intention to encroach upon the time of the House so soon, but I have listened during the course of the debate if there would be a word of appreciation of any good work done by the Government. Finally, the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) came to a matter upon which the Government should have the gratitude of the people, but he did not express it. He has mentioned a case where people who did not live on their farms had to pay £95 which was spent by the State in exterminating locusts there. It is just that land with which we have the greatest trouble, namely, the land of the large companies and rich people which is unoccupied. They have an opportunity of exterminating the locusts themselves, and if they do not do it then the State does it and collects the expense which has been incurred on such farms. People, however, who live in glass houses must not throw stones. I want to bring to the notice of hon. members the fact that last year also much money was spent for the eradication of locusts on the land of companies and of owners who were not resident there, but the system of bookkeeping was so defective that the State finally could not collect the money and the consequence was that the costs were put into a pool and divided amongst the persons concerned, and in that way the State lost £22,000. No legal proceedings could be taken because the obligations of the people could not be proved from the book. The former Government spent £325,000 over the financial year for the eradication of locusts, and the consequence was that all our crops were completely eaten up by the locusts and thousands of cattle died. The consequence of all this was that we had to expend £411,000 for emergency loans, and hundreds of districts were infested with eggs. This made it very difficult for the present Minister of Agriculture to tackle the matter, and this is doubtless one of the good conditions in which the new Government found affairs. That £325,000 was thrown into the sea. We had to suffer the loss. This year £377,000 was spent—it is true that this is a little more than that of the previous year, but we are going to have one of the largest maize crops that we have ever had. We are going to have at least 10,000,000 bags more than we had last year. This harvest would not have been realized if the locusts had been exterminated in the same way as last year. If we take the railway rates for the carriage of the maize at an average of 1s. per bag, then the railways will receive £500,000. We therefore get almost double of what we paid for the extermination of the locusts. If we now add what the farmers will pay more in income tax and also the carriage of the empty bags of the maize, then we come close to £700,000, or double of what has been spent. If we now investigate what the cause was of the failure of the previous Minister of Agriculture, then I say that it is due to the unpractical way in which he dealt with the matter. The proof of that is that the farmers associations over the afflicted areas resolved to ask the Minister to deal with the matter in a more practical way. It was so bad that the farmers were almost hopeless. They were nearly in a panic. If it was not that the farmers noticed that the present Minister of Agriculture had tackeld the matterin a different way, many of them would not have sown at all. The former Minister had no practical experience, and he did not go into the field to acquire it. The success of the present Minister of Agriculture is attributed to his tackling the fight against the locusts just as he tackled all other matters, viz., if a man can make a success of a thing then he would do so. He had full confidence in himself and in his officials, and they also in him. The persons that he appointed have been criticised that they made a success of the work. The Minister himself stood the inconvenience of going into the field. He saw there how matters were going and tightened up the screws that were loose. He appointed men like Mr. Wilkens, who, when they are put in the right place, will do whatever can possibly be done by a man. He used them, and they did their duty on difficult points. In Vryburg he appointed Gen. Bezuidenhout and everyone who knows him knows that he is a man, and the consequence is that that area is clean. I consider it an honour for me as a new member to be able to rise in the House to express my thanks to the Minister for the great thing he has accomplished. My voters are thankful for it.

They gave proof of it.

Yes, they proved it.

I have especially a bone to pick with the Opposition and I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not here. The Opposition think that they must oppose and they apparently do not know what the duty of the Opposition is. I am surprised that they did not learn more from us when we were in opposition. We did not always merely oppose, but we often welcomed measures when we thought that they were in the interests of the country. They have found fault with every measure that has been introduced and have opposed it, even matters which in the past they supported they have now attacked. They accuse us of carrying out the policy of the previous Government and then they still oppose the measures that we introduce. It is just a blind opposition. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said that all our promises with regard to economy made to the electors were sheer hypocrisy. He wanted to make the electors believe that our expenditure is so tremendously greater than that of the previous Government as he says almost by two millions. Does he still think that we, as a party, will not be able to convince the people that he is wrong, and that it is the consequence of the neglected duty of the previous Government? Does he not think that we will show to the people what the previous Government did or left undone in connection with education for which the present Government has now to pay almost a million? Then there are other things, such as the national debt, the pensions, etc., which the previous Government left as a legacy. If we reckon them all together then it comes to close on two million pounds. He will not get past the figures to make believe to the people. The proof is here and we will put it before the people. What concerns me, however, more in connection with the mistake and offences of the previous Government, is the question of the Defence force. I want to say a few words about that. The Defence force is a department which should be outside politics and the former Government went so far with political appointments that it made the Defence force dissatisfied. The Defence force was made so dissatisfied that it was necessary to appoint a commission to enquire into the dissatisfaction that existed. One of the first signs of dissatisfaction was that they threw out the hon. member for Standerton. Let us now see what the commission regards as the cause of the dissatisfaction that we see on the first page of the report. The report declares that it is absolutely necessary that such a commission should be appointed and that the commission finds that the greatest dissatisfaction exists because political appointments has been made. “Jobs for pals”! This is blameworthy in such a, force and the evil was nevertheless introduced. This was gross misconduct. There are many such cases. On page 1, I see that one colonel, six majors and twelve lieutenants were appointed from outside the Defence force without their having had military experience. They were appointed and of course this stops the promotion of men in the Defence force and causes dissatisfaction. What else but dissatisfaction was to be expected? It must lessen the value of the Defence force if politics is dragged in. This was done by no one less than the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). In the evidence, because evidence was taken one can see that before the election of 1921 members of the Defence force were asked by the hon. member for Standerton for help during the election. The proof thereof that the assistance was actually given is to be found in the fact that he held a reception for the members of the Defence force who came in their motor cars to “Irene.” He also thanked such helpers. The present Minister of Defence has a letter in his pocket which was sent to an officer in the Defence force to thank him for his help as election agent. We thus see that the hon. member for Standerton used the Defence force as a political machine and this was the case throughout the whole of the Union. Everyone of the six majors, one colonel, and twelve lieutenants appointed from outside are S.A.P. men. They were, of course, agents throughout the whole Union for the South African party. Many jobs were given to pals but there were so many pals that there were not enough jobs and as a result dissatisfaction arose amongst the friends. The cook and the cook’s mate naturally quarrelled and in the end all those who went to the reception last year voted against the hon. member for Sanderton. Naturally there was no reception at “Irene.” after the recent election. The same thing also went on during the recent election. We also had evidence about that. There is a case of a non-commissioned officer….

Where is the evidence?

The evidence was given before the commission. We can obtain it but it has not yet been laid on the Table of the House.

To a point of order Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quoting evidence of a commission of which he was a member and which is not yet available for the House. It has always been the rule of this House that hon. members can not make use of such evidence before members of this House have had the opportunity to see the evidence. Has the hon. member the right to use evidence which is not yet available?

I must point out to the hon. member that no use may be made of evidence which is not yet available to the House. The hon. member can quote something from the report but must not refer to the evidence.

Well, hon. members can sufficiently clearly see from the report that such things took place.

Was the evidence unanimous?

Yes, and it did not only consist of Nationalist members. The chairman himself was an S.A.P. man. If hon. members read the report they will find sufficient evidence that politics was introduced into the Defence force. If I were asked what could be done then I would say: “draw a line with a blue pencil through the whole of the Defence force,” which is now a permanent body. The discipline is of course not what it ought to be as a result of those conditions and without discipline a force becomes useless and no good results are to be expected.

To a point of order. I hope Mr. Speaker that you will review your ruling. It was no Select Committee but a Government Commission of which the hon. member was a member and I do not know whether the rule also applies in such a case.

I now understand that the commission was a departmental committee and the ruling I gave referred to Select Committees appointed by the House. In such a case a member may not refer to the evidence before it is laid on the Table. In this case I think it lies with the member to decide whether he will use it or not, but I do not think I can prevent him.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember this point arose some weeks earlier in the session, when the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who had sat as a commissioner on the War Pensions Commission, referred in this House to certain evidence laid before him as a commissioner, and used that evidence to attack the Minister of Finance.

I think in that case the report had not yet been laid on the Table.

Yes, but the evidence had not yet been printed.

I understand that the practice has been as I have stated it, and that is the ruling I give.

Seeing that this report has been laid on the Table, Mr. Speaker, is it permissible for this member to use evidence that is not in the possession of members? Hon. members have no means of following the statements made by the hon. gentleman and recognizing what value is to be attached to those statements.

The principle is the same. Here is an hon. member who has had the privilege of listening to witnesses outside, perhaps making accusations against ex-Ministers and other prominent members of Parliament. The commissioners heard these witnesses, and the evidence was recorded, but it is not accessible to members. Now, members of the commission, who are members of Parliament, have the privilege of coming here and putting a certain construction on the evidence against hon. members or ex-Ministers, whereas we, who are also members of Parliament have not had access to that evidence. We have to accept deductions drawn from the evidence which are not in the report, deductions which may be entirely erroneous and which a trained judicial mind would rule as such, and which may not even be endorsed by the other commissioners. I think it is a wrong principle to allow a commissioner to come to Parliament and use evidence which other members have not had a sight of, in order to attack ex-Ministers.

The time for the adjournment has arrived, but I shall consider the matter further.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m.; House to resume in committee to-morrow.