A few afternoons ago the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) made an attack on the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo), which I think must not remain unanswered. The hon. member for Standerton said that the membership of the hon. member for Wepener on the defence enquiry commission showed how weak the commissions, that were appointed by Government, were, and that it was especially wrong on such an important commission as that one. I think that it is very unfair to make such an observation, and especially when such an observation came from the hon. member for Standerton, because the hon. member for Wepener served with him in the last war of independence and did his duty as an officer and as a citizen of the Free State. In those days he never left the hon. member for Standerton in the lurch, but stood by him and went through the whole of the Cape Colony.

I am not speaking of his services, I acknowledge them.

The hon. member for Standerton has spoken sneeringly of the services of the hon. member for Wepener on the commission. The hon. member for Standerton made a personal attack upon him because he made use of the evidence of the defence enquiry commission which was against him (Gen. Smuts). But why did he only attack the hon. member for Wepener? Why did he not also attack Gen. Lukin? If he had objections to the commission then he should not only accuse the hon. member for Wepener, but also Gen. Lukin, who was chairman of the commission. I know the hon. member for Standerton has the greatest confidence in Gen. Lukin, but why does he attack his old comrade or the Boer war?

I only spoke of his partiality. I say nothing about his merits or capacity.

If the hon. member speaks of partiality then he must accuse the whole commission of partiality, because the whole commission took evidence and the report of the commission has been laid on the Table. Mr. Speaker has ruled that the evidence can be used, and the commission came to the conclusion—as appears from the report—that the hon. member for Standerton had been guilty of introducing politics into the Defence force. Now, the hon. member for Standerton makes a personal attack upon the hon. member tor Wepener because he uses the evidence. I repeat, why does not the hon. member for Standerton also refer to Gen. Lukin? I think this personal attack is very petty and if any remark must be made then he should refer to the whole report and not to one of the members of the commission personally. I want to devote a few words more to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton. He went out of his way to criticize the railway budget and in his criticism used figures which, I think, do not tally with those mentioned in the reports. At a former opportunity the hon. member for Standerton said that they never took a penny out of loan funds to balance the budget, and he pointed out that the former Minister of Finance had had a budget showing a surplus of £200,000. I interrupted him then and said that it was not so. The Auditor-General, in his report, comments on it, that year after year money is taken out of loan funds to make the budget balance. The hon. member for Standerton comes here and tells us that in the budget which was introduced by the Minister of Railways and Harbours during the last session, the old S.A.P. budget of last year, there was a surplus of £900,000, and that the Minister this year can only show a surplus of £40,000. When he said this he called out, “Oh, for a Jagger.” These words will yet become famous in the history of this Parliament. Why, with an eye on the report, did he not call out, “Oh, for a Burton”? Why if there was anyone for whom he had a specific and great admiration in the past did he not also cry “Oh, for a Burton.” My hon. friend next to me here remarks that the joke would then have been too good. But the joke is doubly excellent because he found out at the last election that the whole railway staff voted against him, in spite of the arrangement to get the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to resign shortly before the election. He did this because the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was in favour of free trade, and when we attacked him on the industrial policy of his Government he could say that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) had resigned. Then he did not say “Oh, for a Jagger.” Oh no, then he said: “Oh, don’t speak now about Jagger we have let him resign.” Then he called out “Oh, for a Burton,” but we went and showed how the surplus of £200.000 had arisen. With a similar kind of surplus he now wishes to make capital for his party. He says to us and to the people outside that the favourable condition of our railways to-day is due to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Yes. I think we have much to thank the hon. member for, but we must also point out how the obtaining of that favourable condition was coupled with much bitterness and injustice. There are people in the country who look back with regret to the days when they were under the orders of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). He did, indeed, push the railways ahead, but at whose cost? Hundreds of white men have been pushed out and natives appointed in their places. The results were obtained at the cost of the white population of South Africa. That was the economy which was introduced. But let us for a moment test the figures of the hon. member for Standerton. On the 31st March, 1921, when the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Bur ton) handed over the control of the railways to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) there was a shortage of over £4,000,000, which in the previous four or five years had been brought about by the handling of railway matters by the former Minister of Finance. What did the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) do then? Precisely as the former Minister of Finance had done. He took money out of funds which he had no right to do. He took £2,000,000 out of the renewal fund to cover the shortage and then they come and say: “Look we have already worked off £2,000,000. Let us be honest. The two million pounds was taken out of the renewal fund, and this was such an injustice that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) had to bring in a Bill to obtain approval of that action. It was just such an injustice to use the money as it was wrong in the former Minister of Finance to take money out of the loan funds to cover deficit. The hon. member for Standerton will now say that the surplus which is shown this year is due to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). Without adding the £2,000,000 was taken out of funds which were included for other purposes. I agree that what was done was good, but it must be mentioned. And the deficits arose from 1918 to 1923. In 1918-’19 the deficit was £987,000; in 1919-’20, £598,000; in 1920-’21, £1,049,000; in 1921-’22. £1,590,000; in 1922-’23, £31,336. Of all this nothing had been said, and the year 1919-’20 was the best year that we have ever yet had in South Africa for harvests and that year there was a large deficit. Nothing is said of this. Now that the present Minister of Railways, by good control, brings about an improvement in the position it is said that it is due to the S.A.P. Government. One could hand over the best position in the land to a Minister who was incompetent to carry out due economy and to cut the coat according to doth and the surplus will soon disappear. We had the position that there was a surplus when ex-Minister Burton took over, but when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) took over there was an opportunity of returning to normal conditions. But at what cost has the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) improved the position. At the cost of hundreds and thousands of poor whites. This year the Minister of Railways has taken white men into the service in the room of natives and he has paid a wage on which they can live properly. We must also not forget that during the past year we have had heavy washaways and unprecedented expenditure in the history of railways and, notwithstanding this, the Minister of Railways, by economical control and careful investigation of the expenditure and all other matters, could show a surplus of £900,000 Now the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says that the resulting surplus “is frittered away” to £40,000. Why is that so? Because there has been a greater expenditure on railways by £1,500,000. But let us he honest and see why the expenditure has gone up so. If we enquire into things carefully we find that under the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and the ex-Minister (Mr. Burton) enormous deficits arose in the pensions and superannuation fund, and for that we are making provision this year because it is a good year. A larger amount is being paid off than in former years. Last year only £100,000 was paid off of the deficits of the pension fund. This year we propose to pay off £262,000. But we are going to make a beginning this year to reduce the interest-bearing capital out of revenue funds. We have annually increased our deficits and increased the interest-bearing debt. Now the Minister proposes to make pro vision to pay off the interest-bearing capital and thus to reduce the interest we have to pay thereon. I think this is a wise principle. A further important fact is the new railway construction and the increase of railway material that is required for it. This absorbs a great portion of the surplus. The interest on the present administration is enormous. It is almost £5,000,000, to wit £4,960,000. It re quires very economical control to reduce the heavy interest that we have to pay. Further, we must take into consideration that a large number of miles of new railway will be brought into use this year than before, and the consequence is a larger expenditure than in previous years for the control, etc., of the lines. I now come to the purchase of electrical locomotives and special grain trucks out of the renewal fund. This will also absorb a great portion of the surplus. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) took the money therefor out of the renewal fund, and not out of the capital account. The sums must be taken out of the capital funds and not out of the renewal fund. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will agree with me on this point.

No.

There is only a difference of opinion. I do not think that the money for the electrical locomotives and the special grain trucks should be taken out of the renewal fund. The fund is only available to replace old material by new.

Just so. The old engines were replaced by the electrical engines.

I just wish to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that the old locomotives are not thrown away as scrap, but are still used on other railway lines, while electrical locomotives are put in their place on certain lines. Then I think that it is entirely wrong and unfair to hold the present Minister of Railways responsible for defects which are now coming to light. Under the administration of the former Minister of Railways, e.g., surveys were made and costs calculated for an electric railway from Durban to Pietermaritzburg. Now I should much like to know what policy was the cause of abandoning the electrification from Durban to Pietermaritzburg and in place thereof electrifying a larger portion by the extension of the line to Glencoe. It was done by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), but I should much like to know what policy was the cause of it, because enormous extra costs are the result.

That is because between Durban and Pietermaritzburg there is a double line, whilst the other part is only single.

But that was surely known before the portion from Durban to Maritzburg was surveyed. It was known that the extension of the Glencoe line made it necessary to build a double line. Why then was it surveyed, and why were heavy expenses caused? If the alteration of the whole line was originally intended, then I have no objection against it, but, as the report shows, much money was wasted. The report also showed that the engineers made a mistake in first ordering a certain quality of electric standards which subsequently appeared to be useless. Then I come to another point which I have year after year brought to the notice of the railway administration, namely, the Dutch-speaking officials on the railways. Although the fact was not very popular with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), I constantly commented upon the position of the Dutch-speaking railwaymen who, notwithstanding their efficiency as locomotive foremen or otherwise, had to make out their monthly reports in English, and if they could not do it they were regarded as unfit, notwithstanding their capacity at their trade. Oh the other hand, it is not demanded of English-speaking men that they should know a single word of Dutch. I regard it as necessary that our railway officials should be thoroughly bilingual. The foremen, ticket inspectors and stationmasters must know Dutch. Why cannot the monthly reports also Be made out in Dutch so that officials can make use of their bilingual rights? I hope that the present Minister of Railways will show more sympathy towards bilingualism on the railways. Then I want to say a few words with reference to the naming of railway stations. I notice that recently a fuss was made by Natal members because the old Voortrekkers’ name Zwartkloof, near Pietermaritzburg, was renamed Swartkopskloof. It is not the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Railways who alter names. They are the names which were given nearly a century ago by the Voortrekkers and are known in the history of the Voortrekkers. Subsequently, under English control the name was altered into Black Ridge. Why is such a noise made when we reinstate the old historical names?

It is not the English people but the Natal members who make objection.

Yes, as a consequence thereof the Natal friends are shouting about secession and our English-speaking people are pointed to the bad deeds of the Government. The hon. member the rev. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider), a man for whom I have the greatest respect in the pulpit in my young days, comes here as a blood-red imperialist and is the chief shouter about the down-treading of the rights of the English-speaking population. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) calls the alteration a terrible insult. The hon. member represents a constituency with the name Weenen. Let him just think back a bit how that name arose. Think back on the tears and sufferings of the mothers to make Natal habitable. Does he wish—and if he is logical he must propose—that the historical name of his constituency shall he altered into Rejoicing?

Don’t joke about it.

I don’t wish to make fun, but it hurts me when hon. members opposite know so little of the history of Natal that they do not know how the historical names arose. I thought that the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius), who is also a descendant of the Voortrekkers, would support us in this direction.

We agree with you.

There are more of these places. Let me remind the hon. Minister of Railways that at the time when Natal came under British Government, when our Voortrekkers went across the Klip River, the old Voortrekkers came to a place which they called Jaggersdrift. Why was the name altered into Tayside when the station was built? Why was the name Tierkloof in the district of Bethlehem altered into Tiger River? We have every right to protest against the alteration of historical names. If there are English historical names which are altered then we shall be prepared to alter them and to retain the historical names, hut we have also the right to claim this for the Dutch names. But let me say something more with respect to the Natal friends. We have unfortunately this year members for Natal in the House, such as the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

The Three Mus keteers.

The Three Musketeers. They go out of their way to preach race hatred against this Government

What does the hon. member himself do?

I am ready to forgive. There comes a time that we must withdraw and rest. I think that the hon. member for East London (City) should have rested long ago. I was courteous to him as a minister of the gospel and as a man. But when he goes out of his way to despise my history and language, I get up to defend my rights He astonishes me, but what surprises me more is the attitude of the Dutch-speaking members on the other side. Can one be surprised that the hon. the Prime Minister sometimes expects more justice from the English-speaking members of the House than from some of the Dutch-speaking members of the Opposition?

He said all.

No, he spoke of some upon an interjection which came from the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). But is the hon. member for Witwatersberg called to get up on behalf of the English speaking members and object to what I say here? I do not want to go into it further. The Natal friends must think a little about the history of South Africa. Of the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) I always expected that he, as a military man—and we found out that be can fight—who had a great heart and was broad in his views as a soldier, would not be so narrow-minded and petty in political matters, and that he would not be in the position to say—

And, further—

How does our Government dare, he said, to alter the names of stations? How does it dare to make new postage stamps for South Africa? Then I come to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), who, as a lawyer, has quite broadly stated that we have no right to enter into any contract with regard to the system of taxation. Does he also not know anything as yet of the history of South Africa? We heard yesterday how wrong he was. The hon. member for Weenen went further, and said that we are engaged in making a Dutch republic of South Africa because we wanted to give our Dutch-speaking officials their language rights and because the taxpayers of the land demanded that there should be bilingualism. And he further strongly attacked the Minister of the Interior because he wanted to create a nationality for South Africa. It is a pity that we have that example in Canada. But because South Africa was always the most royalist portion of the British Empire, and now that we want our own nationality, the interpretation is given to it that we want to go out of the Union. The Natal members are indignant and they talk of seceding from the Union, and they want to leave the Union because-they do not get all they want. But if we create our own nationality, would that mean that we want to secede from the British Empire? To-morrow we shall have our future King here. What do the Natal friends say about the great mounted commando which will meet him in the Free State? Will they now say that it is pharisaism? But I want to leave him there. I just want to say something more about the Budget and then I want to say something about the pensions of the old burgers. I am glad that I have an opportunity to-day of bringing this matter to the notice of the Government. Many of the old burgers who fought in the second war of independence have, through a frightful misunderstanding or a perverse judgment of the former Government, been deprived to-day of the pensions to which they are entitled. I hope the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) will not contradict me. I hope that he will give an opportunity to the people who were wounded at the time that he was still fighting with us to obtain right and justice. When we read the report of the pensions commission we find that the burgers of the second war of independence are entitled to the same pensions as those who were wounded in the world war, and that they must be treated in the same manner and scale. But what do we find? They have been deprived of their rights in a systematic manner. The report of the commission mentions that in the course of the enquiry 1,748 instances came to light in which persons who were entitled to pensions were deprived of them. On what ground? Through misunderstanding, or what i the commission does not like to say directly, but what is anyhow clearly the case, that the administration was so worked from Government quarters that the old burgers were taken off in one way or another, and many of the burgers who were wounded in the second war of independence are to-day drawing a few pounds a year, while those who were wounded in the recent great war draw £100 and more. The report gives many instances where the burgers have been treated unjustly. I would like to know whether the Government intends to take further steps against the administration which wilfully and in conflict with the law neglected and did an injustice to the interests of the old burgers. There remain to-day hundreds of burgers who were wounded, and still suffer severely, and are in great misery because they depended on the pension of which they have been wrongfully deprived. I will just give an instance. It is not of a Nationalist, let me add at once. A friend of mine lost two sons in the second war of independence. He is a poor man and owns no land. He is 70 years old, and for the two children who were killed he receives £2 per month. That, as the commission points out, although a man who lost two sons has a right to £144 per year. And this old burger gets £24 per annum. There is also a case of a general in the second war of independence who is paid out on the basis of a private burger, while an officer of the same rank in the last great war enjoys a pension of £15 to £20 per month. The man of the same rank in the second war of independence gets £2 10s. per month. I ask my friends opposite if this is fair to the old burger? I do not know how the Minister of Finance will treat the man who has been deprived of his pension. I see that an amount of £40,000 has been put down for gratuities. It is clear that it is impossible for the pensions commission to deal with all the pensions of all the people. Then it would never get finished and justice could not have been done. The people who have never yet drawn pensions can to-day still apply to the Government, but the people who have already drawn pensions which have been taken away, wrongfully taken away, what is the Minister going to do with them? How will they be notified that they have a right to pensions? I hope that the hon. Minister of Finance will answer this question.

I do not propose to continue the debate on the lines which have been adopted by several of the previous speakers, because I think one should try to deal with the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance. I hope the Minister will not consider it presumption on my part, although a young member, if I join in the chorus of congratulation extended to him upon his Budget speech. I suppose Budget criticisms will always take the line that taxation is oppressive and that there is great need for increased economy in public expenditure. In this instance, the remarks of the Minister, in concluding his speech, when he said—

Lend some colour to the suggestion that the accusation is justified this time. It seems to be a case of the French proverb, “Qui s’excuse s’accuse.” During the short recess, he said he did not have the time he would have wished to devote to this matter, neither it appears did any of his colleagues, because they were so busy preparing so many Bills that deal with so many fundamental matters affecting this country that they could not devote the necessary attention to the finances of this country. Economy is absolutely essential. The country cannot continue to bear this enormous expenditure which the Minister has budgetted for. My first criticism is that not sufficient attention has been given by the Government during the recess to the problem of how to effect the economies, which are necessary. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) gets very wroth about the right hon. Mr. Burton. Mr. Burton has been accused of taking money for his Budget from loan funds, an action which many of us did not agree with, but the present Minister of Finance has done something which is, after all, very much like it. For instance, take the Custodian’s money. That really is capital. With a portion of it the Minister wiped out the deficit; he used another part to pay off debt, and, as the money was easily got by, he said. “I Will take £700,000 for other expenditure.”

Capital expenditure.

Capital expenditure to make roads. I only mention it because the hon. member for Bethlehem gets so very annoyed about Mr. Burton’s finance. The profit, which has been made by the Custodian, has been chiefly made out of collecting high dividends on gold shares, whilst paying only 4 per cent. to the recipients on their capital. That profit is almost entirely due to holdings in gold shares, and I hope the Minister will allocate a considerable amount of that sum towards the repair of the Main Reef Road. Perhaps he will also help us to make a decent road from Johannesburg to Vereeniging, where a number of industries have been established. Then I would like to pass on to deal with the tariff. I want to say that I subscribe to everything which has been said on this subject by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

You are a free trader.

I am, and I subscribe to it all the same, although to-day I support the right hon. member for Standerton because I feel that I owe all the greater loyalty to my leader after the attacks to which he was exposed yesterday. I can quite understand and approve of the Government’s action in adopting a maximum and minimum tariff, because this supplies them with the means of negotiating for commercial treaties with other countries in order to assist our trade. But I do not understand how the Board of Trade, even taking the quid pro quo basis as their line of argument, could arrive at any other decision than that England should be entitled to most favoured nation treatment under all circumstances. They arrive at a contrary decision in a most cynical manner. In giving their reasons, they say that the nature of our export trade is such that Great Britain can grant us preferential treatment only on a few items of minor importance because our exports consist chiefly of gold, wool, diamonds, hides, and so forth. As all these articles are admitted free to the English market—and, of course, England cannot do more than allow the goods to go in free—the Board of Trade says, as we get all the benefits anyhow, why do any more? I know that is not the line of policy which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) approves, because he said he felt sure that the Government would give the most favoured nation treatment to Great Britain whatever happened. I hope the hon. Minister will subscribe to this statement. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that if he does give Great Britain most favoured nation treatment it will not make his negotiations with other countries more difficult. Any country with whom we can possibly negotiate will also be carrying on trade with Great Britain, and their trade with Great Britain will be of much more importance to them than any trade they may be able to carry on with South Africa, so that none of them would be prepared to enter into commercial treaties with us which might be looked upon askance by Great Britain. I am sure they will think it strange if we do not accord most favoured nation treatment to Great Britain. The Board of Trade, in describing their minimum and maximum tariff, always lays stress on the point that South Africa will in consequence of this be able to insert a most favoured nation clause in any commercial treaty that may be entered into. Why should we withhold this self-same concession in our arrangements with Great Britain? Even arguing on the strict quid pro quo basis, we can easily see that Great Britain is entitled to this concession. The Board of Trade say that we give Great Britain £300,000 through our preference proposals, whilst England gives us only £200,000, but they forget the other benefits which we receive from England. We raise most of our loans there, and our loans are classed as trustee securities, so that we can borrow cheaply. Then, again, Great Britain has found the money to open up our gold and diamond mines, which contribute 65 per cent. to our total export trade. I am sure these benefits are by far greater than the £100,000, which is the difference between the actual preference concessions here and in England. I appeal to the Minister to give most favoured nation treatment to Great Britain under all circumstances. Passing on to the gold mines, I want to say that I am indeed grateful to the Minister that he should have carefully considered the position in regard to the taxation of mines—whether gold or diamond mines—and that he should have come to the conclusion that the mines do contribute fairly and reasonably to the taxation of the country. I am sure he has taken a very great load off the minds of investors in gold and diamond shares.

Not diamond shares.

At any rate, investors in gold shares, and I hope in future, after the enquiry which the Minister has no doubt made, we shall not hear so much of the irresponsible talk about gold and diamond mines not being sufficiently taxed and not paying their fair share to the revenue of the country. The Minister has adopted a new principle in imposing this taxation on gold mines. It is a good principle to base the whole of the tax on profits only. The investor thereby gets the assurance that capital he has sunk into the property will not be taxed as provision for amortization of capital is made in arriving at the taxable profit. Our present system is that a life factor is determined in consultation with the Government mining engineer, and the amortization allowable annually is roughly the total amount spent divided by the life factor. South Africa is more heavily taxed in regard to mining than either Australia or Canada. In Australia they have adopted the principle that the profit taxes should only be collected after there has been a return of the whole of the capital sunk in opening up the mines. I would like the Minister of Finance to consider whether he could not have a halfway house between what we do and what Australia does; for instance, make it permissible to redeem the capital over five years. Such a scheme would help the mining industry of South Africa and would attract new capital. One great service which the Minister can and should render the gold mines is to extend the size of the mint. At present it cannot coin all the gold produced in South Africa, and the gold mines are actually realizing less than par for their gold. If he adopted this suggestion he would be taking a step which would also make the maintenance of the gold standard in South Africa much easier. Large sums would accumulate in South Africa, which are only paid out every six months and sometimes annually in dividends; and these sums Would be available for investment in Treasury bills. The rate of interest on these bills should be the same as can be earned in England, and in the first instance, as it is a new departure, he should even offer slightly better rates. Arrangements should also be made so that South African Treasury bills can be re-discounted at reasonable rates with the reserve bank. Incidentally, by enlarging the mint to coin the whole output he would therefore materially assist in creating a large market for his Treasury bills in South Africa, and he can depend upon the support of the gold mining industry in furthering the scheme I have just outlined in this connection. In regard to local loans, I would suggest that he depart from the present method of simply putting an advertisement in the papers and waiting to see how many people apply for the loans. It would pay him handsomely to adopt in South Africa the practice he follows when issuing loans in London and pay a small underwriter’s commission in order to make a success of these loans.

We have got a Thrift Committee seeing to that; they are doing very useful work to advertise the thing.

I believe much better results would be achieved if the Minister acted on my suggestion. The Minister blamed, for instance, the Custodian Certificates for the poor response to his last local loan, but I think the result was poor because it was nobody’s business to make a success of it. Now I think it is worth while to consider both these points, viz., local Treasury bills and local loans, in order to make it easier to preserve our gold currency. Moreover, all loans issued in future should be dealable and payable both in South Africa and England, as was the case with the Merriman loans; this will be a great help in stabilizing exchange between London and South Africa. I should like now to give the Minister my opinion as to whether the revenue he estimates from gold can be realized. That depends upon the smooth working of the gold mines. Earlier in the year I was under the impression that the tonnage treated by the gold mines would expand sufficiently to make up for the disappearance of the gold premium and that 1925 would be as profitable as 1924. Now we have so many disturbing factors that I am doubtful. The unrest, which is being created in the industry, is not being created by those who control the mines or by the workers in them, but it is caused by responsible quarters—by the Government themselves. Undoubtedly the unrest in Johannesburg is being created by the Government themselves.

In what way?

I could refer the House to many Bills which undermine the efficiency on the mines and to one which prevents the gold mining industry from in future fixing wages by voluntary agreement with its employees. When we get to that point, what control can we possibly have over the mines? The efficiency of the mines is being destroyed by undue interference from the Government. It is most regrettable that that should be so. In regard to the diamond taxation, the Minister of Finance said he would adopt my figures as to the sale of diamonds in the current year. As far as the first six months are concerned, the sale is fully up to the figures I gave. I cannot speak of all diamond mines, but so far as those with which I am connected are concerned I can say that the volume of trade during the next six months will be fully equal to that of the present six months, The diamond trade has remained good, not because of the legislation before the House, but because the trade has by now forgotten all about it. The diamond trade will remain good unless legislation is passed undermining it. We have in this House two hon. members who are interested in diamonds, but I can say this, that we are much more interested in the prosperity of this country. I would suggest to the Minister that perhaps it might be well to have a commission, upon which perhaps my hon. friend the member for Beaconsfield and myself could serve, so that advice could be given as to proper legislation in regard to the diamond mines. If I could assist in this way my services and my knowledge would be at the fullest disposal of the Government. I should like to revert to the Minister’s appeal for economy; he says that we should work harder and economize. For the first time I agree with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in his statement that we cannot economize if we are not prosperous. If the hon. Minister wishes us to economize he must assist us in bringing about prosperity in this country. Prosperity and expansion of industries can never be achieved unless we make it clear that by civilized labour we mean efficient labour employed at a fair wage. That is the definition the hon. the Minister of Labour gave to a native Congress. The Board of Trade and Industries have made a cross-word puzzle out of their various divisions into which they have put civilized labour. In the first instance, then, the Minister must tell the Board of Trade to take the new definition of civilized labour into account when recommending industries for protection. And I say, further, no colour bar legislation will ever help this country. What is the use of it? We know very well that the gold mining industry and many other industries have all been built upon the principle of cheap coloured and highly-paid European labour and nothing we do can change it. You cannot change the existing industries. They have started in that way and must continue in that way. The present system of using civilized labour—interpreted as European labour—for relief works, is no solution of the unemployment problem. That problem will only be solved by the expansion of commerce and industries, but these cannot prosper if they are forced to employ so-called civilized labour, irrespective of whether it is economical or not. The present system of relief works is not a solution of the unemployment problem. It runs away with funds without solving anything, and other departments are kept short of funds—other departments that could keep men in permanent employment. I refer to the police, where additional men could be employed if funds were available. The expression “civilized labour” is a meaningless phrase. Labour can never be civilized. The result of our labour shows whether we are civilized or not. It is quite clear that the Board of Trade should be told that by civilized labour we mean efficient labour at a fair wage. The country is, of course, committed to protection. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) asked whether I am a free trader. At heart I am, but I fully realize that the country has adopted another policy, and my one voice cannot change that policy; but I say if we want to establish industries, then ultra-protection is a very bad thing indeed, because that will injure the primary industries of the country, or, in other words, the consumers. If you establish industries that supply goods at high prices, that does not help anybody. It makes the cost of living dear and does not help at all. It hinders. The Minister should tell the Board of Trade that it is no use their recommending the establishment of industries which can supply various articles at “not unduly enhanced prices,” to use their words. An industry to be fostered is one that requires protection only until it gets hold of the market, but finally is able to supply at competitive prices. The Board of Trade should take this to heart in their future reports, and substitute “competitive” for their “not unduly enhanced prices.” This is most important. Then, again, the Minister should tell the Board of Trade that we do not subscribe to section 6, paragraphs (e) and (f), of report No. 51, because there they really tell us that farming is unpayable and that the mines are coming to an end. If that were true, we need not establish any industries at all, because we will have no consumers. They say that—

Of course not. We know we employ native labour in all these cases. They give the reason why apart from highly-paid Europeans cheaper native labour must be employed—

I suggest it is largely due to the tariff which the Board of Trade recommend without sufficient judgment that farming and mining is expensive, thus limiting the use of highly-paid labour. Moreover, why say that gold mining has commenced to decline? It may decline, but I do not admit it is declining; because when we get greater efficiency, and if we are left in peace, the gold mining industry will even expand. At any rate, we shall last so many years that this Government and many succeeding Governments need, not worry about the disappearance of the industry. An hon. member suggests that I do not know much about gold mining, but I managed to raise £8,000,000 to open up three mines in the Far East Rand and to establish two townships with schools and hospitals, and I think I am entitled to speak on mining from the financial side at least, But, apart from gold, there is other mining, which the Board of Trade ignore. There are base metals which can be developed and there is the new platinum discovery. Farming is also not as precarious as suggested and capable of great expansion. If there is one thing further which I would like to tell the Board of Trade it is that the consumers and the commercial mining interests will not subscribe to article (d) of section 6 of the report. There we are told they have come to the conclusion that the consumers and the commercial and mining interests—that is the whole public of South Africa—have taken no interest in the development of industries. I do not subscribe to that, and I am quite sure that others object to that dictum as well as I do. As a general dictum that is not the way to create an atmosphere for anyone to go out of his way to help industries, and surely it is not reasonable. If the whole country were against the view of four people, I say the country is right, and it is not fair that the gentlemen on the Board of Trade (who have been rightly described as a kindergarten) in their report should lay down a dictum which one’s common sense and experience of business or of mining has shown to be fallacious. There is one final thing which the Minister can do to help to bring about prosperity in this country. He should have a talk with the Minister of Railways, and perhaps he will show him the report of the departmental committee, presided over by Sir Robert Kotze. There he will find that by sympathetic rates—this does not refer to gold mining—he can develop quite a number of small mining enterprises all over the country. He should also impress on him that when people negotiate for coal and cement with his department it should not take the last farthing out of the people who supply these products. I happen to know the position in regard to cement. It is the fault of the Railway Department’s contracts that the cost of building is not cheaper in South Africa. Their officials arrange for cement at their own price and an extra price has to be charged by the cement companies to the ordinary consumer to make any profit. By allowing people to make reasonable profits, whether in cement or coal, a great deal can be done to open up coal mines, and, perhaps, to start competitive cement works. It is not the right principle that practically the general consumer should be taxed for the benefit of an enterprise carried on by the State. I would rather be taxed directly by the Minister of Finance, if we are to be taxed. I am quite sure that if the Minister will assist us to foster industries in the manner I have outlined, then we will see greater prosperity in the country, because men will be directed into genuine trades and permanent employment, and unemployment will disappear; consequently the Minister will have a larger revenue and therefore be in a position to reduce taxation.

I should like to revert to a few arguments which were used last night by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). He began as usual by quoting what was supposed to have been said in former years by the hon. the Prime Minister. He forgot that he treads on dangerous ground when he talks about what happened in the past. We have, e.g., in our possession the century of wrong which was written by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am not going to waste the time of the House reading extracts from it, but I just want to mention one sentence. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said that the Prime Minister had spoken of a Government which was 7,000 miles away from us and which still exercises power over us. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) uses much stronger words and calls it “a conscienceless Government 7,000 miles from here.” He said last night that it was 20 years since the hon. Leader of the Opposition had written it. What is the difference whether a man said it was five or 20 years ago? He said it, and that is his opinion. I will, however, recommend him not to refer to such old stories any more and rather to leave them alone. The country is tired of it. The hon. member for Standerton spoke during the election campaign at Klerksdorp about Bolshevistic legislation, namely, the Wages Bill. It did not help a bit, however, and we had a larger majority at Klerksdorp than would possibly have been the case if the hon. member had not gone there. When we have to do with a Budget hon. members should rather confine themselves to the business side of it. They should help to build up the land and not try to destroy everything. I think the way in which the Budget has been discussed by the Opposition is a great compliment to the Government, and especially to the Minister of Finance. The way in which the Budget has been attacked is the greatest compliment to the Minister because there was really no attack. One of the objections upon which the hon. member for Caledon laid stress—and he is a responsible member of the Opposition—was that the expenditure is £2,000,000 more than the amount which figures on the previous estimates. We know that in a young land such as this, where there is progress, the increase of expenditure every year will be automatic. If we look at the increases since Union we find the following figures: In 1910 the expenditure was £13,000,000 and last year it was almost £30,000,000. We see therefore that the expenditure has nearly been doubled. And we note also that it increases as if of itself every year. Hon. members opposite know this, but they try intentionally to mislead the people. As to the increase this year, it is a fact that it is actually less than the increase of expenditure that we had in any previous year. In addition we must take into consideration that the Government is going to give £1,000,000 to provincial councils. Approximately £3,000 is put down for help for poor people, I think, which has never been done before. Our objection is not against the increase of expenditure, but we object to expenditure being increased if nothing is done for the people. The Budget satisfies us because we can see that the Government intends and is doing its utmost to help the people in our country forward. His second objection was that £1,000,000 is being given to the provincial councils. The hon. member for Caledon says that it is wrong in principle, that the Government should give money to a body who will waste it in an irresponsible way. Does the hon. member not know that the members of the Provincial Council are elected in exactly the same way as the members in this House and that they have the same responsibility to the public as we? I do not know where his stories come from that the provincial councils will spend the money in a reckless manner. He could, however, adduce no facts to prove that complaint. That shouting against the provincial councils has come during the past two years. Why? We never heard of reckless waste of money when the South African party had the majority in the various councils. The whole objection is raised against the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. It is clear that the Transvaal is intended. The Chamber of Mines is angry with the Transvaal Provincial Council because the council was brutal enough to lay a tax on the profits of the gold mines. The hon. member for Standerton took it off, and then the provincial council went further and levied an employers’ tax, by which it anyhow attained its object, and from that date there has been a strong agitation on foot to abolish the provincial councils. As soon as a body does something to touch the pocket of the big financial interests, then that body immediately becomes unpopular and must be abolished. The £1,000,000 which was given to the provincial councils is, according to hon. members, not a, relief to the public. If the Government does not give it to the provincial councils they would themselves have to lay the tax on the public. This is not taken into consideration, and according to the Opposition the money is simply thrown away. I thank the Government for giving the money to the provinces, and I do it on behalf of the Transvaal. I can speak on behalf of the Transvaal because I know what the position of the Transvaal Provincial Council was, and that they required the help of the Government. It is not necessary to enlarge upon imperial preference. The Prime Minister has completely answered the arguments of the Opposition, and after his speech it is unnecessary for me to say much about the attack, and it is also unnecessary for the hon. member for Standerton to sit any longer in the House, because I do not see him here any more. I would also like to refer to the irresponsible manner in which the hon. member for Standerton went to work, and we thought that he should have a feeling of responsibility. His action leads me to the conclusion that he is an absolute danger to the community in South Africa. Fortunately the public do not any longer take him seriously. I can only again refer to his speech in Klerksdorp. The whole night sitting here in the House was only to draw the attention of the country to what he called a Bolshevic Government. An attack was made here on the Minister of Defence that he has dragged politics into the defence force. What surprises me is that hon. members of the Opposition can have the impudence to make an attack about the introduction of politics into the Defence Force. I want to mention something that occurred in my constituency in this connection, and I have the papers here. Gen. Piet de Leray Swart was to be my opponent in the constituency of Christiana, and his election manifesto had already been issued. Then Gen. Koen Brits came to Christiana—he was in uniform—to organize rifle associations. While he was there he received a telegram from the then Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) reading as follows (to the effect that Gen. Brits must do his utmost to get somebody else to stand). Here we have a case where a man is sent to a constituency to organize rifle associations and such a telegram is sent to him by the Prime Minister of the country. If our present Prime Minister were to do it—I have so much respect for him that I do not for one moment suppose that he would do such a thing—but if he did go so far as to do it, I would at once, although I am only a young member, immediately attack him about it. But the hon. member for Standerton who sends such a telegram has the temerity to attack the Minister of Defence for introducing politics into the Defence Force although he can quote no facts to support his accusation. The only ground that he has for it is perhaps a guilty Conscience. He did this and therefore he thinks other people will do the same. It admits of no doubt that this Budget shows a great improvement. After the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance there was no class in the country, from the farmer to the business man, who was not encouraged. Every body took fresh courage after the Budget speech. The Government and the Minister of Finance did their duty in improving the financial position of the country. The hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) advised us to economize. We are all in favour of that, but I want to express a thought in that connection. It is unnecessary to do so, because the action of the Minister of Finance shows that he appreciates it. I wish, however, to say that we must be careful that we do not economize too much. If we do that we do it at the expense of the people, and it is bad economy. We do not look so much at the big surpluses, but whether the people who were pushed into the mud by the previous Government are being helped out of it. Even if there is a deficit we should only have to point out that the general position of South Africa has been improved. Before I close I wish to appeal to the Minister of Finance in connection with a matter for which no provision has yet been made, viz., old age pensions. We feel that something must be done for the old and aged fathers of the land who have sacrificed everything to bring the country to what it is to-day. The conditions under which they live are not those under which we live to-day. We have had an opportunity of making provision for old age, but here we have to do with a case where people had no opportunity to provide for their old age. We had the wars of independence, and they sacrificed everything to make the land habitable for us I know of a man who took part in the second war of independence. Because he lived just across the boundary his ground was forfeited. He is between 70 and 80 years of age and suffers want because he wished to do his duty to his traditions at that time. There are other cases where people took part in native wars. They have no food to eat, and I think provision should be made for them, and I wish to ask the Minister of Finance please to try next year to introduce or to recommend legislation in this connection. The great expense will be referred to. Even if that should be so, even if it meant a special tax on us, then I do not think that there would be a single person who would object to our making the extra payments to provide for those people. I make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to take this matter into serious consideration. I want to repeat that I cannot sufficiently welcome the Budget and I wish to compliment the Minister of Finance on the way he has introduced it.

When one considers the financial proposals and legislative programme of the Government, one is very doubtful about the future prosperity of the country and almost filled with a sense of dismal foreboding. We are now threatened with a new epoch, and there appears to be a radical departure from the approved and tried methods of finance of the past. I must say that I am unacquainted with the intricacies of economic questions, hut after listening to the arguments on this question of preference, I have no hesitation in saying that by bringing about the abolition of preference we have done a bad stroke of business. Viewed from a business aspect only, to say nothing of the sentimental side, I think it is a bad move. Then we are threatened with an interference with the right of freedom of contract between employer and employee. That is also a new departure and a great mistake. Then there is further interference with regard to wages, and we are threatened with legislation which will make the paying of an increase of wages retrospective. This spoliatory and confiscatory action will result in the closing of some of the mining concerns. Legislation of that sort must necessarily shake public confidence. We find a nervousness in business, mining and industrial circles, and we find day by day many anomalies under the new tariff detrimental to the public being exposed by the newspapers. To turn now to a more congenial subject. The debate so far has been concerned with the material welfare of the people of South Africa. One unhesitatingly admits the importance of this aspect. We should, however, also keep in view, equally important, the aesthetic aspect of national life. I wish, therefore, to take advantage of this opportunity to speak for a few moments on the question of a national game reserve, or national park. I am sorry the Minister of Lands is not here, because I have had several discussions with him on the matter, and he promised a reply to my observations. However, one never knows exactly when or at what time one is going to speak, and the Minister will have an opportunity later of saying something with regard to this very important subject. At one time fauna were to be found in abundance everywhere, from Cape Point to the Zambesi, and beyond. I have unforgettable memories as a boy of having seen vast herds of game roaming over the grassy plains of the Orange Free State, but useless and wasteful slaughter has decimated this game. Some varieties, such as the “quagga” and “blaauw bok,” have been wholly exterminated. The white-tailed gnu was also being rapidly exterminated; owing, however, to the long vision of an old voortrekker Terblans, of Kroonstad district, who protected this variety, there are still some to be found. It is inevitable that big game must give way before the remorseless pressure of civilization, but wasteful slaughter has not only sadly decimated their ranks, but has transformed the countryside into a lifeless waste. There remain now only two sanctuaries of any substantial extent throughout the whole Union where wild animals have up to now been safeguarded from wanton and ruthless destruction. These are Shingwedzi and Sabi reserves in the Transvaal. The control of these reserves as game reserves rests with the provincial administration of the Transvaal, and the executive council has absolute power in the matter. Attempts have been made already not only to curtail the reserves hut even to abolish them, and for some period a portion of the Sabi reserve was thrown open for grazing. Some of the owners of cattle were armed with weapons ostensibly as a protection against carnivora. In some instances the privilege was abused and use was made of the firearms to slaughter game. It is possible for three men with a stroke of the pen to do away altogether with this valuable asset and thus destroy the work of two decades, and render valueless the expenditure of much public money. With regard to the destruction of game life. I should like to read what Dr. Gordon Hewitt, consulting zoologist of the Canadian Government, writes—

I am positive these words will appeal to every right-thinking man. If the destruction of wild life continues during the next decade at the same rate as in the one just past, then, in the next generation, there will be no big game left. We have had our lesson in relation to the quagga and blue bok. In America, up to the middle of the eighteenth century, bison ranged over the American prairies in countless millions. Ruthless slaughter decimated them to such an extent that the American nation saw that the species was threatened with extermination. In 1889 only 1,091 of these animals remained, and the American nation was put to no small expense and trouble to preserve this remnant for posterity. The fate of the passenger pigeon is even more tragic. In 1869, 16 millions of this variety of bird were marketed in two years from one town in the United States of America. I remember reading a report from a select committee of Ohio appointed to investigate this matter. The effect of the report was that this variety was so prolific, that it had its nesting place in such inaccessible places, that there was no danger whatever in regard to its being exterminated. The committee reported that the passenger pigeon required no special protection. Well, this variety is wholly extinct, and 1,200 dollars is the value of an egg of one of these birds. Think of it. Two hundred and forty pounds sterling for the egg of an extinct variety of bird which about half a century ago was counted by millions. It may be taken as an axiom that no form of wild life is so prolific, that it cannot be exterminated by human agency. Unless we take timely precautions, and by timely I mean immediate precautions—the same form of tragedy may be enacted in this sub-continent. It is a melancholy fact that the extermination and destruction of wild life proceeds in this country apace with the increase of the European population. South Africans as a whole do not seem to appreciate the aesthetic and economic value of their wild life. I specially emphasize the word economic, because I shall very shortly come back to this point, and prove to the House that the preservation of fauna not only by individuals, but by the State, is good business. As I remarked, the people of South Africa, as a whole, do not seem sufficiently to appreciate the aesthetic and economic value of its fauna. In Great Britain and other European countries their fauna, though miserably poor compared with ours, is, owing to judicious conservation and protection, in less danger of extinction than ours in the Union of South Africa; and, therefore, it is the more necessary that sanctuaries of sufficient size should at once be set aside here. I do not wish to trespass upon the time of the House and deal with any of the numerous objections taken to the preservation of wild life. One, however, which is of a very material character in the sense that it has a wholly material aspect, is frequently heard, and I would like to deal briefly with it; and that is the objection commonly raised, namely, that the land could be put to better use for agricultural and pastoral purposes. That argument, if it has any weight at all—and I hope to show that it has not—that argument could in any case not be applied to the two sanctuaries which I have referred to because it is common cause that the one reserve, the Shingwedzi, is wholly unfitted for agricultural purposes, and only a very small portion of the other, the Sabi reserve, is suitable for such purposes. This is, however, no reason for the abolition of our existing reserves. We have our public parks, our zoological and botanical gardens. These, no doubt, if viewed purely from the point of an immediate return of material profit, would be more remunerative if laid out as lucerne lands and vegetable gardens. We have our museums, our public libraries and art galleries. These, no doubt, would render more material profit if used as offices and warehouses. We might even take our places of worship. Take that fine old edifice in Adderley Street. No doubt, from a material point of view and the point of view of the return of money, it would certainly be far more profitable if that edifice were to be converted, for instance, into a bioscope or a cinema show. But is this a sufficient or, indeed, any reason at all, for the abolition of these places? Therefore, to those who put forward this objection that the land could be put to better uses, one may reply that for the same reason that we have our public parks, our botanical and zoological gardens, our public libraries and art galleries, and spend large sums of money on art treasures—

We don’t.

I agree with the hon. member that the State could well devote a sum of money to this laudable purpose and teach natural history in our schools and universities. Civilized and cultured nations have their national game reserves and national parks. We have all these institutions, and we would not dream of doing without them. The aesthetic side of our national life is far too important to be neglected. Besides, if these institutions were worthless, would the hard-headed American people have their sanctuaries, amongst which I may mention the world-famed Yellow-stone Park? But the economic value of game is great. Game provides meat of an excellent flavour and a highly nutritive quality. The hides of game can provide us, and have provided us, with “reims” and whips of a far superior quality to that which is furnished by domestic animals. Just to show what the judicious conservation of game can do, I might mention that in Germany, before the war, it was possible for the German people during the winter months to buy game at a price which was equivalent to that of beef or pork. There you have a country with its millions of population and high land values, yet a judicious conservation of game has enabled them to provide their people with this, I won’t say luxury, bur desirable change in their meat diet. I would like to emphasize this point as to the economic value of game by reference to a recently published copy of the “Saturday Evening Post.” I wish hon. members would peruse it, because it is highly instructive and intensely interesting. Speaking of the State of Pennsylvania, the paper says that during the year 1921 the hunters of that State bagged 18,435,294 lbs. of meat. Placing the value of that meat at 25 cents per lb., it had an actual value of 4,608,823½ dollars to the people of the United States. In Pennslyvania more than 30 permanent game reserves have been established. The paper also dwells on the recreative aspect of the question, and the large numbers of the population who have been sent back to outdoor life through fish, fur and game being in plenty. With regard to the question of restocking, it should be possible with a thoroughly protected game sanctuary of considerable size to take varieties of game and restock portions of our country which, unhappily, have been so thoroughly depleted of game. In the State of Vermont the deer had been wholly exterminated prior to 1875. In that year several sportsmen imported 13 deer from the Adirondacks and liberated them in the state. In 1897 the stock had increased to a point where 183 deer were killed in 1909, 4,597 were killed, and 6.042 in 1915. The total killed between 1897 and 1920 was 44,286. This shows what can be done by judicious re-stocking towards furnishing health and sport, and in addition bringing in a monetary return to the State. This proves that game-preservation is good and sound business. From the recuperative and recreative point of view the value of a national park cannot be overestimated. The tired worker, whether of brain or muscle, cannot do anything more exhilarating than to get away from city life and watch the wild game in these reserves. Many of us have bad the opportunity of doing this, and it is to be hoped that we will not only take such action as will make it possible for others to enjoy that opportunity, but that future generations will have the advantage which some of us have so liberally received in this regard. Such a provision would attract tourists from all over the world; and tourists frequently are potential settlers. I see no reason why our national parks should not be made of world-wide attractiveness. The reckless slaughter of wild game was carried on to such an appalling extent in the Transvaal, that shortly before the Anglo-Boer war representations were made to President Kruger as to the advisability of taking preventative action. This astute old “voortrekker” decided to do so and a game reserve on Government land between the Crocodile and Sabi rivers was set aside, so that to President Kruger may be given the credit for being the first statesman who really protected game in the Transvaal. After the Anglo-Boer war the area was extended; and I would like to pay tribute to the splendid work of an institution founded about 25 years ago. I had the honour of being a foundation member, and indeed was the first chairman of the Transvaal Game Protection Association. It is owing very much to their vigilance and untiring industry in a large measure that these reserves have been protected. A tribute is also due to Major Stevenson-Hamilton, who is the chief warden of these reserves. He is a live and enthusiastic man, an erudite and highly cultured warden, who has written a standard work called “Animal Life in Africa.” He has devoted his energies in an unsparing manner to the protection of wild life in these reserves. The first time the Government was approached by the provincial authorities of the Transvaal was the 18th of May, 1914. Since then numerous representations have been made to the Union Government. I would like to emphasize that this is not a provincial matter; it is a national matter, and this national park would be for the benefit of every resident and every citizen throughout the Union. That is the standpoint from which it should be viewed. Here, at the southern end of the Union, we have the National Botanical Gardens. It was the privilege of some of us to visit the gardens under the guidance of and with the superintendent; and it was gratifying to see the progress which had been made and the possibilities for the future; and I hope the Minister concerned will do what he can to support this national work, which should be expanded and further developed. We from the north take pride in our national garden in the south. We have the anomalous position that although our fauna is the finest in the world, there is no national park where game is, and should be, properly protected. There has been protection, it is true, but it hangs by a thread, and safety and security can only be achieved by Act of Parliament. I think the Minister of Lands intends to proceed with the matter, but he seems to be deterred by the question of the expenditure involved in the acquisition of private land in the reserves. Provided it can be acquired at a reasonable rate—and I think it can be—let him not hesitate at an expenditure of even £50.000. I venture to assert it will be money well invested, as is shown by what I have stated in regard to America. Where, in the American States I have mentioned, game was once threatened with extermination, it now exists in large quantities, and is a very valuable and highly remunerative asset to the people of the United States. We who desire this national park, as I am sure the Minister also does, are nervous and apprehensive at the long delay in securing it for and to the people of the Union for all time. There is one matter more to which I wish to refer briefly. There is no doubt that the sobriety of our nation is a matter of paramount importance to the State, because a sober nation means an efficient nation. In the United States the great achievement of prohibition has been brought about. I want to hold before you two pictures. I want to quote what the late President Harding stated in regard to the working of prohibition in the United States. He said—

I would like to read you the other picture in regard to our own country. Mr. G. J. Otto has written a letter to “De Kerkbode” as follows—

What is the date of that?

March, 1925. But we know it is the same to-day. The letter continues—

I am not going to argue about prohibition or temperance, but I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is present. I am quite satisfied from the remarks made by the Prime Minister that he is not informed as to what the conditions are in regard to prohibition in America. I venture to submit to him that this is a very important subject to the people of this country, who are very anxious to know what the true position is. The last person I had a conversation with regarding this matter, and who had just returned from America, was Mr. Percy Greathead, who has authorized me to use his name. Like myself, he came to the Witwatersrand almost 40 years ago, and is a well-known citizen occupying a responsible position in the Transvaal Consolidated Lands, a large land-owning corporation. He went to the United States to study cotton conditions, and I have no doubt that the results of the experience he gained there will be placed at the disposal of his country. I asked him what his experience was of prohibition, and he replied that he had travelled 20,000 miles in the United States and never saw a drunkard all the time he was there, also that when he had an opportunity of getting reliable information on the subject he availed himself of it, and the conclusion he had come to is that you may take it that 1 per cent., representing mostly those interested in the sale of alcohol—few things are more lucrative—only 1 per cent. are against it, but 99 per cent. of the population look upon prohibition as unalterable; and that the revolutionary conditions brought about by prohibition in regard to the health, wealth and prosperity of the people are of such a character that they will never think of turning back. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would be so good, seeing the momentous nature of this question of the sobriety of our race, and in view of the disgraceful and disgusting scenes enacted here, and particularly from the point of view of the moral and physical degradation of these coloured people—to say nothing of the sad havoc wrought amongst Europeans whether he would consider the advisability of sending one or more independent commissioners to investigate the working of prohibition in America, for the information and benefit of the people of the Union, we will then have first-hand information and be in a position to see what the actual results are, so that the lessons which may be derived from the beneficial working of the law in the United States may be applied here, and we may thus look forward to the day when our population will be more sober and more efficient.

I wish first to say a few words in connection with the railways. We have what are called State railways. They were built at the cost of £120,000,000, on which we pay nearly £5,000,000 in interest. In addition we vote large sums every year for renewals, and there are other funds for the purpose of keeping our railways in good order. We maintain them in good order for our own convenience, but in effect for the bondholders who own the stock.

They do not own the stock.

At any rate we have to pay interest on the money we borrow.

They have no control over the railways.

I am very glad to hear that the Minister of Railways has decided to put away a small sum every year to redeem the debt, so that eventually we may really talk of our State railways. Another point I wish to draw attention to is the leave granted to railway employees. The discrimination shown in this matter between the clerical and the running staffs is a very sore point in the north. Members of the clerical staff get one month’s leave every year and a first class ticket, but the members of the running staff—the men who do the hard work like engine-drivers and so on—receive only 14 days leave a year and a second class ticket for himself and his wife. Another grievance of members of my own profession is in connection with the Railway Benefit Societies. Complaints come from Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and other centres as to the manner in which officers are appointed to these medical societies. A great grievance exists on this subject among South Africa born medical men. For years the railways have been regarded as a close preserve for men born overseas, and South African born men have been boycotted. I should be glad if the Minister would give a little of his own attention to this great injustice. I now wish to touch on a subject of very serious importance to the credit of South Africa. I wish to draw attention to the judgment which was given recently which affects the financial foundation of Johannesburg to the very bottom. I am referring to the judgment given in the case of the Randfontein Gold Mining Company against Sir Joseph Robinson. The judgment turned upon the question of fiduciary interest. It was held that Sir Joseph Robinson being chairman of the Company—

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to call in review a judgment of the Appellate Court? Is this a court of appeal?

The hon. member has not yet criticized the judge. I understand the hon. member wants to point out the effect of the judgment. The hon. member must not criticize the action of the judge, but can refer to the judgment, and point out where amelioration of the law can take place.

If this case is allowed to stand the credit of this country will be seriously affected. It was held that Sir Joseph Robinson being chairman of the company could not buy any farms but for the company. Mr. Justice Wessels, who was a distinguished barrister before he was a judge and who has lived in Johannesburg for many years, has always dissented from the judgment that was given.

He was the only judge who did.

He knew the procedure that took place on the Rand in those days. If Sir Joseph Robinson could not buy ground but for the company, I say that the whole of Johannesburg’s financial foundation will be shaken to the bottom because Mr. Rhodes was chairman of De Beers and Mr. Beit was a director. If the judgment stands any shareholder in De Beers can lay claim to the farms Rhodes acquired in the Transvaal.

I thought you were a doctor not a lawyer.

If this judgment stands De Beers can claim the Consolidated Goldfields Company. Letters have been received in this country drawing attention to this matter, which I think is so important that the Government would be well advised to appoint a commission consisting of men like Mr. Justice Wessels, a well-known auditor, and perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)—

No thank you!

The commission should enquire on what basis Johannesburg was founded financially. I am not criticizing any judgment—it would be uncalled for me to do so—but I wish to state one thing and that was the remark made by the Chief Justice. I do not wish to express an opinion as to the remarks he made in his position as Chief Justice, but I wish to say in all earnestness that he ought to have recused himself in this case.

The hon. member must not criticize the conduct of the judge.

This is the highest court of the land—the people’s Parliament.

The law provides that you can draft a petition if you wish to question the conduct of the judges.

To my mind as a layman it seems peculiar that in the highest court of appeal, as Parliament is, you cannot draw attention to remarks made in a judgment. If a man’s character is attacked and blackened in a judgment undoubtedly

The hon. member must not criticize the action of the judges in the performances of their duties.

Then I will say these judgments which have been given have shaken the credit of South Africa to some considerable extent, and I appeal to the Government to give this judgment their serious consideration, because I know what I am talking about, I know the letters I have received and I know the shock the judgment has given to fair-minded men overseas. I know that during the Boer war when Sir Joseph Robinson sent out £2,500 to provide an ambulance, he sent the money to Mr. Rose-Innes—

I must ask the hon. member to refrain from criticizing the actions of any of the judges of the country in the performance of their duty.

Well, if I cannot talk about this matter further, I will say something about this cry of secession in Natal. It is peculiar to me that the leaders of public opinion in Natal do not seem to represent the inhabitants of Natal. I refer to the time when we had closer union, when the plebescite was taken there was a 5 to 1 majority in favour of closer union. It is unfortunate Natal should be represented by men who do not keep the pulse of the public. Now they come forward with a cry of secession. I remember Mr. Jim Lennard saying that Natal was making a lot of noise, but it was only the bijwoner of President Kruger. Natal is striving to get the name of the Ulster of South Africa. Without the support of the Union they would very soon come with hat in hand and ask to be taken in again. In two years’ time their trade would be gone, and they would be absorbed by the coolies in Natal, because they have more coolies than white men, and it is mere bravado for them to talk about secession. The cry is only meant to stir up the feelings of English South Africans against brother South Africans, but I think, after the Prime Minister’s speech of yesterday, these jingoes, who make this cry, have been annihilated, and I hope in the future we shall hear no more of this question. I want to say something about the native question and the attitude of the late Prime Minister on that question. I am sorry he is not here, because I want to ask him a few questions. The native question is one of the greatest problems we have, and I am sorry to see the attitude taken up on this question by certain bishops and parsons. This kind of attack is all part of the scheme to stir up feelings against this side of the House because they are Dutch speaking. You remember that in the early days we had a man named Phillip, and there was also a David Livingstone. They started an agitation in those days to malign the Boers. Lies were told about them, but now they have gone further and malign all South Africans. They stir up feelings against the white people and I am convinced that negropholists, of the type I have mentioned, will not stop until they have caused a tremendous war between the black and white in this country. In the cathedral in Johannesburg the bishop said that he found in this country that the feelings of the white against the black was this—

That was a disgraceful statement for a bishop to make and to use a church for it. Neither you nor I, nor any responsible man, has ever beard such a statement in South Africa. The bishop knew he was saying something unintentionally, either not true, or else it was cheap street-corner talk. What was the result? The next man that came along was the Bishop of Bloemfontein, who was escorted into the church by the Dean of Johannesburg, and as a result of this sermon the natives held a large meeting at the other end of Eloff Street. When the Dean came out of the church he saw between five and six hundred men congregated, saying that the English were their rescuers. Actions like that are most reprehensible in this country and men who come to stir up feelings like that are doing no service to this country.

Who stirred up this feeling?

It is a feeling worked up in this country and it is a most dangerous feeling and will disturb the peace of the country to its very foundations it you don I stop it in time.

What about the communists?

The speeches of the late Prime Minister, for a man in his position, are not to his credit. It is not to his credit to go about the country making these inflamed speeches stirring up the coloured people against the white and the coloured people against the blacks, and the blacks against the white. I feel sorry when I see the late Prime Minister. He is a very able man, but I feel sorry when I see the two leaders of the Opposition, the nominal leader and the actual leader sitting cheek by jowl as they do, and I wonder what a man must feel like to sit like that beside a man who in 1907 called him all the names he could, a wrecker and all that sort of thing. Now they sleep under one blanket, cheek by jowl. The late Prime Minister forgets that these very people who called him the “wrecker” have steered him on to the rocks, because, from being the “wrecker,” he is to-day the wrecked. He has lost the confidence of his own Dutch-speaking South Africans.

That’s a question.

Just look at the. Dutch South Africans sitting on that side and the Dutch South Africans sitting on this. He has lost the confidence of the majority of his own Dutch-speaking South Africans, and by the attitude he is adopting on this native question, he will lose more of his own people, and he will lose, I hope, a great many more of the English-speaking South Africans. Today he sits cheek by jowl with the very men who have been the cause of all the trouble in this country, the men who have caused bloodshed and suffering in this country.

And they have played the game since.

They have not played the game. I can see before me a picture of Rhodes. He would talk about the men who sat with him as “my Dutch.” I can see a picture of the old South African party following a man like Rhodes. You see a man walking in front waving a huge Union Jack, and after him come Hoggenheimer & Co. As a result of this procession we see a map of South Africa with bloodstained and burnt farmhouses, but, luckily, on June 17 of last year, Father Time, in his kindness, turned over a new page in the history of South Africa. The Waterloo of your crowd was then fought, and we now see in power a Government which looks after the interests of the people of South Africa, and not merely after the interests of the financial houses, as has been the case in the Union for the last fourteen years, and in the Cape Colony for the last 50 years. We hear this talk about racialism. I want to give an example of what took place in Johannesburg at the Dental Society, which consists mostly of Britishers from across the sea. It was proposed to send a deputation here to see the Government on something affecting this society of theirs. What do you think the remark of the chairman was?—

I thought the Pact had killed all that sort of thing.

Yes, but there are always a few remnants of rubbish. I just want to say something to the Minister of Education on this question of coloured education in the Cape Province. It was my pleasure last week to visit a place called Genadendal, in the Caledon district. By our policy we want to uplift the civilized coloured man to a higher standard. At Genadendal the Moravian Society are doing a splendid work in uplifting the coloured man and I wish there were more societies like it. The point I want to make is that here is a school where they teach these coloured men to be teachers. As we want to uplift them and see that they compete equally with the European in certain trades, I want to find out from the Minister of Education, whether this school could not in some way be supported by the Government on the same basis as these ad hoc schools that they are going to start as a result of the conference in Durban with the Provincial Councils. I think the Minister of Education would be well advised if he gave this matter his careful thought. We have at Love-dale an institution where the natives are trained. Why should we not have in the Western Province a similar institution where the coloured men could be trained?

If there is one thing which one has noticed more than anything else during this budget debate it is that although all the members on the front benches of the Opposition have spoken—people from whom we would have expected that they would pull the budget to pieces—it is remarkable that none of the speeches has had anything to do with the budget. There was not a single attempt of putting the finger upon one or other item of unsound expenditure where money was being wasted or that here and there a mistake was being made. The nearest that they came to it was with reference to the abolition of certain of the preference tariffs and this they could not even do without dragging in all kinds of things in an attempt to prove that this points to secession. I am much disappointed that except for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), in a lesser measure perhaps, other members of the Opposition hardly touched on the budget. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) got up and after him others and said that the favourable condition in which the country was due to good administration of the former Government. He said that the country was left in a splendid state by the previous Government and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) agreed with this and said that the surplus which there was to-day and which the Government has the use of to-day was all due to the good administration of his Government. They say that it is their budget and, therefore, their surplus. We know that this year was only two months old when the present Government came into office and the new Government is thus in any case responsible for the administration during ten months of the financial year. It is nevertheless remarkable that just after the new Government came into office the position was so favourable and especially where the old Government probably had the best years that we have ever known. Yes, it was in power during the boom years and, notwithstanding the extraordinary years, the deficits mounted and mounted and now we must meet them. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) got rid of a deficit of £4,000.000 as was said here and the surplus that we have must now be further used to wipe out other deficits. One of the hon. members of this House has pointed out that no less than £14,000,000 in accumulated deficits arose in all the prosperous years. If hon. members read the report of the Auditor-General they will see that besides this there was a further £7,000.000 debt covered by loans. Now, it is also said in connection with the favourable conditions of the country that it is due to the natural course of circumstances as an hon. member called it, and that the surplus has arisen in that way. But what did the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) say during the election? He prophesied what would happen if the Pact came into power. Just listen—

And what happened? The Government borrowed money at very low interest, yes on more favourable conditions than the previous Government ever did. What now of all the bogeys that capital would go out of the country. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), an authority on mining matters, more than once prophesied that the mining industry was going to have a very good year. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) is hiding the prosperity a little. Perhaps he is nervous about his own pocket. But in any case the hon. member for Kimberley said so. And what did the hon. member for Standerton say about the mining industry—

The Pact is still sitting here to-day, and times of prosperity have come. We can now see what value should be attached to all the talk about the good condition of the country being due to the policy of the former Government. Why then did the country under their good administration go back so much in all the good years? Why did the deficits mount up so. No, the country is to-day in a good position because it feels relieved, because we now have a Government which will help the country ahead, which is a Government of the country. Not one member opposite has mentioned a specific instance where they differ from the Budget. All have in vague words said in a general way that the expenditure is being increased by £2,000.000 and then they go and tell the country and the people that more than almost £2,000,000 is being spent than was spent last year. But not one of the members has mentioned a point upon which they could alter the position. There is only one case that they mentioned and that is the £1,000,000 more that is being given to the provincial councils. This they call extravagant. But beyond the £1,000,000 they mention nothing because they know that if they investigate matters nothing can be found that they can change. All the money is required for payment of debts, increased interest, and for salaries and other matters. They have remained absolutely silent. All the eloquence was confined to the £1,000,000. But what do they substitute for it? No one rose and said what should be done instead of giving the £1,000,000 to the provincial councils. I remember quite well while we were still in Opposition that we got up to criticize the Budget and that we always laid the finger on the weak spots and pointed out what should be done.

You were not here then.

The memory of the hon. member must be very short; In 1920 I was here.

Only for three months.

Is the hon. member sneaking for himself or for his party? It is always necessary to ask that. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) also shakes his head. Let him get up and say where they pointed out that we should do this or that. He cannot mention a single place where they suggested an alteration. And if they are dissatisfied with the £1.000,000 to the provincial councils what do they propose in the place thereof? Do they wish that the country educationally should go back to the old condition of things and that all progress of the last couple of years should be again undone? And that is where the policy of the previous Government was making for. The number of school children was becoming less. Our population is increasing and irrespective of the Government in power the increase of school children should be proportionate. That economy in education has at any rate as far as the Cape Province is concerned almost smothered education. Must our children again walk about uneducated? I do not think that hon. members opposite will say this. What then do they propose instead of the increased sum to the provincial council. I heard no proposal from them. This Government will not long allow educational matters to drift. Then they come with another point and say that the right to tax of the provincial councils has not been decreased. How can we now take away the right to tax? If we had not given the £1,000,000 the provincial taxes have had to be raised otherwise education would have suffered. The £1,000,000 has specially been given for education. But they do not dare to say one thing in connection with the Baxter report and that is the recommendation in the Baxter report to obtain the means for education by the raising of a land tax. The Opposition are now dissatisfied that the land tax is not proposed. They are annoyed, but they dare not say so. No, they dare not call the child by its right name. Therefore they all only say that the right to tax has not been reduced. Further, with regard to the Budget we find nothing but generalities. The hon. members for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) and for Somerset East (Mr. Fourie) have discussed the matter entirely satisfactorily. What taxes have already been removed: the medicine tax is gone, the tobacco tax is much reduced, the postal rates are being reduced. When we mention the last named then it is said that it will only come into operation in a year. But for the last three months of the financial year it will mean £130.000 and probably the following year it will mean a reduction for the whole year of £500,000 in taxation. The estate duty has been changed and the whole turnover tax is abolished which will mean a relief of between £450,000 and £500,000. And then they come here and say that there is no reduction in taxation. The reductions amount to the large sum of £1,000,000. The tobacco tax alone represents a reduction of £250,000. Yes, the large item they could not overlook and the hon. member for Standerton found great fault with it. His memory must be very short. Only ten months ago, shortly before the election, he said in his manifesto—

Thus it will be removed or reduced but in any case reduced. Now the tobacco tax has been reduced for the small producer and he finds great fault. Now he says that it is a great mistake.

He did not say that.

Yes, he said that it was a great mistake in nearly all his speeches while ten months ago he was in favour of removing the tax or in any case of reducing it. This all proves the hollowness of the criticism of the opposition. They criticize what they approved yesterday and what they condemned yesterday that they approve to-day. I say therefore that never in my life have I heard such criticism. Mention is made of personal attacks on the hon. member for Standerton, but what did the hon. member for Standerton say of the present Government—

In other words we who sit here on these seats are a lot of rascals. How can members of the Opposition then, speak of personal attacks? I will here just point out that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Now I come to the alteration of the customs duty. When the Opposition criticized the duty on some articles as too high, then we ask on what articles is it too high. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) mentioned bacon. He mentioned it three times but never got any further. The only other article which was mentioned was kaffir blankets, mentioned by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw).

He also mentioned powder and face paint.

Yes, he also mentioned powder, etc., and I do not know whether he would wish that we should allow it in cheaper. I should like to tax it more heavily. These two articles seem actually to be the only ones that the Opposition can mention out of the long list of articles that we import from England. Ought not one to be ashamed that sensible people should criticize in such a stupid way on such a matter? I think that this shows the triviality of the criticism. Here in the House a greater fuss is made about the removal of the preference than in England itself. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) quoted last night from the speeches and interviews of prominent English statesmen where they call the whole thing humbug. And then hon. members still wish to stuff the public that the Nationalists want to bring about secession in that way. I will now only add a few words with reference to the policy of the railways in using civilized labour. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) will remember that he on two opportunities got up in the House and asked the question if it was a good thing to take these white people into the railway service, and why they should continue working with a spade in the ground. He said that we should rather teach them to pick fruit. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is entirely opposed to the policy of civilized labour. He has never disguised it, but before I go further into this matter I want to return just for a moment to the Provincial Councils. The Opposition has said that we should cut down the expenditure on the provincial councils. We then asked where we were to economize. The only member who answered our question was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who said that we should reduce the salaries of the teachers. He however added that he was speaking for himself and I therefore do not yet know where the South African party wish us to economize seeing there are other members who say that we must not touch the salaries of the teachers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that the expenditure on the railways is greater. Other members have repeated this and have said that this is the reason why the public cannot get any reduction of rates, also that the public were entitled thereto. The allegation is that the policy of civilized labour is wrong and that this makes the technical costs and expenditure high. I wish, however, only to mention what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said in the past about the use of civilized labour on the railway. In his speech about the manifesto of the South African party he said the following—

The hon. member for Standerton himself therefore acknowledged that his Government found that white labour could be very economically used, but now that this Government follow that policy it is not a good thing. I wondered what the Opposition now actually want to do with our people. Now a few words about my own view of the budget. I can say that I am satisfied with the budget. There is, however, one point upon which I am not yet satisfied, and I hope the Minister of Finance will give his attention to it so that we can put it right. I refer to the estate duty. The farmers are not opposed to this tax, but they do feel dissatisfied that they are sought out to pay so heavily. The custom in this country is for farms to be divided amongst the sons when they are big enough to start farming. When the parents come to die they have to pay estate duty on ground which they have worked for 25 years or so, and on farms which they have improved with their own labour. I am glad that the Minister of Finance has exempted estates up to £7,500, and I hope that he will also take away this absurdity. I am obliged to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture because we have had many letters about it. The Minister has been congratulated on all sides by the members on all sides on the extermination of locusts as a result of his good administration. I do not for a moment deny that the plague has been fought in the Transvaal and the Free State, and that the farmers there have saved their harvests. But in the northern portions of the Cape Province rain did not fall until recently, and the locusts are now hatching out. Although the people have for two months now been doing their best and taking all possible means, the position is that as soon as they have one place clean locusts come again out of the Kalahari and South-West and hatch out there again. We must remember that the farms there are very big, a farm of 10,000 morgen is small; a farm of 20,000 is the average, and a large farm consists of 30,000 morgen. I therefore want to bring to the notice of the Minister and of the House that the people living there cannot be expected to keep those large farms clean in accordance with the provisions of the Locust Act. We must remember that those areas are almost entirely void of white people, and the owner and his few sons cannot possibly keep those large extended farms clean if they are not helped by the State. It is absolutely impossible, especially as new swarms always come from South-West and the Kalahari. Their courage is commencing to give out, and they are jibbing and becoming dissatisfied. I hope that the Government will help them either by allowances or by granting other assistance to them.

I trust the House will excuse me if I devote a few moments to the budget. There may be some difference of opinion regarding the £800,000 surplus on the revenue for the year 1924-’25, but I don’t think the whole of that surplus is entirely due to the present Government, for it must be borne in mind that the Smuts Government was in power for three months of the last financial year.

I am giving it credit for a little portion.

At least £200,000 of the surplus should be credited to the late Government. The Minister of Finance was very fortunate when he came into office to find such an enormous nest egg—£3,419,000 arising from profit on enemy property secured by the Custodian of Enemy Property. I can say most positively that that enormous sum of money was due entirely to the Smuts Government, because when this question came before the House, I remember it well, the Nationalists strongly opposed all these Bills, and they denounced the policy. If their advice had been taken on that occasion this nest-egg would not have existed. Now they are in office they have no compunction in annexing these ill-gotten gains and using them for the good of the country. Many hon. members, I am afraid, received support on the question of the Custodian profits. Several of those who voted for them were under the impression that if they got into power their friends and relatives would receive a pro rata of this £3,419,000. They had a rude awakening. There are many Bills before the House which will cause unemployment. The Mines and Works Bill, the Attorney Bill, the Diamond Control Bill, the Trustee Bill, and the Liquor Law Amendment Bill, to say nothing of the increased taxation. Even with a surplus of £800,000 the Government cannot resist the temptation to increase the taxation on diamond mines. To-day we pay 7½ per cent, normal profit tax, and 7½ per cent, dividend tax. The Finance Minister is merging these two taxes into one and making a flat rate. On the face of it, it looks as if it would not make the slightest difference, but it does. I have been in communication with the accountant of the De Beers’ Company, and he says it will mean an additional £35,000 per annum in taxation. There is no company in the wide world taxed to the same extent as the De Beers Consolidated Mines. When I talk about this I am speaking about my own constituency (Kimberley), because the town and district depends on that industry. If the De Beers Company produce £4,000,000 worth of diamonds per annum they pay taxation amounting to £750,000—that is 10 per cent, diamond export duty on £4,000,000, which amounts to £400,000 and 15 per cent. on the profits, another £350,000, or a total of £750,000. If De Beers’ produce £4,000,000 worth of diamonds, after paying all expenses and providing for debenture debt and the interest on preference shares, there is about £1,050,000 left to be divided amongst the general shareholders and £750,000 to the Government. That is very heavy taxation. Honestly I don’t think the Finance Minister was aware that by merging these two taxes it would hit the De Beers Company in that way. A man in South Africa deriving his total income from diamond mining, pays more in taxation per £ per annum than a man does in England, where there is an enormous debt owing on account of the war. Hon. members across there say mining is a wasting asset. Therefore I say that those who speculate in mining should get a much larger return for their capital than from mortgages or anything else. As a company wasted, so their capital is wasted. Money invested in Government stock pays its 5 per cent, per annum and the Government redeems the capital over a certain period. What must be the inevitable result of this, additional taxation. Companies and industries must economize and retrench. They cannot’ retrench’ with natives. They save very little ’by discharging a few hundred natives. The white man will suffer and I regret it, because there is sufficient unemployment in the country already. We are forced by the Pact to dismiss men, and the Labour members cannot in truth say that we are throwing them on the streets, which is their favourite phrase, because they are primarily the cause of it. After all, De Beers has not been a bad friend to South Africa. We have done considerable for the industrial development of this country. We have built railways; we have established industries—explosives, chemicals and fertilizers. Farmers have benefited enormously by the erection of the fertilizer factory at Somerset West. When the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie); complained about the immense price of fertilizers—they were paying £8 or £9 a ton for fertilizers—I prevailed on the Board to put up the fertilizer factory. When the farmers found they could get fertilizer 2s. 6d. a ton cheaper from England they would not have our fertilizer. That is the thanks they showed to us for erecting that fertilizer factory. We also spent a large sum of money in the coal industry in Natal, and we have never received a 6d. for the money spent there. We improved the breed of horses and cattle. Hon. members on the other side say—

They have short memories. Who have they to thank for the universities of Cape Town and Johannesburg? Why, the directors of the De Beers Company. It is true they were living in England, but they still had some good feeling and regard for South Africa.

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

I was saying that the De Beers directors had given the bulk of the money to build these different universities in the Union of South Africa. I may say that, outside its sphere of operations, the De Beers Company has done more for the industrial development of this country than any other company in the whole of South Africa. The House may be interested to know that there are seven resident directors of the De Beers Company. Five were born in this country.

Lucky Country!

I am not one of those who have been fortunate enough to be born in this country—I was born in London—but the choice of one’s parents and the country of one’s birth are matters over which the poor little child has not the slightest control. I was saying that there are seven resident directors of the De Beers Company, and five were born in this country. I have been here 54 years, and the other director has been here between, 35 and 40 years, and’ it is only natural that we have the interests of this country at heart, and that we desire to help in its, development. ‘I don’t say this out of any spirit of boasting, because I think it is only our duty to do what we can in the interests of the country in which we live and which has done so much for us. I would like to also tell this House that, in my anxiety to further the interests of this country, I prevailed upon my fellow-directors, instead of placing money not immediately required in British treasury bills, to purchase the Treasury bills of the Union of South Africa, and I think I may say that, outside the big financial institutions of this country, such as life insurance companies and the like, we have invested for the time being in Union Treasury bills more than any other concern in South Africa, and that we hold to-day £250,000 of Union Treasury bills. I prevailed upon my co-directors that it was our duty to do that in the interests of South Africa. When we did this we could have transmitted that money to England against 2½ per cent. premium, which, on £250,000, would have left over £6,000 in exchange, and I doubt whether the interest that we shall get on this money will amount to more than the exchange we would have made by transmitting that money to England. Now it is utterly impossible for us to continue this policy if the Government is hostile to our industry. I do not say that this Government is more hostile as far as taxation is concerned than the late Government now represented on this side of the House, because there has scarcely been a session of Parliament without additional taxation having been imposed upon the mining industry. The Minister of Mines and Industries said some time ago, referring to this side of the House, that we are too dependent on the support of big money. I suppose he implied that the big industries of this country were financially supporting the Opposition. Well, we have nothing to thank the late Government for as regards the mining industry—I am speaking particularly for the diamond mining industry because at Union the only taxation imposed upon the diamond mining industry was 10 per cent. on its profits, but that was increased by the Smuts Government to 7½ per cent. profits tax, 7½ per cent dividend tax, and 10 per cent. export duty on diamonds, which amounted in the aggregate to 35 per cent. of the gross profits of the company. Well, to my mind, the Smuts Government was not sympathetic or friendly towards the diamond mining industry. If it were, all I can say is “God save us from our friends!” Now, I quite admit there are reasons for adjusting the existing preference duties in favour of England, but not reducing the total sum involved, that is to say the £900,000 which she is getting now, should have been left on. Our trade relations with England are satisfactory, and when England cannot take most of our exportable products, then it is time enough to look for other markets. Why seek for new customers when you can do the business with a country that guards the ocean trade routes at her own expense with a big navy? Have the farmers so soon forgotten the enormous prices they got for their wool from Japan during the war after England, at great sacrifice of men and lives and money, had made that route safe, when Admiral Sturdee sank the fleet of Von Spee? This new tariff to my mind bristles with ingratitude. We are doing good business with England; we cannot do better, we cannot improve, so why destroy the present conditions? I should like to say a few words with regard to education, realizing when I do so that I am simply a back bencher, but I revel in the licence and irresponsibility of the back benches. I do not object to the total amount expended on education but I say that if the money had been wisely and economically spent many more children would have been educated. To my mind there is too much fuss about higher education; boys with brains could educate and improve themselves after passing the sixth standard. Many great men have educated themselves, such men as Ramsay MacDonald, Clynes, Henderson, Thomas, and that great man Abraham Lincoln. Thousands of men in different ages, with a smattering of the three “R’s,” after leaving school have distinguished themselves in art, science, literature and politics. To my mind it is better to make one’s own living with an ordinary education than to live on one’s parents after having obtained a university degree. I cannot possibly understand the conduct of the Labour party in supporting the Bill that I have mentioned. They cause unemployment and they approve of a budget which raises the cost of living. They have run away from their own constitution; they have sacrificed their cherished principles to get on the wrong side of the House; they have swallowed every plank in their political platform. If they will take a little advice from me I would advise them to build their next platform with reinforced concrete.

Our friends the enemy opposite seem to be criticizing this budget out of sheer disappointment at the success of the present Government, not only the success in this House but the impression they make on the public outside.

You are easily pleased.

I feel quite confident that every day there are more converts in South Africa to the only right principles of this country, the principles of the Pact, as applied to-day in the best interests of this country.

What are the principles?

Are there any?

The principles are, South Africa first, now and every time. This has been accepted in theory also by our friends the Opposition.

But how do you propose to place South Africa first?

By the budget just now before the House. I will try to explain in what way it can be done.

Have you been to the wedding?

No, but I notice some of our friends opposite have been there. We may, perhaps, excuse the Opposition for taking this line of criticism of the budget because they are not properly doing their duty as an Opposition. They cannot realize that they must be an effective opposition to be of any good to South Africa, our country. We do want in this country an effective Opposition; and it is certainly the duty of the Opposition to contribute their quota to the good government of the country. Instead of that we find that with the exception of two speeches from that side, the one by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the other by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), that every speech is based on racialism. The only arguments used are the flag, secession and the races.

Try and be original.

In regard to the English and Dutch section the relations between these two races in this country have improved enormously since the Pact was returned to power. And now that the Opposition have failed there, they try to stir up the coloured race against the Europeans. They will find they will also fail in that. Now they try to arouse suspicion in the minds of the natives in this country; that is certainly a very serious and a very dangerous thing to do. I was always under the impression that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), having been Minister of Native Affairs for a number of years, understood the mind of the native.

So he does.

Well, his speeches do not prove that.

Which one are you referring to?

Well, practically any one; for instance, the speech at Kalk Bay, the speech here on the colour bar and the speech at Worcester. I advise hon. members opposite to read these speeches and digest them.

Have you?

We have before us now a budget containing a clear cut, principled policy and a tariff on a scientific basis. We, at any rate, have departed materially from the policy of the previous Government, which was a policy of drift and opportunism. It may be my advice will not be taken by the Opposition, but I wish to give it to them; it is that they must take their task as an Opposition seriously. It is not a temporary job, but a well-nigh permanent job.

Wait and see.

We have had a little criticism on a few points from that side of the House. One was by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and his whole criticism of the budget amounts to an attack on one of the members of the Board of Trade and Industries, Dr. Bruwer; but if the principles laid down in that thesis are correct why should they not be adopted by any Government that has the interests of the country at heart?

But are they correct?

Most certainly they are correct, as the way the country has received this present budget proves to-day. Then we have the criticism by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) or rather a point that he raised. He said he is all in favour of the prosperity of South Africa. Well, if he means that—and I take his word for it—I hope he will support the Government in passing the measures which are before the House now, because all these measures are in the interests of South Africa and especially the Diamond Control Bill. He made another point; he said that to prove his sincerity in regard to the interests of South Africa he has raised £8,000,000 to develop certain gold mines on the East Rand. I would ask him this, was that done simply because he wanted to serve the interests of South Africa or was his first consideration the interests and profits of himself and the other shareholders? To my mind the principles that should underlie a good budget are to be found in the present budget, and are the following: It must be based on business principles—the quid pro quo basis is an absolute essential. Then it must provide relief for the taxpayer—there must be a remission of taxes. Then it must be of benefit to the producer and the manufacturer, and it must be of benefit to the consumer.

Hear, hear.

I am glad hon. members opposite agree. Then it must create employment for the people and especially for the youths of this country, and lastly it must enhance the credit of the country—we must be able to show to the world that we can pay our debts and carry on the administration of the country. I maintain that all these principles underlie the present budget, and although it has been put from the other side that we should treat Great Britain better than all the other countries, even there, where there is a question of some sentiment and appreciation of a good customer, that has been provided for. A good customer must be appreciated and sentiment must be allowed a certain margin in a budget of any country where the people are related to other countries of the world. This is also good business, but that is allowed for in this budget. £100,000 above the quid pro quo basis is allowed to England on the tariff proposals. That is a question of sentiment and appreciation provided for, but no politician, no finance minister, no Government may allow sentiment to go any further than the interests of its own country. As soon as sentiment detrimentally affects the interests of your own country, then it must be cut out. And as regards your appreciation of a good customer, you can only show such appreciation as will not be detrimental to your own interests, and so far the present Government has gone in the present budget. It has been said that there is no reduction of taxes. The figures have been put before the House so often that I do not want to quote them again, but there is a remission of fully £400,000 to the general taxpayer of South Africa under this budget. We have it in this budget, through the protection for our products and manufactures which we are allowing the people of this country to produce and manufacture, and to compete with the world outside. It is only through protection that we will be able to assist our producer and manufacturer, and I hope there will not be a single member in this House who will object to that. It is surely the first duty of any Government to protect the interests of the producer and the manufacturer and also to remember the interests of the consumer. But it has been said that on account of that you will have to pay more for your foodstuffs. Well I know that the people of this country would sooner pay more for their foodstuffs, if they have the money to do it, than be required to pay 1d. for a loaf of bread when they have not got that one penny. If men are paid good wages under this Government, they will be satisfied to pay these higher prices. But what is the use of reducing the price of your foodstuffs and at the same time letting your people go unemployed and have low wages, so that they cannot buy the bare necessities of life. That is what underlies this budget as far as I have studied it. The people of this country are quite willing, under a good Government with definite tested principles, to sacrifice themselves to the extent that they thereby create the greatest good for the greatest number. At the same time, I wish to say that the people of this country know by this time that at the head of affairs they have a Government for the people, and on a sound business principle they do not expect to have all the returns within a few months after investment of any capital. They have invested in the hope of having returns in the future, and we—as has been suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—have given promissory notes and we quite intend to honour them, and those hopes of the people will surely be realized as long as this Government is in power.

It is rather long-dated.

No, but this Government will have a long life and will be able to redeem its pledge before going out of office. It has been put that there was no remission of taxation. There is the £400,000. There ought to have been more; but unhappily we have had to meet the Burton surplus—which is a deficit of £300,000. If it had not been for the accumulated deficit of the late Government there would have been a greater remission, and we all agree that in due time the Minister of Railways and Harbours will reduce rates on the railways too. We want him to do this, but he cannot do it on account of the bankrupt house we have taken over from the late Government.

What about the £3,000,000.

I do not speak of the Havenga surplus. I am speaking about the Burton Surplus. There was a deficit of £300,000. It has been stated by the member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) that we must not tax the mining industry to too great an extent.

Hear, hear.

What I say is that this country must get its full share of the mining industry of this country

Hear, hear.

I am not convinced that the mining industry—diamonds as well as gold—is giving to this country what is due out of those industries. The result of the diamond industry has been the creation of several South African millionaires, and millions of this money ought to have gone into the pockets of the South African taxpayer. They are overseas at present, but I hope in their last will they will remember South Africa. As regards the gold mining industry, that industry as a whole has trebled the original capital invested in it. One certain small mine paid out on 600 £1 shares, in a period of five or seven years, in dividends alone over £1,000. We do not know the dividends that were paid out by the mining industry in this country. Personally, I am very strongly in favour of the nationalization of mineral wealth of any country, especially South Africa, for the benefit of the people of South Africa; but unluckily we have gone the other way. I must congratulate the present Government on the fact that they have started to get something out of the new mines that have been opened up in this country.

What about the nationalization of land?

There is a vast difference between the land and the mineral wealth, and there is also a difference of principle between nationalizing the land and nationalizing mineral wealth.

What is the difference?

I hope members of the Opposition will make a study of these things, and will not unnecessarily ask too many questions. By all the questions they put when speakers on this side of the House rise to speak, they only show their lack of knowledge and lack of efficiency to govern the country. This also was the advised opinion of the electorate of this country last year. I don’t want to detain the House much longer, but I would like to put this to the Minister of Finance, that he should apply the principle of tapping the temporary sources of taxation to the fullest extent.

Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

If the goose is old enough and cannot live any longer kill it before it dies. The temporary sources of taxation, like diamonds and gold, will not be here for ever.

Kill them.

I would sooner kill an industry that is willing to strangle the whole country than for the country to be killed by that industry. I notice there has been a desire to secede expressed by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). I would like to put their minds at rest on this point. They need not worry about that, because I have it on the very best authority that the electorates of Illovo and Umvoti have decided to secede from these two members. I would like to read a copy of political morality to hon. members opposite.

Give us something of your own.

It may be something of my own. I have tried to find something original in the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), but have never found anything worth while. The first principle of political morality is “be fair in your criticism,” the second “be honest,” the third “be constructive in your criticism.”

Be consistent.

Consistency I never try to find in the Opposition. Another point is “avoid personalities.”

Address that to your leader.

My honoured leader criticized the actions, the words and the speeches of a member of this House, but he never criticized that member because he is J. C. Smuts.

Nonsense.

I put that point to the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager)—“be honest in your criticism.” Another point in this code of political morality is “criticize principles first, but if the principles are unassailable, then attack the details.” According to what I have heard from these members the present Government must be unassailable, because they never attack a single principle, but only worry about the small details. Lastly, “don’t mislead the public.” Another point has been sent to me, and it is the last, “be sportsmen in your defeat.”

It has been truly said that the ability to find work for the people is the real test of government. On that principle the general election was fought, the late Government was defeated, and members received a mandate to deal with unemployment. The present Government and the Minister of Labour have done a great deal in the way of providing employment by relief work and by preparing people to go on the land. The Government has also done what it could in its own services, and no less than 9,000 white men have been taken on by the railway department alone since the present Government came into power. But excellent as this is, our economic position is so bad, that unless something really drastic is done, we cannot hope to cope with unemployment. The Government has shown a disposition to foster industries by means of tariff alterations. Many of my friends consider these proposals are excellent, but speaking for myself it appears to me that the tariff is only what the hon. member for Kroonstad would describe as “a friendly gesture towards protection.” We want something more definite than friendly gestures if we are to solve our economic troubles and keep abreast of the probable trend of affairs in this country. Twenty years is quite a short time in the history of a nation, but we are informed by experts that during the next twenty years the gold mines upon which South Africa has depended for the past thirty years will be almost completely worked out. It is certain that in ten years several mines will have closed down, and unless something drastic is done without delay, not only to deal with the ever-increasing rural unemployed, but also with the fifty thousand white men at present directly and indirectly employed on the mines, our position will be very critical indeed. The Government should, in my opinion, follow the example of Australia, which assisted the transition from mining to agriculture by a strong protective policy. Unemployment in this country has become a habit, and portions of the public and many politicians have become so accustomed to it that they have grown indifferent and absolutely callous on the subject. I hope this indifference is only due to ignorance of the true state of affairs. Therefore, I will remind the House that of the 18,000 boys who will leave school this year employment will be found for only half that number, and of these many will take the place of inefficient and elderly men so that the unemployment question will not be much affected. But 9,000 lads will certainly be cast on the streets without the possibility of learning a trade or profession, for the years in which they can serve an apprenticeship will be slipping away. No one supports more heartily than myself education, but it seems to me the negation of statesmanship to educate 9,000 boys every year and then turn them on the streets instead of giving them opportunities to exercise that education. The present Government has shown a great willingness to assist the mass of the people to better its condition, but, although wages boards and minimum wage boards are no doubt very excellent for men in employment, they do not in any way assist those who are not. If we are to provide work and meet the desperate unemployment condition of this country, in my opinion, the only way is to have a real tariff wall like they have in the United. States. Some members, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), hold the opinion that industries should be left to take their chance, and that we should buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest market. With that view I totally disagree. If this policy were adopted, when the mines close down we shall, as things are going at present, have to depend entirely on agriculture with a small coastal population made up of forwarding agents and importers. To make such a policy feasible we would have to possess a pre-eminently agricultural country. But there is an apparent fatal obstacle to this, in that either our farmers do not know their jobs or that South Africa is not really such an agricultural country that it can, without other industries maintain even the small white population we now have. To prove our position as an agricultural country I will give a comparison between this country and New Zealand, which besides being an agricultural country has also built up industries by a strong protective tariff. South Africa is 8,000 miles nearer the European markets than New Zealand, its area is eight times larger than that of New Zealand, and its population, including natives, is six times larger than New Zealand. Here are some figures showing the exports of the two countries for the latest obtainable year: Butter: New Zealand, £10,000,000; South Africa. £34,000. Cheese: New Zealand, £6,500,000; South Africa, £6,000. Mutton and lamb: New Zealand, £8,000,000; South Africa, nil. Wool: New Zealand, £14,000,000; South Africa, £12,500,000. Thus in one year in these few products of the land New Zealand’s exports show an excess over those of South Africa of no less than £25,000,000. I do not quote these figures in disparagement of our country or our farmers, but we must look facts in the face and I wish to prove my contention that this country cannot exist by agriculture alone. Therefore, if I prove my contention we must consider some other way of fostering adjuncts to our national welfare, I would urge that agriculture and other industries should progress hand in hand. Pome Jeremiahs say that this country can never progress industrially, especially on a white basis. I would remind such of the excellent dictum of John Stuart Mill—

Now, will anyone say that this will not apply to South Africa? Experience shows that the growth of countries and manufactures mainly depends on the exploitation of coal resources. We know we have coal in this country second to none, and if only half that is claimed for our iron and other minerals be true we have an immense field of industry before us. An expert was quoted the other day as having said that with our resources pig-iron could be manufactured in this country for 17s. 6d. per ton, which is considerably less than in England. We have the great natural advantage that good coal can be mined in South Africa at 4s. 11d. a ton as against 6s. 1d. in U.S.A., 9s. in England, and 11s. 5d. in Canada. If these countries can be so successful industrially, notwithstanding the comparatively high cost of their coal, there is no reason why South Africa should not progress in the industrial field if given an opportunity. We have had a short experience of protection in South Africa. During the war it was impossible to import goods and that afforded perfect protection. Right through the country industries sprung up, particularly in the engineering line, and they were rapidly making good. If a protective tariff had been imposed then, or before we were submerged with goods from countries with deflated currencies and where wages were low, our local engineering works would have been on a sound basis to-day, and there would have been sufficient competition to keep prices at a fair level. On the last night of this budget debate I am not going to argue the pros and cons of protection, but I will claim that where-ever it has been tried it has been successful. I do not know any country that has enjoyed Protection that has ever gone back from it. Australia is an example. The different colonies tried different systems, some free-trade and some protectionist, but the whole country is now strongly Protectionist and is going forward by leaps and bounds in consequence. There is not the slightest doubt that Australia’s success is largely due to protection. Mr. Bruce, the Commonwealth’s. Prime Minister, who was originally a free-trader, belonging as he did to an importing firm (he was in the same line of business as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)) said recently that there was not one free-trader left in Australia. Having this experience before us I think this House would be lacking in its duty to the country, and to those who come after us, if it did not immediately embark upon a policy of protection. Only by this means can we give employment and preserve the comparatively high standard of living that we have here to-day. I say emphatically that if industries cannot prosper without men, women and children being sweated, or without bringing in their train the evils of the old world, we had better be without them. Coming to the details of the tariff, on behalf of the occupants of these benches I am delighted to find that the tariff introduces more human principles into the business of this country than heretofore. This is the first time industries will get assistance from the Government on the basis of their labour conditions. Industrialists are being made to see that if they get State assistance through the tariff they must give a quid pro quo in the shape of good labour conditions, and must further restrict themselves to fair selling prices for their products. This will I hope have a very good moral effect as it will warn exploiters of cheap labour that they can expect no assistance from Government until they change their methods. The only serious objection I have to the tariff is that it does not go far enough. It seems to me to be very much like giving a sick man who requires an ounce of castor oil to cure him, a few drops which would only make him sicker. The tariff, as proposed, is not really a protective tariff, and will sicken people who have to pay extra duties without fostering industries. I could quote many instances to prove my contention, but at this late hour will let one suffice. We have it stated that the duty on imported motor chasses is going to be reduced in order to encourage the body building industry. The 10 per cent. proposed will not have that effect. It will have this effect: It will deprive the revenue of the tax on a lot of chasses which are now brought in for omnibuses, and which have the bodies built here because they are difficult to ship on account of their size and the specifications are so varied. If the hon. Minister will take my suggestion he will adopt the same attitude as Australia has done in this matter. In Australia there is a duty of from £40 to £75, of 40 per cent. to 55 per cent. on all motor bodies. This had the effect that immediately it was put on it started the motor body industry. I understand the Ford Company said they could not compete from America with a tax of that kind, and they started branches in Australia to make bodies, and other companies are following suit. I want to see similar action here. In this country each year we import about 12,000 motor cars. If it is agreed that motor car bodies all round are worth £100 each then by doing as I suggest we should soon be spending at least £1,000,000 in European wages and in the maintenance of skilled workmen and their families. I am going to prove my contention that the tax suggested will not encourage motor car body building in the near future by quoting from the official reasons for the changes in the tariff—

That is exactly my case, and I would ask the Minister what is the use of asking a man who is out of employment, probably with his wife and children starving, to wait for several years while the tariff takes effect? If we are going to have a customs tariff for protective purposes let us have it, and let us have it so strong that it will do some good to us. I am rather in a dilemma as to why all the bother has been made inside and outside the House about imperial preference. As far as I can understand the subject there is not one line of industry in which Great Britain cannot get preference by negotiation. In some lines it is true preference has been taken off, but in other cases it has been raised from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. It is due I understand to suggestions from the British Board of Trade that the preference has been adjusted on scientific lines. Formerly preference was broadcasted and articles which did not require preference got it and others which badly required it were not getting sufficient. In order to meet this, preference has now been removed from lines not requiring it and increased on some of the others. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) speaking on the subject the other day in the House said preference did not benefit the British manufacturer. He said the only difference made by the removal of 3 per cent. preference was a small increase in the cost of articles which previously had preference, something like 7½d. in the £. Mr. H. Burton, who is regarded as a financial authority by the other side, had also said that the matter was of little importance to the British manufacturer. At the Economic Conference Mr. Burton said—

That is begging the whole question.

Then there is another authority which regards preference as of small real importance. The “Round Table,” a responsible magazine speaking of Australia,

says—

Hon. members will note that Australians can do as they please without anyone suggesting any want of loyalty or proper sentiment on their parts, but so soon as an alteration is proposed in this country gentlemen on the other side of the House impute motives and raise the question of racialism. The other side had amongst other things argued that Great Britain should get preference here because we raised our loans there, but that seems to me a poor argument as we pay interest for what facilities we get. I cannot support preference for the reasons given by the Opposition, but I cordially agree that if any country gets preference it should be Great Britain. I come to this opinion because I remember that Great Britain gave the Transvaal responsible government even when some of the gentlemen opposite were agitating for the suspension of the Cape Colony’s constitution; because I believe if the necessity arose we could have the powerful protection of the British Navy, and finally because British employers treat their workpeople better than the majority of their competitors do. But I would give a greater preference to our own children, and in order that they may be employed and assist to build up a strong and happy nation in South Africa I appeal to the Government to introduce a thoroughly protective tariff with the least possible delay.

I am glad to hear a member of the Labour party pleading that Imperial preference should remain unaltered. I should like to devote my attention, during this speech, entirely to this matter, and I do this because I consider the proposed alterations in the basis of Imperial preference by far the most far-reaching principle which is brought forward in the new budget. I think this principle which the Government now seeks to establish of a new quid pro quo basis is one we should view with the very gravest consideration, because Imperial preference, as I see it, goes much deeper than has been shown by the discussion in this House. I would first like to draw the attention of the House to the real facts underlying the adoption of preference by the Empire. The sentiments which led to its adoption have been touched upon by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who read extracts from the speeches made by British statesmen at the Ottawa Conference: but I want to come to the crystallization of the matter by reading the resolution passed at Ottawa in 1894 after all the speeches had been made, because this goes to the root of the whole matter. It may be taken for granted that the resolutions which were adopted set forth clearly the matter of the speeches, and explains what the real reason for Imperial preference was. There was then no thought of a quid pro quo policy, no scientific tariff was dreamt of. But the principle enshrined in these resolutions is as satisfactory to South Africa and the Empire to-day as it was when first discussed at Ottawa. This is the resolution which was adopted at Ottawa in 1894, which crystallized the whole Policy of Imperial preference—

That is the genesis of Imperial preference and the Minister in bringing forward his proposals is repudiating the principle contained in those resolutions. Here are definitely laid down by the dominion statesmen of that day the guiding principles for which Imperial preference was first to be started—not merely for the purposes of trade, not merely in order that there should be a quid pro quo policy, but in order to draw closer the bonds of Empire. That is the whole principle underlying it. Trade was only a means to an end. The end sought was to draw closer the bonds. It was a political aim. I will argue the economic side for the benefit of the Minister later. Let us be clear that Imperial preference was political in its inception, not economic, and that the whole of the Empire meeting together at Ottawa and adopting this principle did so entirely on political grounds. There was no difference in principle between the adoption of this resolution at Ottawa and the adoption of a customs convention here in South Africa. The South African Customs Convention was political in its purpose. Its object was to lead to a closer union of the four States preparatory to Union and the inspiration of imperial preference had a similar object in view. The idea of that customs convention was to have free trade within the whole of South Africa, in the States of South Africa, and the whole conception of imperial preference was to have free trade in those particular commodities which did no damage to any one party within the Empire. May I take this a little further? Why is this political conception necessary in our imperial preference here in South Africa? It seems to me that people who talk about their being South Africans, who are always talking about “South Africa first,” are placing South Africa last. They cannot see beyond their own back door. South Africa is only a very small portion of a vast continent, and this vast continent is going to have an immense and an incalculable effect upon our future, and in thinking only of “South Africa first” we are apt to forget that we are not merely an island situated somewhere in the middle of the Indian Ocean with no contact with the interior. Africa is largely a British colony. British capital in its millions is pouring into those countries, and development is going on at so rapid a rate that few in this House keep pace with it. The whole face of Africa is changed, and in those states beyond our frontiers lies the future trade of South Africa. Those countries are going to buy the manufactured goods which we manufacture in South Africa, and if South Africa is going to have any existence whatever it is going to have its existence by obtaining and retaining those markets in the future. We have to court those markets, fight for them, and the best way to do it is to draw closer the bonds of friendship with the country developing those states. The political side of it is simply this, that we, no matter what we may do, cannot cut ourselves adrift from Africa, from the developing Africa, and if we think merely on peninsular lines that is the worst service we are doing South Africa. Now let us take the economic aspect. What is imperial preference? One would imagine from all the arguments that it was something which we gave to England. It is, in fact, protection for the production of those particular commodities in South Africa which have preference in England. It is protection for our own goods. An excellent illustration of this is afforded by no less an authority than the chairman of the Board of Trade, Mr. Bruwer in his thesis. He states in this book: That imperial preference was first given in 1813 to Cape wine—

This was the result of a petition from the wine growers. Preference was given. The writer proceeds—

Thus, says Mr. Bruwer—

That is the effect of the preference on South Africa as far as that product is concerned. Now let us take it on its present footing. I wonder how the Minister regarded the adoption of the Economic Conference proposals by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England as announced in the budget speech to-day. Surely he must feel rather sore at the fact that we had gone out of our way to tell them that we are not going to stand this when they come forward and give us £400,000—

No, we made allowance for it in these proposals.

I very much doubt it. I doubt if this year’s production has been adequately considered. The policy the Government is going to follow is dictated by the chairman of the Board of Trade. I would say this to the Minister, I have read Mr. Bruwer’s thesis very carefully. The Minister, if he has read it with an unbiassed mind must know that it was written with One aim and one object, and that the whole idea of the man who wrote this book was that the trade of England had been to the detriment of South African development. The tragedy of British trade relations with South Africa is the whole thesis of the book. The book is open for the whole world to read. From start to finish it is one long indictment of imperial preference, and it is written with that object in view. The Government has adopted that view. The political object, the future of South Africa, is never considered. All is weighed in a crude economic scale. The difference between the value of preference is weighed by the amount of customs rebate made in England and made in South Africa; that is how the balance is weighed. Well, cannot the Minister see that it is our own fault if that balance is not there on our side, that this preference given to the production of our own commodities is something we could have earned had we produced those commodities. The Minister smiles; I am surprised that he should smile at such a simple fact as that, and I am beginning to fear for the future if he regards things in this way.

He is rather a child in finance.

I will give the Minister a simple example. Take, for instance, the industry which I represent in this House, that is, sugar. It is an industry of great importance to South Africa. Supposing as the result of this preference that the sugar industry receives an enormous impetus, as it has done, and supposing we produced 100,000 tons of sugar for export. What happens to the balance then?

We give it to them.

But they have made it possible by offering us this protection in advance. They give it to us in order to encourage our industries first. Let me contrast the attitude we are taking—the very mean-spirited action in my view, which certainly is not in the interests of South Africa or for the benefit of its interests—with something that the Colonial Secretary said in England a short time ago at a dinner given by the Empire Producers’ Association. Let me read a few remarks of his, but before I do so let us just remember this, that the British Government went to a general election over this very question. They were willing to face the whole electorate and fight a strenuous campaign in order to give us that protection. The Minister has fought no campaign at all for his view. Is it not monstrous that any high-spirited people should turn round and take up the petty attitude proposed by the Government? This is what the Colonial Secretary said—

It will be noted that the Empire is stressed light through.

We are working for the benefit of South Africa.

South Africa? You have forgotten it in seeking to carry out these proposals. And Empire co-operation was put in the very forefront of his policy by a statesman who is to-day Prime Minister of this country. So definite and clear was his declaration on that issue that I hope I may be pardoned if I read an extract from his election manifesto on the point—

That is the speech of Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister of England. The policy of the British Government is to encourage the development of this Empire trade and with it the development of South Africa. That is what I am concerned with, the development of South Africa. All that is asked in Empire preference is that the commodities that you produce shall be produced and sold in those markets where you have a preference, and you shall reap the benefit by getting protection in that country. What will be the result of the 10s. a cwt on dried fruits?

The more they give the more we will give them.

You want to take all you can get and give nothing in return.

Your balance will soon be completely wiped out, and when the balance is on the other side is England then to follow our example? The Colonial Secretary goes on—

He goes on—

It is not only in trade preference that we gain an advantage. We gain a great advantage through British organization. I wonder how the Minister will proceed to negotiate his trade treaties with foreign powers? Will he not use the British consular service at the expense of Great Britain, or are we going to have a special vote for consular services all over the world. To help us the British Government has established an economic committee in London. Is not that one of the things done to foster the development of South Africa equally with any other part of the Empire? These are the Colonial Secretary’s words—

The Colonial Secretary in his speech said he would explore every avenue towards imperial preference. He wants to clear the choked channels of our trade. He wants to find markets for us for our benefit. What is our answer to all this? An economic quid pro quo founded on an artificial scale. May I say we have drawn conclusions from the trade that comes to this country from England without taking into account the trade which goes from South Africa. I suppose the Minister knows better than I do that only 15 per cent. of our products go to foreign countries. The remainder go to the British Empire or to ship stores.

How much goes to foreign countries via England.

Your statistics do not show it, but is that anything? The Minister will not surely argue that that is undesirable. I want to deal with this Board of Trade report which I have here. Is it upon this that you have founded the Government’s policy? Is it a fair question to ask whether the Government’s policy has been dictated by this document? I ask the House to consider it. We will ignore the first two chapters which are merely academical, and come to section No. 3, which sets forth the preference proposals of the economic conference. After showing the amount of preference we were to get for those particular commodities the report goes on—

What an argument? The overseas portion of the Empire has £42,500,000 of leeway to make up, and we are told the preference is restricted in scope. What is the object of preference? It is to give us more of that £55,000,000 than the £12,500,000, and this is quoted in the report as though it were a reason for a better arrangement than the existing one. Here is the British Government doing its best to give us the preferences to capture these markets. The preference gives us the opportunity of getting it. It gives investors a guarantee that they may safely invest their money in preference industries to the benefit of South Africa. Does the Minister believe that Great Britain would buy sugar from Cuba if she could get it cheaper from South Africa?

I do not suppose she would buy in South Africa if she could buy cheaper from Cuba.

But they get their sugar cheaper from South Africa than from Cuba. England gives South African sugar a preference of £4 10s. a ton over Cuban sugar. That ensures the market for as much sugar as South Africa can produce. We only get £3 10s. a ton protection in South Africa against £4 10s. in England. Surely that is something we ought to cling to. In the sugar industry you have the biggest agricultural industry in the country, and one which is going to grow enormously. There is no reason why it should not be producing six times as much as it is at present, and instead of producing £5,000,000 of wealth a year, it should be producing 20 or 30 millions. The preference gives that possibility. The preference is the very thing to make it possible, because without that preference there would be no sugar export at all from South Africa—Cuba would kill us. You could not possibly compete against Cuba in the matter. That £4 10s. a ton for ten years is a guarantee to all who care to install machinery and develop the land. It is protection in its best form without placing any burden on South Africa. Then let us take paragraph 4. The Board of Trade points out in paragraph 4 that the preference is subject to these defects—

I have shown the Minister what that balance between the two, weighed in that manner, can easily produce, if we produce sufficient preference articles. So that the quid pro quo is obtained merely by our producing more of those preference articles.

That would be taken into consideration.

Let us take the next thing. (b) states—

Now surely, if the balance of preference is a present to England the money remains there and the abolition of preference cannot lessen the protection of our industries. It has been argued throughout the debate by hon. members on the other side that this preference is obtained by the British manufacturer. But the Board of Trade cannot have it both ways. The Board of Trade’s argument in section (a) is that the British manufacturer gets the benefit of the preference, but in section (c) they state that this preference is distributed between three different parties: the manufacturer in England, the importer in this country, and the consumer in the Union, in certain non-measurable proportions. So where is this £600,000 going to the British manufacturer? If it goes to the British manufacturer it cannot lessen the protection to our own industries. They have the full protection of the ordinary tariff. The Board of Trade claim, in one paragraph, that it does, and in another they repudiate it.

In your opinion, who do you think gets it?

I agree with this; but the whole argument has been that it goes to England, and that in establishing the quid pro quo we are going to keep it in this country.

If you say it does not go to England, why all the fuss about it?

Don’t be so funny. Chapter “G” goes on—

We have been told on the one hand that this all goes to England, and on the other that this is divided between the consumer and the manufacturer. If it is the latter, any money sacrificed by the Treasury is sacrificed for the people, and if the Treasury does not get it in one way it gets it in some other way. The report proceeds—

I don’t think this should figure in the report at all. It should be no part of the functions of the Board of Trade to discuss our political policy towards the world. In another chapter it is stated that Great Britain does not benefit by preference at all. Another poor argument, since the whole object of imperial preference is not to benefit Great Britain but to benefit South Africa in common with other dominions. It has been argued from the Government benches that these preference proposals are harmful to our own industries. How can that be maintained? At one moment it is argued that £600,000 is going to English manufacturers and the next that the goods will come in £600,000 cheaper to injure our industries. The Government can’t have it both ways. If the admission of preferential goods is harmful to us the only thing necessary to do is to raise the duty on the imports which injure our industries, and to allow preference to remain as it is, and then we shall have the effective protection which our industries require. I have dealt with the matter from a political and economic aspect, and I say that neither politically nor economically, do the proposals bear examination in the truest interests of South Africa. It will not stimulate our production; it has no effect whatsoever on the encouragement of our industries, and if we go on the lines advocated in the report we shall only be working against our best interests.

First let me congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down for a really honest attempt to grapple with the problems, which the country has to face, on their merits. There has been much said during the debate that should not have been said.

Especially by the Prime Minister.

How is it that one has only to get up on these benches when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) starts jumping about with one continual interruption as if he were at a public meeting? The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has certainly done his best to keep the debate on a very high level, and to deal with these tariff questions on their merits, and has tried to prove that the proposals contained in the report and the arguments contained in it are on political and economic grounds unsound. But he talks as if we did not realize the value of preference to Great Britain, and as if there were some proposal to do away with that preference. The Minister of Finance has said nothing to show that we do not realize the advantage of the preference of £4 10s. a ton which Great Britain grants South African sugar as against the sugar from Cuba. But South Africa is giving Great Britain a preference in return.

Very little.

The hon. member talks as though we were going to do away with that. Let me emphasize this point. The hon. member referred to proposals in the British Parliament reported in to-day’s papers as to preferential treatment which Great Britain is going to give to the dominions. This Government will be pleased to know that. There is nothing in these proposals which will not enable us to give an equal amount in return to Great Britain for what she gives us. In the Board of Trade report it is shown that we give one-third more to Great Britain on the preference question than Great Britain gives to us, but with these new proposals of Great Britain we shall be a long way behind.

Oh no; I took those into account. We were told what they were going to be.

We have made provision up to £300,000. If these things which Great Britain has been discussing had been taken into account there is no reason why we should not extend it and take a great deal more. We realize the necessity and advantage of trade between the dominions and Great Britain, and do you mean to say that we are going to be blind to the interests of South Africa, and to jeopardize them in our very best markets? The idea is to do nothing which will jeopardize the trade of South Africa with our best customer as compared with other countries. No proposal has been put forward which will put the interests of South Africa in the background in its relations to Great Britain, the dominions and other countries. The main reason that I rose to speak, however, was to register a protest against the personal attacks which have been made on those South Africans who are responsible for drawing up the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is a fair-minded man, and we can disagree with the conclusions which the Board of Trade has arrived at. We can disagree with the reason which prompted them to arrive at these conclusions, but I think it was most unworthy and most uncalled for and most unjustifiable for the late Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Standerton, to try and discredit the report by referring in offensive terms to, and sneering at, the Board.

Not the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. Reitz).

Yes, the right hon. member for Standerton and also the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, but we can expect it from him. Both have sneeringly referred to the Board as the kindergarten.

Is that term offensive?

Yes. Even the member for Standerton was a young man once. He attained a high and responsible position and it ill becomes him to refer to these two young South Africans who have qualified in economics and have obtained their degrees in other parts of the world and are now serving the best interests of this country; it ill becomes any hon. member to sneer at these two young South Africans. I wish the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) would please keep quiet and not keep on talking. One would have thought a son of South Africa, as the right hon. member for Standerton claims to be, would have got up in this House and would have said a word of appreciation for the work that has been involved in producing this report even though he disagreed with the proposals. This report is a monument of industry and an honest endeavour to deal with the fiscal question in the best interests of this country. It is the first time in the history of South Africa that a report has been presented to Parliament which deals fully and in a comprehensive way—and we claim in a scientific and organized way—with the fiscal policy, with each section dovetailed into the other in such a way as to calculate that they will have the best effect in every way in promoting the best interest and the social and economic well being of this country. I challenge anybody to say when a report of this description has ever before been presented in this country. It has always been funked before. I don’t know of a Government which has had the courage to deal with this complex and difficult question of fiscal policy in all its aspects, in all its phases, item by item, hundreds of them—no, there is not a Government which has had the courage to come to Parliament and: to say “there is a fiscal policy that is calculated to serve the best interests of South Africa.” This is the first time, and all credit is due to these South Africans who have put their proved ability into this work—they are entitled to something more from the late Prime Minister than reference to their youth and the calling of their work “kindergarten.” It is, I feel, the most deplorable thing that has been said during this debate. These men are not on the floor of this House to protect themselves. These two young South Africans are on the threshold of their career.

What about Mr. Freemantle?

I was leaving him out, although he is a very able man. However, we have these two young men who have gained honours and diplomas in other parts of the world—the hon. member for Rondebosch can sneer—they are on the threshold of their career and are entitled to something more.

I was not sneering.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is sneering now.

I was only saying that they had started at the top.

The hon. member for Yeoville has been described as a coming man in South Africa. He has been coming for 30 years.

I did not get such an auspicious start.

This tariff is not only framed for the raising of revenue but for protecting industries, and will promote industrial development in South Africa. It has been designed in order to see that the industries that are developed, on sound, social and economic conditions as far as labour is concerned. It is also designed to see that no protection is given to industry in order to help it to hold its own if it is being used as a lever to extract undue prices from the consumer in South Africa. Therefore, you have four essential and necessary features in the recommendations of this report.

And protection for the foreigner.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has started again.

I am providing the fourth argument for you.

The hon. member seems to make more speeches sitting down than he does on his feet. How is it going to be achieved? What is the lever to be used to see that the consumer is protected and that the conditions of labour are as sound and fair as possible under the peculiar conditions prevailing in South Africa. By means of the two line tariff, the maximum and the minimum tariff—those industries which play the game with regard to the employment of civilized labour will have the benefit of the maximum tariff. If any industry does not play the game in this regard then the minimum tariff may be brought into operation and it will lose that extra protection, or, if any industry which has the benefit of this protection is found charging undue prices and making undue profits on its goods, then the minimum tariff will be brought into operation. This is the first time in the history of this country that these principles have been applied, this is the first weapon which has been utilized and applied in order to promote our national development on sound, social and economic lines. In the past the tariff has been a sort of scramble, a kind of catch-as-catch-can business. We are told that these young men on the Board of Trade and Industries have had no experience of trade. I am glad of that, because I think our tariffs in the past have suffered through their having been influenced too much by men who have been interested in trade, either by the importer on the one hand or the manufacturer on the other. It will be found on page 6 of the tariff, that these young men, who have qualified at the universities on this subject, should not have been mixed up in the trade of this country. In the past, in tariff matters, no consideration was given to the interests of the consumer, if an industry that was protected was taking advantage of that protection to charge undue-prices and to make high profits at the expense of the taxpayers. In my opinion, these principles are the strongest features of the proposals which will be placed before the House when the Bill is brought forward. Hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who is a life long free trader, have said that this tariff is going to increase the cost of living. Now, as a fact, there are more duties under this tariff, being taken off the necessaries of life, than are being put on the necessaries of life. It will be found on page 6 of this tariff, that in regard to those commodities which we cannot make in this country, and which are everyday necessities, the duties have been taken off. An amount of £270,000 is being taken off the duties on necessaries. Another £100,000 is being taken off the duties on what are not necessary commodities, but which are going to help the development of South Africa by making raw material more accessible, and stimulating production and industry. Surely, that is going to count for something. What have we put on? There is an amount of £150.000 which goes on to luxuries, and then we have put on, for protection and revenue purposes, another £100.000. so that you have got £250.000 as against £400,000. That is the reduction. But hon. members opposite will say, “Yes, but you are forgetting the £600,000 preference.” I am not forgetting that, but I want hon. members opposite to say whether they are satisfied that the consumers of this country have had the benefit of that in the past. You cannot have it both ways

No, the report cannot have it either.

The report says they all get a, share. Let us take it, at £200,000. The importer gets his share, the British manufacturer gets his, and the consumer gets the benefit of £200,000; and the Treasury also has a whack at it.

Oh, dear, no.

I am not concerned as to how it is divided. Now it is all to go into the pockets of the Treasury, which I think is a good thing for South Africa. The right hon. member for Standerton said—

It is not 22 items; it is 22 heads. The Board of Trade were wrong in referring to them as items. Take one head, that of hardware. Scores and scores of articles are included under this head on which Great Britain is going to get preference. Cutlery is another item, but it is really a head. Take hosiery. Take electrical goods. Electrical appliances cover a multitude of items, such as electric irons, kettles, and other apparatus, which are imported from Germany and other countries, but Great Britain gets a preference on these goods. Thus these 22 heads cover a wide range and give Britain a good hold. These 22 heads have not been selected by South Africa; they have been selected by the British Board of Trade and Industries.

I very much doubt that.

That is very unfair—very unsportsmanlike.

I do not mind the hon. member doubting it at all. The history is this. An economic conference of which Mr. Burton was president, was held in 1923. They were considering the question of abolishing general preference, and establishing a specific preference, which these proposals do, and which the right hon. member for Standerton agreed to, and which his party agreed to. It is of no use giving preference on things on which Britain does not require preference.

What about motor cars?

That is the one exception; it will be discussed on its merits on the floor of this House. When specific preference was discussed, naturally the British Board of Trade was asked on what articles they wanted specific preference, and these 22 items, with the exception of motor cars, were the ones placed in the forefront of their requirements for preferential treatment. The hon. member can verify this out of the records or ask the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). These are the actual facts.

How do you make up £900,000, This only gives you £300,000.

To-day, the three per cent. reduction on all these goods—thousands of them—are supposed to make £900,000, which goes into the pockets of Tom, Dick and Harry We have taken off £600,000 from goods on which Britain says it is not so necessary for her to have a preference as on the other goods on which we have left the preference.

These only represent £600,000.

We have taken the £600,000 off those goods which Britain says she is best able to bear and left a preference on goods on which Britain says she needs a preference. The Government is quite willing, I am sure, in fact, I think already negotiations have been opened up, to ask Great Britain to say whether she prefers it on any other commodity. These were selected by Great Britain as the articles on which she, wanted preference.

Why not open up negotiations before you put them on?

This amendment, if not out of order, is perilously near it, for this reason: There is no Bill before the House to give effect to the proposal. The resolution we are discussing is that this House shall go into committee of supply on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the coming year, and the tariff question cannot be dealt with in detail until a Bill embodying these proposals is brought before the House. Then there will be opportunity for discussing details of this character.

You have not answered the main question.

I have answered all the sensible questions.

Are you going to treat Britain on the most favoured nation basis?

I will say that in clear, definite, categorical terms, the Prime Minister, yesterday afternoon, stated that there will be no agreement made with any other country without the dominions and Great Britain being fully consulted in advance.

That is not an answer to my question.

That is an evasion. You do not answer the question.

Will hon. members kindly allow the Minister to proceed?

I will say this to the hon. members: that Great Britain is not going to be placed at a disadvantage, so far as we are concerned, with any other country. That is as far as I am concerned, and I think, also, as far as the Government is concerned. Let me go further. Hon. members on that side of the House seem to forget entirely the most important factor in the whole situation, and that is this: Whatever treaty or arrangement is made with any country has got to come before this House and has to be passed by the Parliament of South Africa. Can you imagine that we are going to ask the House to ratify an agreement with any country which is going to be prejudicial or harmful to the interests of South Africa and the partners within the British commonwealth of nations? Might I say this—what is the good of putting in that Great Britain has to automatically have preferential treatment with other countries when she may not need it? It might be a commodity that she has no interest in. Take, for instance, the treaty Great Britain entered into with Germany on December 4 last. Article 31 laid it down that the stipulations in the treaty shall not be applicable to India, or to any of his Majesty’s dominions, colonies, possessions or protectorates unless notice is given of the desire of his Brittanic Majesty that the said stipulation shall apply to any said territory.

That is common to all treaties.

When the Bill comes before the House we shall have every opportunity of coming to grips with this particular point, and then we shall be able to deal with it as it should be dealt with, but it is not before the House now. The only reason the whole debate has centred around preference is in order that the right hon. gentleman and his friends might, by trying to exploit British sentiment, make party capital out of it. They call it a slap in the face for Great Britain. It is nothing of the kind, for this Government is on the most friendly terms with, and bears the greatest goodwill to, Great Britain and the dominions, and there is no more intention to give Great Britain a slap in the face than any other country.

Will you allow no better terms to be given to any other country?

I am going to use my influence to see that the interests of South Africa are served first, and I am going to reconcile those interests of South Africa with the interests of Great Britain and the sister dominions.

That is a pure shuffle.

Hon. members must not try to make further speeches by means of questions.

I will say it again. I am going to use my influence, as far as it goes, to see that the interests of South Africa are first safeguarded, and I can do that and I can reconcile those interests with the interests of Great Britain and the sister dominions.

Are you going to say that no foreign country will get fairer treatment than Great Britain?

You are shuffling.

That is not a shuffle.

It is an egg dance.

This debate has been centred round this question in order to try and discredit the Pact in the eyes of the British people and in the eyes of the people of South Africa, My hon. friend, the member for Krugersdorp (The Rev. Mr. Hattingh) asked hon. members to be sportsmen.

We are, but we don’t believe in shuffling.

And we want an honest answer to a straight question.

When the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and his party were defeated I would have thought they were big enough to take their defeat in a sportsmanlike way. The right hon. member for Standerton, the late Prime Minister has cut a very sorry figure in this House.

So have you in the house of bondage.

That was proved by the fact that as soon as he was out of office he started going through the country as a sort of peripatetic politician making petulant speeches. He went round the country in a petulant manner, stating that there was a split in the camp between Labour and Nationalists, a rift in the lute. He goes to the country and says the Labour party is running the National party into Socialism, and then he goes to the towns and tells them that the Nationalist Party is running the Labour party into Republicanism. He tried to get the people to believe these things happened. But the people took no notice of this childish chatter. When the hon. member for Standerton saw the country was taking no notice of his chatter he started a dangerous game. He tried to start the secession issue; he tried to set the Dutch against the English and then the Dutch against each other.

“You are spoiling your speech,” and “What about the Prime Minister yesterday?”

The most heinous crime of all, for party political purposes in order to get back into office, is that he is now starting to stir up trouble between the black and the white. That is the record of a man who calls himself a son of South Africa. I say that if we are going on, on these lines, it is going to be a sorry and a, sad and a disastrous day, not only for the blacks but for the white people in this country.

The hon. Minister does not give a single item of proof.

The hon. member talks more than anybody else. I don’t think he even stops when he is asleep and when he talks he puts other people to sleep. Whatever my sins are in this House, they cannot accuse me Of taking up the time of this House. This is only the third time I have spoken in this House this session.

Will you give us a single item of proof?

The hon. member (Mr. Pavn) represents a large number of black men, and it is up to him, if he has the welfare of South Africa, black and white, at heart, to give a word of warning to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and ask him to desist from this policy, which, if not actually inciting the blacks against the whites, goes perilously near it, I do say this, whether members are on that side or on this, whether they are in office or in opposition, they have got an equal responsibility for the peace, the prosperity, the welfare, and the development of South Africa. Let us discuss these questions on their merits, leaving aside the native question, the racial question, the British sentiment and flag-wagging questions. Let our one aim and object be to put the interests of South Africa first and promote the economic and political well-being of the people of this country.

I listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He criticized this budget on its merits, and I did not notice in his speech that there was a trace of race hatred. He never tries to sow division or to stir up passions. I have always had a great respect for him, but I want to say that the speech which he made had increased my opinion of him. I am sorry that his leader, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), did not follow his example. He did everything in his power to stir up race hatred and to insinuate, as he did at Worcester, that there was something in the background and that it is secession which lurks behind these proposals. I always hoped that he had some feeling left for the people who made him what he is. I think of the second war of independence when he stood faithfully at his side and gave him a hand in becoming a great man, which he still is in the eyes of some people. But after his misrepresentations and after this budget speech my respect for him has vanished. We have heard the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) say that he always stood by our people. We want to give him all the honour for what he has done in the past, but where did he stand yesterday when he raked up forgotten history. I am very sorry that he did not follow the example of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). I do not wish, however, to follow the example of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). I want to look at the budget as a farmer and I want to state how I regard it as a farmer. But before I do so I want to add in connection with the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister about secession that I fully agree with it as an old republican who has a feeling for independence. I know that the Opposition have tried to make use of it to bring about division. Not between us and the Labour party, but inside the Nationalist party. They will not succeed. We stand by the Prime Minister and fully approve what he said. We are very thankful for and satisfied with the budget which it has put before the House. The country has learned with great pleasure that an end has come to the large deficits of the past. We have in the last few years seen how the deficits have mounted up and how the burdens on the people have been increased. We have also felt how the taxation year after year has pressed us down. As a result of those deficits many of our citizens have gone bankrupt and they are no longer an asset to the country. They have become poor whites. It is the duty of the State to look after them and to make them citizens of the State once more. If it had not been that the previous Government followed its wrong financial policy then they would not have been there. I say, therefore, that the people will be very glad that the Government has made an end of them and that the Minister of Finance will show a surplus and has said that he wants to pay off the accumulated deficits. It was a very wrong financial policy which the former Minister followed of continually borrowing money to meet current expenditure. If a farmer wants to carry on farming and he has year after year to borrow money to pay his interest, then the end will he that he will go insolvent. If we go on longer in the way of the past two years, then I am sorry for the taxpayer. The policy of the former Government to continually increase deficits and to borrow money, as has been made clear by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar), was unfair to the country and an offence against posterity. It is our duty to see that there is enough income to meet the expenditure. I want to take the opportunity this evening of thanking the Minister of Finance for the reduction of taxes that he proposes, especially with regard to the tax on increase of stock. We know that the farmers protested against it and against the introduction of the Van Hulsteyn report. Finally they have been released from it. We made that promise to our voters during the election, and I am glad that the Minister has stood by that promise. Then I want to say a few words about another tax, namely, the estate duty. I think that the farming population of the country are the section that give an example of hard work and economical living. That we know by experience. Everyone who has seen farm life know that the ideal of every farmer is to accumulate as much as possible and to put it away for his children. That estate duty of the previous Government contributed very largely to reducing that desire for saving. I say that the exemption of estates up to £7,500 particularly will be accepted with gratitude by the farmers. I only wish to say that as I read the proposal of the Minister, every farmer who possesses more than £7,500 will have to pay on the whole amount without deduction of the £7,500. If a farmer, for instance possesses £15,000 then he will have to pay on the £15,000 without the £7,500 being first deducted, I think that the £7,500 should, in each case, be deducted. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this point and meet the farmers. I am not a man that deals much with figures. I just count my sheep and cattle and when I look at all the figures of the budget then I must say I become a little scared when I see that, excluding the railway expenditure, we are going to pay out more than £26,000,000. It seems to me a very large sum for a country with such a small white population. If we go more into detail then I see that we are going to pay £8,000,000 for salaries, that is excluding the railways. I do not know, but it seems to me a large sum for salaries of officials. I do not know what the Government is going to do, whether there is any room for economy, but to me, as a farmer, the item on the budget looks very large. I think that if the Minister will apply himself to it that there is still much room for economy. To mention one thing, cost of transport, costs of maintenance and those sort of things. Thousands and thousands of pounds are put on the estimates therefor. Some time ago the hon. Minister of Agriculture dismissed certain officials whom he regarded as redundant. £30,000 was saved by reorganization in the sheep division. I congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister in his choice of Minister of Agriculture and can give the assurance that the country is noticing the attempts at economy and appreciates them. While I am talking about the Minister of Agriculture I just want to say that as for the farmers, we are very well satisfied so far with the Minister of Agriculture. We have the feeling that he being a practical farmer with experience will make a success of the department of agriculture. And as to scab, I can give him the assurance that he must not bother himself about the tittle tattle of other people. Our farmers are behind him and he must just go on reorganizing and economizing. Not only the farmers of the Nationalist party are behind the Minister in so far as the extermination of scab is concerned, but also the farmers of the South African party. In my constituency, I see the Minister of Defence has saved £83,000 by reorganization. We appreciate it that Ministers are out to economize. I think there are yet many openings for it. I think that the watchword of the Government should be reorganization and economy. I do not agree with the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) that it does not matter that the expenditure is greater than the income so long as we have assets to show for it. I am not against expenditure if the money is used for the development of the resources of the country, but at the same time we ought not and dare not make our expenditure greater than our income. I know the hon. Minister of Finance has a very difficult task, a more difficult task than any Minister has had for a long time, because what position did he find things in when he came into office? The task is, therefore, difficult, but we expect from him that he will economize as much as possible. I come again to the matter of salaries. The sum of £8,000,000 appears large to me. Take vote 7 on the estimates. I see there a salary of £4,000 for a man, and I see that the secretary gets £1,300. I ask if that is not too much. A farmer who works hard and lives economically, is thankful if he, at the end of his life, has saved £5,000. What must the farmer think when he sees that a secretary gets a salary of £1,300 a year? I ask if this is not too much, whether there is a man whose brain is worth £4,000? I do not say that the Government must reduce the salaries generally, but I think that there are salaries that are too large. Take, vote No. 7. I see there is an increase of allowances for loss of office through reorganization for purposes of economy, and for that, no less than £363,000 is spent.

I think that these are matters which the hon. member can better deal with in committee.

Yes, if that is your decision I will abide by it. But I think that I am in order in referring to these things. Over £300,000 is paid to officials for reorganization owing to economies. Further, I see that £2,208,000 is paid for pensions. That is £350,000 more than the previous year. I think that the officials who draw large salaries are very happy, but I ask where does the tax payer come in? An hon. member has spoken about old age pensions. I was for a few years in the Provincial Council and on the Executive Committee and my experience is that commissions are appointed to retrench. They come and recommend that certain officials are redundant and should be put on pension. A few months later a head of a department comes and says that he cannot get on without more officials. Accordingly, others are appointed, and if you go on in this way, then our whole population will, in the end, be drawing pensions. Who is going to pay for it?

The farmer.

I wish there were more farmers on the other side of the House. Because then the finger would have been placed long ago on the weak spots and we should not have had the position we have to-day. Take the vote of the public service commission. I see that the chairman gets a salary of £1,940 and the secretary £1,260 per annum. I think that this is too bad. The public service commission was appointed to do justice to the population and to the officials. What is our experience? My experience is that an injustice is done to the Dutch-speaking population of South Africa.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed on 4th May.