When the House adjourned last night I was dealing with the question of dairying and allied subjects, but, before resuming the few remarks I have to make in that connection, I wish, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) was within the precincts of the House this morning to read a letter which I addressed to him yesterday—

I have seen the hon. member this morning, he admits having received this letter, and I am still without the information which I have asked for in these terms. He has probably not yet been able to prepare the list, and it is not ready for production. I can only say that if his failure to “deliver the goods” on this occasion is an index of what he is likely to do in connection with his business, we shall probably find this hon. member selling bogus sausages in a short space of time or vending fictitious beef.

Order. The hon. member must moderate his language.

I would only say that if the hon. member pays as little regard to the truth as he has evidenced in this matter, we should find him, before he has finished, pocketing problematical profits on transactions existing only in imagination, for it is only his lively imagination that has conjured into existence the list of shareholders on which my name is supposed to appear. I am glad to see that the hon.member is now in his place. I was saying that I again ask the hon. member for Liesbeek to produce the list which I have asked him by letter to be so good as to give Mr. Nicholls, the member for Zululand, to which I have received no reply beyond the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Pearce) that he has received that letter. As the hon. member is in his place, I should be glad to know if his failure to produce that list is due to the circumstance that it has not been prepared yet, or whether it is due to the fact that it is not in existence.

Don’t insinuate.

The hon. member now has an opportunity to produce the list. I will afford him an opportunity of explaining how it is that he is unable to produce it.

As a personal explanation, I would also like to ask the hon. member to state whether he got the idea from the “Cape Times” or has he invented the idea that I was receiving some money from the flotation of this company, and that he said I was to get £10,000. That is a deliberate untruth.

The hon. member must not say that any hon. member is guilty of a deliberate untruth.

I must press not only for the hon. member to withdraw that statement, but to aoplogize for it. This is not the first occasion upon which the hon. member has made objectionable statements in this House in connection with me, and I wish to ask that the rule of this House shall be enforced in this case.

I ask the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) to withdraw the term “deliberate untruth.”

I am unable to do so, Mr. Speaker.

I am afraid that I shall have to ask the hon. member, unless he withdraws, to leave the Chamber.

left the Chamber.

I wish to ask the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) who has made a number of statements which are very close to the line to kindly moderate the language which he is inclined to use. Several statements have been made by the hon. member which have been very close to the line of being offensive to the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), and I must ask him to keep within the line.

In regard to the remark by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) I would remind him that I was brought to refer to this matter by the statements made by the hon. member for Liesbeek about me, not for the first time. With that I am prepared to leave the hon. member where he is. We have had, in the course of this debate, some reference to the question of the exemption limit for income tax. The Labour members have been at some pains to explain why it is they are unable to press for a higher limit to be agreed to. I would remind them of what took place in 1920, when the subject of the income tax limit was dealt with in this House. At that time Mr. Feetham, then member for Parktown, who like others of us had promised his constituents that he would press for a higher limit, moved on behalf of the Unionist party a resolution in this House for a limit of £500, which was adopted by a majority vote in opposition to the then Government. That furnished evidence of the sincerity of the hon. member for Parktown, and among those who supported him I find quite a considerable number, in fact the whole of the Labour party of that day, and I also find the present member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), the present member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten), the present member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar), and the present member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk). We have been told ad nauseam that the Labour party held the balance of power in this House. If that is true, now is their opportunity to show that their promise to their constituents to stand out for a higher figure for exemption, will be fulfilled. We had, on that occasion, the hon. number for Fordsburg, now the member for Pretoria, move that a sum of £750 be recognized as the limit for exemption. He is strangely silent to-day, although he and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) are never tired of posing to their constituents as people out for death or glory. Now is the opportunity for the strong left wing of the Labour party to show that they are men of the mettle which characterized the Labour party in 1920. or at the very least to show that they have the sincerity which animated Mr. Feetham. One point I want to ask the Minister of Finance to consider is the uncompleted obligation to the late Government in regard to grants in aid of agricultural societies, to which the late Government was committed. He has approved of a grant of £5,000 to rebuild the Benoni Trades Hall, but I wish to point out to him that there were obligations when he assumed office of a more definite and specific character which he has not recognized. The late Government had authorized certain agricultural societies, among which was the Richmond Agricultural Society of Natal, to go on with certain buildings on the promise they would receive grants in aid on the £ for £ principle. In the case of the Richmond Agricultural Society, a sum equal to £900 is due, and they are unable to get payment because of the refusal of the Treasury to authorize payment of that sum. The extension division of the Agricultural Department is doing some useful work. It is unreasonable for the Minister of Agriculture, or for the department, to expect agricultural societies to cheerfully cooperate in all these matters and to lend their halls to the extension division, when the Government does not fulfil an obligation which is long overdue. I hope the Minister of Finance in a spirit of reasonableness will reconsider this matter and let us have a favourable decision.

We have now reached that stage in the budget debate when wise members consider it more advisable to indulge in long-thinking and deliver short speeches. I am pleased the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has hurried back from Natal to make his Budget speech. He has been telling the people of his province that there is to be a general election next year, and questioned by the press on the duration of the present Parliament, he predicted a dissolution after the end of the next ordinary session. Then the hon. member broke into verse—

On a point of personal explanation, the hon. member, in quoting a remark alleged to have been made by me, turned it completely from its context. It is a remark I attributed to the Pact which he puts into my mouth, and he makes it appear as if I had made that remark. Let Him read the whole passage.

We have still a part of this afternoon left, and I do hope the hon. member will give other members an opportunity to Speak. Besides, the hon. member has a habit of repeating, in effect, almost word for word what he said in the House on other occasions, and I, for one, cannot help thinking that at some time or another the hon. member must have been vaccinated with a gramophone needle. There must be a great similarity between the budget of this year and that of last year. We find the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) also repeating himself. He again told the House and the country that the budget would increase the cost of living. The last budget introduced by the present Minister of Finance was described in the contents bill of our leading South African party papers as the—

and our friends in the Opposition took their cue, as they usually do, from the press of Cape Town, end used the slogan of—

They have taken up the same attitude in so far as their present criticism, such as it is, is concerned ; but, as the Minister of Finance has so ably pointed out, the prediction of a serious increase of prices has not been fulfilled. Prices have shown a decreasing tendency in the last twelve months, and according to the latest statistics, wholesale prices were 41 per cent, higher in April, 1925, than in April, 1926.

That is in spite of the budget.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) contended that the only result of the Government’s policy would be to increase the burdens of the people, raise the cost of living, and hamper the natural industries of the country. On the previous occasion the same hon. member said that the extra duties and taxation would be passed on and undoubtedly put up the cost of living. My friend the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) also stated that the proposals contained in the budget would increase the cost of living.

You ask your own party if the tax on food does not increase the cost of living.

At the moment I prefer to deal with anyone I choose. I am not prepared to believe that the proposals will in any way increase the living cost, I am in agreement with my colleague who has just been compelled to leave the chamber. The member for Liesbeek Mr. Pearce) informed the House yesterday that he would speak in favour of any budget, Supposing it did increase the cost of lining—if it were beneficial to the rank and file of the people of the country. I would also support any budget that provided greater employment and had the effect of bringing more money into circulation. I want to utter a word of thanks—I put it that way—to the Minister of Finance, for increasing the primary abatement of income tax. There is no doubt that this decision is being received with considerable satisfaction throughout the country ; and notwithstanding what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said, that it would not affect the people we represent on these benches. I would like to tell him that the Labour party do represent a large number of the 10,000 people whom this relief will benefit. The speech delivered by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), last night, is so much in conflict with the utterance he is reported to have made in Natal during the Easter recess that I was particularly struck with the difference of opinion expressed. When he spoke at Estcourt last Tuesday he was good enough to detail the many things he had been able to accomplish on behalf of his constituents. That is quite right. He told them he had been able to get four overhead bridges; had been responsible for introducing a mechanical road transport service between Muden and Grey-town. He had also secured a new refreshment room for the railway station at Estcourt and had been able to provide motor bicycles instead of horses for young linesmen ; and he thanked the various Government services for the assistance he had received from time to time. At Estcourt he said he was not a carping critic, but when he comes to the House he evidently is. He stated at Estcourt that he would give the Pact Government credit for all it had done. The Land Bank, said the gallant major, had enabled the Transvaal and Free State farmers to obtain advances against their mealie crop in bad seasons. He also praised the re valuation of settlers’ land, and asserted that this had solved a great difficulty, and then the gallant gentleman proceeded to say—

And yet, in the few remarks he made in the House last night, he did nothing but condemn the Pact Government, lock, stock, and barrel. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will have the opportunity of explaining why his utterances in the House are so much at variance with his statement to his constituents. On returning from my own constituency, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the large majority of the people of Natal are thoroughly satisfied with the Pact Government. There is no sadder sight than that of a man going about looking for and unable to find employment, and one of the outstanding things the Pact Government have been able to achieve is, at all events, the finding of a remedy, to some extent, at least, for this state of affairs. Unemployment cannot be entirely prevented under our present competitive system, but everything possible should be done to reduce it to the irreducible minimum. That, I contend, the Pact Government has been endeavouring to do, and the present satisfaction of the country in the Pact Government is largely due to the fact of its having been able to decrease the widespread unemployment that existed in South Africa prior to the change of Government. One need not go into details as to the large number of men taken on in the railways and other Government departments, but workers whose previous outlook was practically hopeless have been employed as linesmen in connection with telephone systems, and in many other directions. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said at Pretoria during the general election of 1924 that no Government ought to be tolerated for a day which did not honestly and sincerely grapple with the problem of providing a future for our large and growing output of boys and girls. I submit the Pact Government is gaining the support of the people of South Africa because they are doing this. I was particularly attracted by the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) regarding the question of a State bank, and how that hon. member was able to prove that the Prime Minister differed entirely—and said so during the last general election—from the Minister of Finance on this matter, and I would like to show that the Prime Minister also differs from the Minister of Railways with reference to the restoration of eight-hour day on the railways. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways should pay a little more attention to “their master’s voice.” Speaking in the Free State during the last general election, the Prime Minister made a very important utterance in view of the way in which this question has been mishandled. He said his party held that what had been laid down by the League of Nations committee with respect to the eight-hours day was perfectly right and fair. That had also been adopted by the Union Government. The Prime Minister went on to state that it all came down to this, that the eight-hour day should be enforced in all Government departments for men with continuous work and in all industries. He also said that where it was impossible to grant the eight-hour day to certain workmen, they should be compensated. I hope the Minister of Railways will give some consideration to what his leader said on that occasion. The regrettable departure from the cardinal trade union principle of each day standing by itself has been responsible for all the trouble in connection with the Government’s intention—good though it may have been—of giving the eight-hour day to the railwaymen, and I find in my own and adjoining constituency that the railwaymen, especially guards and ticket examiners, are altogether dissatisfied with the method in which the eight-hour day has been applied. So much so —

You said Natal was satisfied with the present Government.

I was speaking generally of people outside the railway. Notwithstanding the fact that I am a member of the Pact Government and intend to support them, so long as they carry on as they are doing, at the same time I reserve to myself the right to have a little family quarrel with those I support and respect. Few members of the S.A.P. were able to criticize their own Ministry when in office, but that is not the position to-day. We, however, can do so in all sincerity without in any way handicapping the progress of the Government. I was endeavouring to tell the Minister of Railways that the manner in which the Hours of Duty Committee’s report has been applied on the railway is not at all satisfactory to the men. The railwaymen in Natal and elsewhere say that unless an alteration is made, they intend at the next election to turn the Pact out of office and put the S.A.P. back. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), during his tour in the Cape Province last year, said that an increase in railway administration expenses would result from the introduction of the eight-hour day, and this would necessitate an increase in the railway tariff. I hope the railwaymen will understand what they are in for when they send the South African party back to power. The eight-hours’ day concession must be reviewed. A driver may be called out one day to do a short shift of four hours ; the next day he has a long shift taking twelve hours, and the two combined give him two complete days of eight hours each. That is altogether unfair. In the interest of good working and harmony, I hope the Minister and the Railway Board will reconsider their decision. These men are worthy of every consideration. The conditions on the railway are entirely different from what they were 20 years ago. The engines are of much greater power, but the train crew is the same. There should be no difference between the Charlie Malan, as member for Humansdorp, while sitting on the Opposition side of the House, and the Charlie Malan, as Minister of Railways, sitting on the Government side of the House. The railwaymen remember what he said when he was a private member in Opposition, and they don’t look for any change now. I should like to know what further is to be done in connection with the report of the commission appointed to inquire into shop rents. I have had information from the Transvaal that considerable advantage is being taken of the fact that the Government is not prepared to put the recommendations of that commission into operation. The tremendously high rents paid for shops must have a considerable effect on the cost of living. In a weekly paper published in Cape Town, the question is asked—

and the editor of the paper offers a prize of two guineas for the best letter on the subject. This will be a great opportunity for hon. members to suggest how the South African party should get back to power, but I am certain that the people of the country will never desire that. Whatever the Opposition may say in regard to the budget, there can be no question that the people are satisfied with the Pact Government, and intend to continue to support it.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) told the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) ( Mr. Strachan) that he should enquire of me about the unemployment problem. I am glad that the hon. member gave me a hint to speak about the problem, because I think a question of this nature should be discussed on an occasion like this. The present Government has done much to solve the problem. The department of Lands and other departments are taking steps in connection with this matter, but in everything that has been done and is being done to-day we are not yet over the difficulty. There is still a tremendous amount to do, but it is certain that the present Government is on the right way to solve the poor white question. If only we had the means of overcoming that stumbling-block. However, if matters go on as they are at present, there will in fifteen years be no poor white problem in South Africa. We shall always have poor people, but I think that the abnormal conditions will pass away. What makes it difficult for the Government is the fact that the work in past years was so shamefully neglected by the former Government. It was not only shamefully neglected, but the work that was done was patchwork, done in an entirely wrong way. The people were given trek oxen and other things in a very loose way, and the State suffered loss in consequence. The people were put on settlements, were not properly assisted, and did not receive a proper lead. What, is the position to-day ? The present Government are left with a lot of these settlements. The people on them have never made them pay, and they want the present Government to write off more and more. They want everything for nothing. I say that not only was there patchwork, but what was done was unbusinesslike, and this makes the work of the Government tremendously hard. There is certainly much to be done in the matter of agriculture to solve the poor white question. There is room for a tremendous increase in irrigation works to put more ground under water, but it will avail nothing if we have the works there and make the ground available to the people and do not give them proper assistance, guidance and supervision. If we do not see to that, we shall not achieve much. A heavy reproach rests on the poor man in South Africa, because the charge is thrown at his head that he is bad, lazy and useless. If the Afrikander has excelled in every department of science and art where he has had an opportunity, how can one believe that the poor white is useless? We do not believe it. It is true that you get many who are utter failures, but it is also true that the reason why there are so many backward people is not to be found with them, but with the State, and with other bodies and persons whose duty it was to help, and here I refer also to the Church. More ought to have been done. If the poor people get proper assistance and guidance, more could be done. I now mention a specific case where money was expended by the Union Government for main roads in the Transvaal, and my constituency was fortunate enough to get £5,000. The work was commenced by the department there with white labour at 5s. per day. Just when the work was being done on a road, the Transvaal provincial administration commenced work on a portion of the same road with native labour at 2s. 6d. per day. The statement of the road inspector and of the magistrate of Potchefstroom (who is himself in this building to-day) is that 5s. per day for white labour is more satisfactory than native labour at 2s. 6d. They said that white labour was more efficient than that of the natives, because we had a road inspector in charge who knew how to treat the people, and how to deal with white Afrikanders. The consequence is that the road commission of Potchefstroom sent the report to the provincial administration, recommending that all roads in future be constructed by white men. It has always been said: White men cannot do the same work as natives. We have heard it to excess in this House in the discussion on a civilized wage, and we have heard over and over that white labour costs too much. Where the work is done in a proper way, a white man will be worth just as much as two natives. It was proved in Potchefstroom, where piecework was done on the railways, that the white man excels just as much in his work as he has excelled in science and art. There is still much to do in connection with the problem in addition to what has already been done, but we are on right lines. The Department of Labour took over the old tenant farmers’ scheme from the late Government, and has improved on it. The Department has employed 400 people on this scheme, of whom 75 have been an entire success. We have learned that the improved tenant farmers’ scheme may possibly not yet be the right thing, but I think the Department is now well on its way. There are a further 2,000 people on relief works for whom provision must he made. We are not going to put them on farms with farmers any longer, but enable them to get farms for themselves. We lease the ground and give the man whom we place there enough to live on until the harvest, and give him an advance and, if necessary, what he requires for his farming, and we only take the produce of the harvest, tobacco, cotton or wheat, and deduct at the end of the year what he owes the State, and retain the balance and save it for him.

And when the harvest fails ?

Then he shares with us all in the adversities we have to struggle against in South Africa. All the man makes after his debt to the Government is deducted, we save and if he has sufficient after a few years and has proved that he wants to farm seriously, then we help him to get his own ground. We thik that in that way we are taking the proper course. There is such a place, at Zandspruit below Hartebeestpoort dam where, at present, there are 63 people, with room for 130. There are 1,400 morgen of irrigable land and 2,000 morgen grazing, which we obtain for £1,720 a year with the option of buying it for £36,000. This works out at something over £10 a morgen. Another place is the farm Uitval Grond, where there are 40 people, and 600 morgen irrigable land. The Government costs for the man on such a leasehold farm work out at £5 per head per annum. Perhaps, if he is a success, it will subsequently be decided that the man may buy the ground on which he is working, but it is not yet settled. In the meantime he has still to get ground elsewhere, and if he is a success we assist him in getting ground. Then the 10 morgen of ground costs about £280, which we regard as very profitable. An hon.member has spoken about harvests failing, but that that does not occur so easily in irrigated areas as in dry parts. The late Gen. Botha once made a wise remark, viz., that farming only paid in the Western Province of the Cape Colony because, although the ground was not the same as in the north, farmers here had less trouble with drought, locusts, hail and frost. Farming is a precarious business in South Africa. Moreover, I think that we cannot solve the poor white question by putting people on the land. Much is done in this direction in relation to agriculture, and I welcome it, and I welcome the idea of an Agricultural Credit Act, and think that if we give such an Act a chance with the public it will be a success. Something must be done and we can test it suitably. There will, however, be cases where the department, must give assistance under that Act to bywoners, irrespective of a co-operative society, as provided by the Credit Act. If the farmers can give good security and look well after the man and help him on, then I think provision should also be made for such cases. We cannot, in this scheme, accomplish everything as at the Hartebeestpoort dam without extending it enormously. We must try the Agricultural Credit Act and also give a private individual who is trustworthy advances for his bywoners. The Government has also taken a wise step in assisting philanthropic institutions, such as churches, etc., where they undertake such work. Everyone must put his shoulder to the wheel. At the Hartebeestpoort dam scheme, we have training depoes besides the tenant farmer colony We have found that it is not enough to put a man on the ground to farm, as farming has become a science, and intensive farming has to be learned. I can recommend hon. members if they have time to visit the training centres during the recess. It is interesting and instructive to see what is being done there to help the people on. They are paid 5s. 6d. per day, and in the first place they work for that on Government ground. If they succeed, they get a piece of ground to work for themselves, and if they are again successful they go to the tenant farmer colonies. In this way they are put on to their feet again. There is a cry “Back to the land,” but if we build all our hopes for the solution of the poor white question on that, we shall be disappointed. There are hundreds of people who make as poor farmers as the man in the moon. However hard the man may try, he cannot farm, because he has no bent for it and yet he is not useless. I have been connected with the trades school at Potchefstroom for 25 years. We have had children whose parents have said they could do nothing at all on the farms. One of those youths is to-day the foreman-wagonmaker at the institution and another is succeeding in another trade because he has technical ability. There are people who are just as unsuitable on farms as is a square in a circle. I think the time has come that we should enquire at the schools what the children are suited for. We even have to do this with grown up people, to find out what they have a bent for. I admit that there are a number of our poor people who will remain at road-making and such work, but I believe there is more technical talent latent in the people of South Africa than we know of, and that the time has come when we should do more for the industrial development of the country. The Board of Industries, of which hon. members opposite have spoken so contemptuously, is a useful body which has already proved that it is going to benefit the country. The iron, wool and cotton which we produce ought to be manufactured in the country, so that we can have work for our poor people. If we do not do that, the poor white question will never he solved. People ought to be given a chance of work according to their bent. I do not say the Government must do this. I understand so much about the matter that I cannot expect that, but I think the Government is on the right road in seeing what is being done and what can still be done, and is pursuing a right policy with regard to the protection of everything that is manufactured in this country. The day has come that overseas manufacturers will be only too glad to make a beginning here. The firm of Lever Bros., soap manufacturers, has already started here, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will not say that that undertaking is not a success. When one listens to the opponents of the Government’s policy, one would say that South Africa is totally unsuited for these industries.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has himself a boot factory.

That may be so, but he spoke strongly on the line that industrial development was something that should be retarded, and that agriculture was everything. We understand that very well in a loyal British subject. I do not say that I am against a loyal British subject, but I am opposed to the ultraloyal people who think that England should remain the workshop of the empire as Mr. W. T. Stead said in the “Review of Reviews.” I can understand that there are people who want to help the mother country, who want the raw materials for manufacture there, and the money to remain there, but those people must understand that we are no longer so credulous. We believe there is the greatest opportunity for industrial development, and that we are going along well in that direction. If one is asked what will pay best, agriculture or industry, one will find it difficult to decide that agriculture means as much as some people say. It will be difficult to answer ‘the question before we have made an experiment. I think this country has the greatest opportunity in the world, because we have cheap coal and labour, and the raw material which can be manufactured, so that we can get money into the country. Then we will be able to attract the desirable kind of immigrant, and make South Africa more and more a white man’s country, which it can be and ought to be. There is another important matter, viz., that the great solution of the poor white question lies in the child. There are many cases of people with whom to-day you can do nothing. I think we should introduce a Bill for the establishment of labour colonies. Something of this sort should be instituted, and if it is not, we shall always have trouble to get the people to make use of the opportunities we give them. There must be some threat so that the people can be told that if they will not make use of their opportunities they will be forced to, or their children will be ruined through their neglect. The great thing which should be undertaken to-day is the training of neglected children, and I cannot sufficiently urge it on the House. There are people on the diamond diggings—they are not Transvaalers, but people from the Cape Province, people who have come from the coast.

Just say they are Afrikanders.

Then everyone must say so. If the hon. member wants me to say so, then he too must say so. We hear, however, the colonials say—

Let me, however, call to mind that they are people who have failed. I do not object to my friends not knowing this. I was talking the other day to a Caledon man, who said that there were no poor people here. I then asked him whether he knew a certain man now on the diggings, and he said: “Yes, but he has left here, and I never missed him.” I told him that the man was on the diggings. Well, the diamond diggings are there for good or evil, and I am the last man to say that they should be closed. No, we cannot do that, because we have not yet got work for the people. I will not advocate the closing of the diggings, but cannot omit to say that the diggings are places where the children are running wild and get hardly any schooling. The people there are roaming fellows, sojourners of South Africa. I think there are many thousands of children, and if we do not put them into a special institution where their training can be seen to, and where they can be freed from their surroundings, they will never receive regular schooling. The diggings will merely produce more poor whites and we must save their children. We must also look after the neglected children who do go to school a little, but not regularly. South Africa is richer in talents, and the brains of the people are worth more than diamonds, gold and platinum, and we must develop these talents. Of course we must develop talents in agricultural matters, but we must also do that with reference to other occupations. The question arises what we shall do eventually with all the children when they have been trained. I refer to the industrial development of our country, which is progressing with giant strides to-day. I think we should endeavour to train the children so that they can subsequently get employment in the factories and earn their living. The ideal thing is what the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province is doing with its boarding establishments, for which the provincial administration pays. They want to take young people coming to the towns in search of work, look after and provide for them, and give them a little schooling at night, with the object of getting them well established in some work or another. This must be done with regard to factories. Take the young people out of the trade schools to the farms, to the Government departments, to the factories and help them on so that it will no longer be necessary to import people from overseas to do work in any trade. We have already sent young people to Europe to study certain departments of agriculture, and I think the time has come to give bursaries to enable young people to go overseas to study the various branches of manufacture, as other countries do. Japan, which we regard as a heathen country, has done this in the past and is still doing it. Japan sends young people with bursaries overseas to study various trades to assist on their return in building up and advancing the welfare of their fatherland. We must develop our people in that way, so that we can take our proper place amongst the peoples of the world.

We have just had an extraordinary interlude in this budget debate—we have listened to no less than two members of the Pact on this debate. It is so long ago since we heard a voice from that side of the House that I have almost forgotten who spoke last.

Are you pleased?

Yes, we are pleased to hear you.

There is nothing to fire at.

That sort of remark has two meanings ; it may be a reflection on what has come from this side of the’ House, or it may be a reflection on the intelligence of the hon. member. He can choose which he likes. Hon. members over there have been silting so subdued and quiet.

We have no fault to find.

They are prepared to overlook everything. They are prepared to hear criticisms and say nothing to them.

What “criticism” has there been ?

There have been speeches in criticism of the policy of the Government on finance, defence and administration, and not one criticism has been thought worthy of an answer.

What! Were-those “criticisms”?

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) made a most instructive speech on the question of defence.

Oh, goodness!

It was constructive criticism of the Defence Department, but the Minister of Defence was pretending ostensibly to be asleep.

No, I was thinking.

While the hon. member for East London (North) was speaking the Minister was pretending ostensibly to be asleep, like other members. I think that hon. members opposite do not treat Parliament with the respect it deserves, and their heads are still so filled with the new wine of the majority they got some time ago that they think that what the opinion of representatives in Parliament may be is not worth twopence, and they do not think these opinions are worth attending to or replying to. The budget debate, in my opinion, is a more important function of Parliament than the passing of laws. People send us here to exercise a vigilant eye on the country, its finance and administration, and this budget debate gives us an opportunity of doing so. I say, without hesitation, that hon. members opposite have treated this budget debate with contempt. It may be that they are waiting towards the end, when no one can have the privilege of replying to them. It may be “smart tactics” on their part. It is between a quarter past two and five o’clock that we see a member getting up on the opposite side, but for the rest of the debate they sit silent. I suppose, under orders; and not a word is said.

Muzzled!

Did you not give orders when you were on this side ?

Where was the hon. member then? Was he here? If he had been there he would have found that when we were sitting over there we did not adopt the attitude towards the budget debate that is adopted by hon. members on the other side. When hon. members brought forward their views, we listened to them, and then replied to them. That is more than is done by hon. members opposite. We showed some respect for the intelligence of Parliament, which is more than hon. members opposite are doing at this time. We listened with a great deal of interest and pleasure to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) had to say with regard to the poor whites and neglected children, on which he speaks with some authority, and I would advise him to stick to that, and not to make excursions into the kingdom of economics, because his statement on protection was not based on sound principles. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has come back from the recess with comforting reports from Natal—that “all is well ; all is glorious; the Pact in Natal commands the hearts of everybody, and not a word is raised against it."’ He has apparently been amusing himself, and his leisure, during the recess, with a gramophone, and he said that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) must have been vaccinated with a gramophone needle.

You do not expect so much humour from a Scotchman.

It is a good thing for the hon. member’s party that they were not vaccinated with a gramophone needle ; they do not say what they said before, and do not say in this House what they say outside regarding the budget of the Minister, because if they did, I am afraid it would make things more uncomfortable than they are.

You want a stagnation of ideas.

Well, the hon. member’s friends over there are trying their best to put some “ginger” in, but so far that “ginger” is not working so effectively as it was hoped it would. The hon. member (Mr. Strachan) brought down a gramophone of the brand of His Master’s Voice, and is disappointed because the sweet strains that come from that instrument do not command more attention on the Treasury benches. That was one of the jarring notes—

but they do not listen to the master’s voice in the way they ought to do, and the Government does not do the things it ought to do. They promised the eight-hours day, a State bank and State mines, the lowering of shop rents; and they have not done any of them; instead of that, they put a duty on clothes, sugar and flour, and it is very annoying that they won’t hear their master’s voice on these points. The Minister of Finance might have been pardoned, if he took these things seriously, for thinking that there was going to be some trouble on that side of the Pact ; but he knows, and we know, that this is all stage thunder—it is not even blank cartridge, there is no cartridge at all. But the Minister was reassured. I am certain, by what he heard from the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) last night, who said emphatically—

Don’t worry about the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and other members, and what they say about going into the wilderness. You refuse a State bank and State mines, but we are not going to break. That trip into the wilderness has been postponed.

To your deep regret.

Speaking from a party point of view, nothing pleases me more than that this show should go on. The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) told us about a competition where a prize of two guineas was to be offered for a suggestion as to the best method for the South African party to get back into power. Here is the solution in half-a-dozen words: Let this show go on for a little bit longer. Let this picture of a coalition at work go on for a few months longer, with its repudiation of principles and going back on pledges in order to hold on to office. It may be an expensive thing for the country to pay for, but it will be an education for them.

Tell us something about the budget now.

You must wait a little bit.

This is only the preamble.

The nearer they get to the wilderness, the less attractive it looks to them, and the more alluring are the flesh-pots of Egypt,

You will get the prize.

I deserve it. I have given the right solution. There was a time when a Minister of that party told South Africa to beware of coalitions. He could not have pointed in advance at a truer picture of South Africa as we see it now. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) says they are not going to break.

You are sorry.

No, I have been long enough in political life to be able to wait, but nothing will educate the country more surely, though slowly, than what is going on. Principle tells, and not expediency in politics, and I challenge the hon. member to tell us that this combination is founded on principle. How can the hon. member talk about principle when one wing of the Government party is continually attacking the Government in the strongest language they dare to use. Hear what they say when they get outside, and what hon. members opposite say. The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) is an authority we must look up to. He says to his constituents, do not worry about the Pact ; as soon as we are strong enough, we are going to turn the labour people out, and he adds insult to injury by saying—

He denies it.

The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) is one of the few members on that side who have told us about the policy of the Government. He told us that one thing that distinguished the present Government from the previous one was that the Government has a policy, and the previous one didn’t. But what is that policy? Where is it to be found ? Evidently not in the election manifesto issued by the Prime Minister before the election, because hon. members have been asking, “When, O Lord, shall these things be ?” We were promised them without delay.

The policy is to be found in that article of yours.

Well, even there the pea is under still another thimble. I thought the policy of the Government was to be found in the election manifestoes made by the Prime Minister before he assumed office, and the speeches made in this House by his party when they were in opposition. The hon. member for Wonderboom told us that the policy had been to protect and encourage agriculture. He said that during the fourteen years from Union to the advent of this Government, nothing had been done for the farmers. Little things like the Land Bank and the building up of the Agricultural Department count for nothing. But they state that this Government took up a very different line. What have they done, They repealed the tobacco tax, and apparently they were so exhausted by that colossal effort, that they could not do anything further.

And the medicine tax.

I hope that was not intended to benefit the farmers. They are a fairly healthy lot in South Africa. He also said they had a policy about provincial councils, and he quoted from something I wrote to show that under the late Government the provincial councils had been dealt with in a hand to mouth way ; driven from pillar to post ; that their affairs were in confusion until the present Government, with their policy, put things right. What was this policy they came in with ? It was obtained from a commission which we had appointed when we were in office, whose recommendations were violently attacked by hon. members, and the Prime Minister said, sitting in this House just here and speaking on behalf of his party—

Where is that policy now? The policy that the hon. member for Wonderboom enunciated was one of running away from that and adopting the very thing they had so bitterly opposed in opposition.

We took the good points and rejected all the others.

And the biggest thing of all they rejected was the arrangement of 1913, the unlimited powers of taxation of provincial councils. Anyhow, I do not want to make an attack on them for that, because I am glad to see they learnt a little, and that the responsibility of office has taught them a little bit.

Pat yourself on the back.

It is so seldom nowadays that we have a chance to do that, that it is almost impossible to resist the temptation. What other policies did they have before they were tested by responsibility? I quite agree with the hon.member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), in regard to the Prime Minister’s manifesto and the State bank. I cannot attach any other meaning than that the thing would be taken in hand without any delay. It is for hon. members opposite to say whether there has been delay or whether that policy has gone by the board. There was great talk about State mines, State diamond cutting and State shipping. All these things, the electors were told, were going to happen when the capitalist government were pushed out. Where is this policy ? That was a great achievement that unexpectedly and undeservedly was put in the hands of the party opposite, but the hon. members are being tried, just as we were, and if they do not come out of this quagmire they are in now—

They will share your fate.

Yes, they will get a worse one. The Minister’s budget was that of a man who has come into a fortune unexpectedly, and does not want to look beyond to-morrow. His expenses are going up a bit, but his income is still enough to cover them, and he is not going to worry too much as to what clouds there may be on the horizon and as to what the demands on him in the near future may be. He is going to follow the maxim, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Again, we have this strange contrast between the policy of yesterday and of to-day. Expenditure has gone up under this Government, just as under the old Government.

Taxation has come down.

Yes, taxation on patent medicines.

£180,000 has gone back to the mines.

I am not asking whether one tax or another has been repealed, but whether the burden of taxation has been reduced. It has not. The revenue and expenditure have gone up.

Surely the gold mines are paying less.

The gold mines are paying considerably more, but they do not continue to pay the employers tax. How vigorously the question of allowing the provinces to tax the gold mines was defended by the late Opposition. You cannot reduce taxation unless you decrease expenditure. In spite of all the criticisms of the late Government in regard to economy, the expenditure has gone up. In the days when we were in office we used to be terrified by stories of the terrible debt the South African party had laid on the country, and calculations were made to show that every man, woman or child had a load of debt hanging round his or her neck. Hon. members had not then learned that every progressive country must incur a certain amount of debt in order to develop its resources. But they have learned the lesson now. I object to the increased abatement under the income tax. I know it is a compromise, as are all the things the Government does, is a compromise between the demands of the Labour party and what the Government feels to be the right thing. This exemption is on the wrong lines, because it means that with the exemption for children, insurance, and so on, a man with three or four children will pay no income tax at all unless his income amounts to nearly £600 a year. If in 1921 the Union’s expenditure had reached a dangerous limit, it must be much more so now. Although it might have been reasonable to increase the exemption in 1920 with the expenditure that then had to be faced, it is unwise to reduce the taxation in such a way as to cut out a large class of taxpayers from all direct taxation. The Minister has certain big items of expenditure which he has to face in future. He has to face the question of old age pensions, and having appointed a commission to enquire into that matter, I cannot believe he will not deal with that question as soon as he can. He has also to face the question of national insurance against invalidity and unemployment. All these things are going to cost a lot of money. When you come to finding money from the State exchequer for old age pensions, a man with a salary of £600 a year ought to contribute something to the income tax, because the State is going to undertake burdens which ought to be spread far more widely than they now are With regard to the sinking fund—

I hope you don’t agree with what has been said about that.

I think it is quite a good thing, but I don’t think it is enough. Simply to add £250,000 a year to the existing fund, and to deprive it of the benefit of future surpluses, is an unfair exchange as far as the debt is concerned. The Public Accounts Committee carried their recommendation upon that on a purely party vote. I cannot congratulate the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) on this development. It has been a tradition that the Public Accounts Committee should not vote on party lines.

Why didn’t they vote with us ?

I suppose the hon. member remembers the story about the fond mother who said that everybody was out of step except her Jock. I daresay the other members might have seen the light if he had talked to them a little longer. The Public Accounts Committee is a most important institution in this Parliament, and its duty is to advise the Government and the House in regard to financial matters, quite apart from party. Not long ago a prominent member of the Opposition was made chairman of the committee, just to show that this was not an ordinary committee, but was intended to look at things above party considerations altogether.

You refused to make a member of the Opposition chairman of the committee?

We were told, when this new Government came into power, that a new era was dawning, but now when they are attacked their defence is—

It is a terrible falling off. I am not justifying or attacking the proposition of having a member of the Opposition as chairman of the committee, but I do say we are going to take a very bad step indeed if the Public Accounts Committee is going to be reduced to the position of merely recording what the Government wants it to say. If that is to happen, I cannot believe that members of this House, who have never spared their time on the committee, will think it worth while to continue to sit on it. I hope we shall get back to the position when the committee was a mentor to the Government, and gave it advice whether the Government wanted it or not. The committee should follow its own judgment.

Do you mean to suggest that they were not free?

I am not a member of the committee. I am not here to say that they were instructed to vote one way or the other, but they voted strictly on party lines.

I think they were right.

Your party divided on party lines.

If it was merely a question that they divided in that way, I have nothing more to say, but I wish to raise my protest against going back on the old tradition of the Public Accounts Committee being non-party.

We are equally guilty.

Now, I wish to say something about the customs. The hon. member for Wonderboom talked about protection as if that were also a new policy. That is not so. The policy of fostering South African industries was a declared policy of the late Government. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been a free trader all his life. I must admit that I see some signs of conversion on the part of the hon. member on one or two matters ; but, with regard to free trade, I see none.

Are you a free trader ?

No, but I believe in the late Government’s policy of fostering and encouraging South African industries—industries that use South African products and have some chance of being able to supply those articles without an undue enhancement of the price. What we want to see here is South African protection, not American protection. Don’t let us have protection unless it can be justified on grounds that affect South Africa. Let us get away from the example of the United States, which has no bearing on our position. Let us have protection based on considerations that are South African. It is no use trying to build up industries that can flourish only with mass production in order to be able to turn out articles reasonably cheap. If you are going on the lines which the Hoard of Trade gave in its recommendations, that you must give protection to any industry that can show that it can make things here that are being made overseas, you are going to add to the cost of living, and you are going to diminish the chances of South African industries that are already established. Let us take some of the things they have got in this list. Take these increases on the requisites of industry, things that are required in other industries, such as spare parts of engines and motors for fishing boats and rock drill spares for the mines.

They can all be made here just as cheaply.

What is the need then for this duty ?

Because the people won’t buy our stuff here. The mines have said so.

No.

My experience of the mines has been that they won't pass a cheaper article for a dearer one, if it is just as good.

I hope they repudiate what appears in the paper from what seems to be an authoritative source.

You always have these stories.

My criticism is based on the assumption that the protection which is going to be given now to these spare parts will result in a higher price being charged, otherwise I do not see what the need for the protection is. Anything we do which increases the cost of working the mines is going to diminish their life. I say that you are encouraging an industry at the cost of the mining industry, at the cost of shortening the life of the mining industry, an industry which is itself depending upon the mining industry. You are putting a burden on the mines to encourage the making of rock drill spares, and when the mines are stopped there will be no more need for rock drills. It seems to me that, in their zeal for the new gospel of Protection for industries, the Board of Trade and Industries have forgotten some of these facts. I must say that the reports of the Board of Trade seem to me very meagre. The Board have hoard one side only. I think when they conduct these enquiries they should sit in public and let anyone come along who has got a case to put up on the other side.

They would never finish.

It might be better in some cases if they never did finish. They should give the man who has to bear the burden a chance’ Of being heard. The man who has to pay more for his bread or his sugar or his clothes, it is only fair that he should get a chance of being heard before that is done. What should make people very careful about protective policies in this country is that every time you add unnecessarily: to the cost of living in South Africa you are handicapping the European as against the other man.

You are giving him work.

Are vou? Is it going to help the struggling bywoner on the land to know that a few more men have been employed making ready-made clothing in Johannesburg?

Of course it is! It will provide work for his children.

This is a phenomenon which I think is almost unexampled in any country that I know of and that is when a farmer pleads for higher costs for his workmen and his machinery in order that people can make these things in the towns. It is our business and our duty to help South Africa to become industrial to the measure of her capacity. But not to promote industrial expansion by placing extra burdens on the primary industries. You cannot have a large industrial scheme in South Africa without population. It does not matter if you put up a tariff wall as high as the sky, you will never foster industries on a large scale unless you build up the primary industries of this country and assist people to settle on the land. I might also mention the additional tax on whisky which the Minister has imposed. This is a very good example of the sort of argument which appears to weigh with the Board of Trade and Industries. They say that, the wine farmers and the producers of wines and spirits in South Africa, demand higher protection because they have been unable to sell a great part of the stuff which they produce in this country and that the industry is in a bad state. You have an excise in fins country on brandy of 12s. 6d. and an import duty on whisky of 37s. 6d. But that is not enough: they want 7s. 6d. added to that, making it 45s. I think the effect of this will be not to drive the people to take the drinks of South Africa, but to make people teetotallers. It may be a good thing from that point of view, but, if the South African brandy cannot find a market without a higher protection than 300 per cent., then I would advise the people who produce it to try some other method. Try for once to improve the article to see if people won’t buy it then. Some excellent brandy is made in South Africa—I use it habitually myself—but if people would only try to produce South African brandy and not try to doctor their compounds up so as to pretend to be French brandy, which they never are and never will be they would find people using more of it than they do now. You will never drive people to use it by putting up a high tariff wall on whisky. The Minister will find it will lose him revenue and have no protective results. There are one or two points in regard to the railways. I want again to call attention to the fact that the Minister is again contributing £250,000 out of revenue in reduction of interest-bearing debt. I maintain that is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Act of Union. The Minister knows quite well that when the Act of Union in regard to railways was framed it was agreed that interest should be paid by the railways, not merely on capital which had been borrowed, and on which interest was being paid by the Treasury, but also on a comparatively large sum which had been contributed out of revenues. That was a provision which was hotly opposed by certain members of the Convention from the north. The argument used against them was that the railway capital is not required to carry a sinking fund. The Act of Union provides for a renewal and depreciation fund, and for a betterment fund, and they said if these two funds are kept up, there is no need for a sinking fund for capital on the railways, and therefore you can fairly pay the interest on this unborrowed capital, so to speak. But what are you doing now ? The Minister is not providing a sinking fund, but he is paying back part of the interest-bearing debt every year. He is giving back £250,000 to the Treasury now when the Treasury are borrowing, I suppose, at over 5 per cent., to pay off the dept borrowed from the Treasury, when the interest was very much less. Is that an economic proceeding?

That is not what takes place. This money goes to decrease future borrowings.

I am not sure that I appreciate the difference. It does not seem to me to make any difference. I suppose the Minister means that he uses this for purposes for which he would otherwise have to borrow money from the Treasury. If that is so, what is the betterment fund for, except to provide a fund to enable you, out of revenue, to produce capital expenditure? That is the object for which the betterment fund was started, to enable the railways to incur capital expenditure without having to borrow money out of revenue. If that is what the Minister is doing, then this ought to be put into the betterment fund. I call this a mere piece of eye-wash. We have had a great deal of discussion about the civilized labour. As far as I am concerned, I differ somewhat from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), but I see he is gradually coming round, and I hope for the best. I believe that the railways, like any other employer, ought to pay a civilized wage to its employees who are required to live under civilized conditions, and that it is a bad policy, financially, economically and socially, to bring people from parts of the country, where they live under uncivilized conditions to live amid our civilized conditions, at a wage at which they cannot live. If you do so, you have to provide your locations for them at Ndabeni, or your lower quarters of the town are turned into slums, with people living under conditions of overcrowding that is a menace to health. I believe that is wrong. I believe that although the employer may profit by getting work done at a lower wage, the community has to pay the rest of the bill. Hon. members talk about the output, and say wages are paid out of output. Well, of course they are, but I do not know what answer you can find to the problem of whether the output or the wage should come first. The two things have to go together. You cannot pay a high wage without a high output, but at the same time you are not going to get a high output out of half-starved men who grow up out of half-starved children. You have to make your terms with the people who are going to share in your industry in regard to wages and output, and I think it will be of great advantage to us when employers and employees can approach these questions, as they seem to be doing now, free from a great many of the superstitions and conventions that have trammelled them in the past. I hope, with the legislation that was passed by the late Government, that that will gradually come about, when the employer and the employee will see that they are both partners in the business, and what is to the benefit of the industry is to the benefit of both of them. I would like to say to the Minister of Railways and Harbours that it is impossible for us now, with the statistics we have, to tell whether this policy of civilized labour which he is pursuing is being carried out on sound principles, or whether it is only being used as a method of giving employment to thousands of people on the railways, regardless of whether they are required or not, and regardless of what they are producing. You cannot get from the statistics which the Department is publishing any light on that subject.

You forget the Organization Committee which I have just appointed.

I am glad the Minister has done so, and I would like him to commend to their notice the question of whether railway statistics could not be framed on a basis which would enable the citizens to see what progress is being made by the railways, and at what cost. We know, in regard to other departments of this kind, and other businesses, you cannot tell where you are going unless you have some system of unit costs. The only unit cost, as far as I know, that will be of any use to you on the railway is the ton mile. It is no good comparing the train miles of one year with the train miles of another year. It is no good comparing the amount of stuff hauled in one year with the amount hauled in another, because you do not know how far the haulage was in the one case and the haulage in the other. As far as I know, the only reliable statistics are those based on the ton mile, and I hope the Minister will ask his committee to go into the matter and see if they cannot do something on those lines. I would just like to say, generally, that this budget, as I have said, does not seem to me to take us very much further in regard to the difficulties that we have to meet in our immediate future and in making adequate provision for the large expenditures which are in front of us, which must be met either by a reduction of administrative expenditure or an increase of taxation. What I complain about with regard to the Government’s policy generally is that it continues to halt between two opinions. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) attacked the Government because he said they did not carry out the socialist principles which they had promised in regard to the State bank and the State mines. Well, I count it as a merit that they have not yet done so ; but they have not done the other thing either. I rather sympathize with the hon. member for Troyeville when he said—

What is happening at present? We do not find people and capital coming into this country, because the people who have the capital elsewhere are afraid.

What about Barclay’s Bank ?

They have not put very much in, and they may some day. We are entitled to know what the policy of the Government is, and whether it is going to give reasonable encouragement to private capital to come here. I ask the hon. member, who is following me so closely, what new development has there been in mining in the past two years? With regard to the Far East Rand, the Government has called for tenders, but has accepted none ; and are they going to do it themselves, or allow other people to do it ? The time has come to make a clear announcement. If they are not going on the basis of state mining—which I trust they are not—let them give encouragement to people to put capital in on a reasonable basis. The time has passed for vast profits on the Far East Rand such as in the past, and some of these people find that the shoe pinches more than in the past. It is difficult to ask people to put in £2,000,000 before they have a means of knowing whether there is a reef there which can be worked profitably or not. I ask the Government, do not put this thing off too late. Let them make up their minds quiekly and go ahead. Every year that is going by is telling against them as a European people. We can only hold our own, not by colour bar bills, repression and keeping the other fellow down, but by giving a free opportunity to the talent of those who are here. If we do not get people into the country and develop our productive assets, and if we do not attract people into the country, it does not matter twopence what colour bars you put on, but your days as a white race will be numbered. The time may come when it is too late.

The hon. member who has just sat down, in his opening remarks and his concluding remarks—the burden of them. I take it, particularly in his opening remarks—was why have not the Government answered the “damaging criticism” made from the Opposition benches. Let me be candid with him. As my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, remarked, in moving to go into Committee of Supply, we paid some attention to the lobby rumour that the grand offensive was to be launched on the budget debate.

Your friends say this is a Burton budget.

Perhaps something went wrong with the staff work, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who was told off to lead the attack, found he was discharging ammunition amongst his own party, and the casualties were greater there than over here, because the launching of the attack consisted first of all of the assertion of free trade principles, of the straitest sect of the pharisees, which the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and various other members on his side repudiate quite as heartily as we do over here. The next item in his plan was a very strong attack upon the “wickedness” of the Government, with regard to this “wicked” Conciliation Act, quite forgetting that this Act was introduced in some form or other by hon. members opposite, and we are carrying it out in the spirit of that Act. The hon. member found, again, he was firing shots into his own army, instead of into the army to which he was opposed. Then there was the civilized labour policy and the policy of the Government in protecting civilized conditions of labour, which was “all wrong.” Again, we have heard from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that he disagreed with the views of the leader of the attack, on the civilized labour policy. By way of furbishing his attack, the hon. member went on to say that many members on the Opposition benches had made a serious criticism of the Government, and that the Government should have replied to it. He propounded the doctrine, with which I agree, that the discussions in this House have a far greater value than the making of laws, and that if serious attacks were made, they should be replied to. He mentioned that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) had delivered a speech to which I had not replied, and that I was pretending ostentatiously to be asleep. He entirely misinterprets my attitude. I was delighted, during the speech we have just listened to, to watch the play of expression of the hon. member with my eyes open ; but when there is a matter I want to pay particular attention to, I try to exclude everything that would interfere with my consideration of it. I listened to every word, but I could find nothing that would justify my infringing on the five days allotted to this budget debate ; nothing which required my immediate reply, and I proposed to deal with the whole question when we are in committee on the estimates, when I shall be able to make a full statement. There are one or two points in that speech, however, which I might refer to. The hon: member was clearly under the impression that a certain departmental conference that had recently taken place at Pretoria was a conference to consider, after the event, whether the determinations in regard to re-organization had been sound or not, and that, by implication, I had had no conference with the military heads of the Defence Force on these plans of re-organization which had been carried into effect. Neither the fact nor the implication is in the least correct, and I need not explain to the hon.member, or any hon. member, that no Minister would dream of embarking on such a scheme without the fullest consultation with his responsible officers. The only other point in his remarks which, I think, I should allude to at the present moment, is an assertion—it was not stated categorically, but hinted at—that this Government, by its policy, has been throwing down the gauntlet to the non-European races—a policy of repression. We entirely repudiate such a description of the policy of this Government and no such assertion should have been made in the House by responsible members, and could not be made without the risk of producing undesirable repercussions outside this House. Then the hon. member made merry on the fact that this Government was a coalition Government. He said he remembered the day—I think he was referring to me—when I stated—

But there are coalitions and coalitions. I think his remarks a rather poor compliment to his present leader. I was alluding, on the occasion referred to, I think, to the coalition suggested by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), a suggestion to form an all-party Government, It would have been a most curious product of parliamentary history.

A nice product now.

Yes, and a very useful product to the country. But that was a suggested coalition in which all parties would be responsible for the Government and there would be no opposition. I doubt whether it would have been very healthy for the country. The hon. member himself is a little bit too forgetful of recent history ; because, after many years in opposition he, at a very convenient moment, joined a coalition Government; because it was nothing else.

No.

It was just as much a coalition Government as the present one.

Have you got as far as that? Have you amalgamated your two parties ?

We have not pretended that there was an amalgamation when none existed, but we are frankly, before the country, a coalition of two different parties, successfully endeavouring to govern this country on lines more in accordance with the aspirations of the people of this country than the people opposite succeeded in doing. The hon. member went on to say that this combination is founded on no principle.

Purity of office.

Yes, for the purpose of governing this country and leading it out of the slough into which the South American party have landed it, a task in which we have been fairly successful, and hope to be more successful in the future. He went on to say that we have thrown everything overboard, and that the eight-hour day had gone by the board. I do not think that has happened. We have made a pretty good instalment and hope that circumstances will enable us to make further instalments until the whole of it is given. What did the previous Government do? They abolished the eight-hour day and we are trying to get back to the position which they preached and abolished. Is that repudiation of our pledges? He said we had entirely repudiated all our ideas about a State bank. I am not aware that we have. Our friends over there are rightly keeping us up to the mark, and you would have been better if the same thing had happened, and your Government had been more often criticized by your friends. We do not take any exception to the counsels of our friends in Parliament. Not a bit. But you did, and that was your downfall. I remember, in the last session of the last Parliament, shortly before the announcement of the dissolution, Mr. Saunders, —I think, then member for Natal (South Coast)—made a speech, couched in the most friendly terms, to the Government, but clearly expressing his disagreement with their fiscal policy. It was a speech that might have been made by any friend of the Government, but the mere fact of sounding a note of disagreement sent a shiver through the House, and was reported as the breaking up of the Government. Then the hon. member went on to talk about a certain select committee, which had most utterly reversed all the past usages of Parliament because it had divided upon party lines. It is rather amusing—to suggest that certain members of the select committee voted against their conviction in order to divide on party lines!

They only voted when the chairman said they had to vote.

Yes, and as they had to vote they thought they would vote with people with whom they agreed rather than with those from whom they normally disagreed. I really do not know what crime they committed by doing that. I always thought that people acted together because they agreed on the broad outline of the policy of their party. The South African party members can all vote together and that is not wrong, but if the Government members vote on party lines then it is shocking. It shows the degradation of Parliament that this Government is contributing to. The hon. member went on to tell us that this Government has no policy. I was under the impression that the policy of the Government is showing very striking divergencies from the policy of the party that preceded us. What both parties forming the present Government stood for was to foster the industrial development of South Africa, and to see that the civilized population had a fair show and a chance, which was being very much jeopardized by the policy of our predecessors. We can claim that in the short 21 months we have been in office we have advanced a very considerable degree in that direction, and have done more than our predecessors did in the many years before us. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who seemed to be echoed by the hon. member who has just sat down, took very strong objection to the Government’s protection policy. Is that no new policy—what were all the discussions last year about ? We had it from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), who speaks as a free trader, that our policy is wrong and that in a country in which the activities of the bulk of the people are divided between the primary productive industries and commerce, our policy should be a free trade one. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) says let the miners and the farmers obtain their supplies at the cheapest possible rate whether they are made here or elsewhere and that this is the way to develop-the country and that if there is a time for protection that is not until secondary industries have grown up. In that he said he is supported by what he calls the majority report of the Economic and Wage Commission. It is not a majority report, but it may be called the Clay-Martin report with a certain measure of agreement from the chairman. The hon. member is supported in the views he expressed by that report. I have the greatest respect for a professional economist, but when you apply these conclusions to the affairs of politics and people you have to test their conclusions by reference to other branches of knowledge. It appears that the orthodox economists are contradicted in this matter by both history and experience. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is an orthodox economist of the pure school. When the first Coal Mine Bill was introduced in the House of Commons it was opposed by members of that same school who said that if the State interfered with the employment of women and children in the mines it would diminish the wealth and production of the country and the total prosperity of the nation, and although it might save some suffering it was going to inflict much greater suffering on the rest of the people. Did the coal industry of Great Britain dwindle away as the result of that legislation ? Not a bit of it! Experience has been against the doctrines of the orthodox economist. In Great Britain more than a century ago when it could be truly said that the industries were mining and agricultural combined with commerce. Those then were the times when there should have been free trade. But Great Britain at that time was strongly protectionist and it was only afterwards that it adopted free trade. The history of Australia, Canada and other new countries supply an entire contradiction of the hon. member’s orthodox theories.

Nonsense!

Where the bulk of the people have been engaged in primary industries they have adopted protection.

Ask the farmers in Australia and Canada.

I suppose all of them have hitherto been wrong and the hon.member is the only one who is right. The kink in his argument is that a country cannot live by primary production alone—if you are going to have a population fully employed you must have all the other industries.

You are not increasing the white population.

Yes, we are. The amount of unemployment is vastly less than when we came into office.

Because you took the men into Government employ.

And rightly so, too! And by the pressure we have exercised, we have given a distinct impetus to employment.

Your own figures don’t show it.

They show an increase. We have turned the tide, and we have stemmed the current which the hon. member and his Government had set in motion. I was astonished when I heard the hon. member announce that he was no longer a disciple of the school of low wages, but was rather a convert to the doctrine of high wages.

Accompanied by a big output.

Which is coming first?

Let them both come together.

We did not expect the hon. member to depart from his doctrine of free trade, but we did think that he was abandoning the rather coldblooded attitude that he has always taken up on this question of wages, and that he was prepared to admit that there were ills in the policy of low wages. The hon. gentleman has referred to the report of the Economic Commission. I am inclined to agree that it is a great mistake to bring men from other countries as commissioners. It may be a good thing to bring men from other countries, possibly, as expert witnesses. The commission, however, has been very useful, because we have got an exposition of two very intelligible and well-put points of view. I have yet to learn that it is incumbent upon the Government to take exactly what the report of any commission tells us. We have the material there to assist us not in devising a policy, but in carrying out our policy with the greatest efficiency, and so as to encounter the least obstacles. I am coming, to this point of the civilized labour policy, on which the hon. member and his friends have been attacking us. Do hon. members there desire that the Government, instead of carrying out this policy as they are doing, should charge to the Consolidated Revenue Fund the estimated difference, whatever it may be, between the cost of administration on the lines that we are taking, and the cost at which it could be done by the most ideally cheap labour that could be obtained? We could get a number of Asiatic clerks to do our work in the railway offices very much cheaper than the people we have got there now. We could then proceed to estimate what it would cost to run the railways with the cheapest possible labour that we could get.

What nonsense!

On national considerations, we believe that it is a sound thing to give the greatest possible employment to the civilized portion of our population. If you say national considerations are not to enter into this matter, and that you will deal with it on lines of the purest economics, then find out what it would cost to replace nine-tenths of the clerks in the railway offices by Asiatic clerks. It is the purest rubbish to say that you are going to conduct the government of this country on the lines of the cheapest possible labour, apart altogether from any national considerations, and simply base your estimate on the cheapest labour, and call that economic labour. The hon. member’s policy, and the policy that his friends acted upon when they were in office, of trying to get this country run on the lowest-wage labour that they could find, is bad for the country ; it is bad for production, and bad for efficiency. I agree that wages are limited by the amount of wealth produced by those who do the work that gains those wages, but does the hon. member ever reflect that if you pay a low rate of wage, there are two things which result? In the first place, the recipient of these wages is living at the barest level of existence, and he is going to have mighty little heart to put out the best that is in him. The second point is that efficiency of output does not depend purely, or even mainly, upon the efforts of the wage-earner, but depends largely upon the organizing ability of those who are responsible for the organization of the industry. If you are able to obtain the services of a human being at a very low wage, there is the least possible incentive to the organizing ability of those who are responsible for the carrying out of that industry to use that labour to the best advantage, and so secure the greater output per individual which will enable you to pay a higher wage to the individuals who produce that output. That is the doctrine of high wages. The hon. member says increase the output first, and high wages will come afterwards. No, they will not, unless the wage-earner is in a position to see that he gets the increase to which he is entitled. The policy for which the hon. member has stood consistently all his life—I am told it is the Yorkshire policy—is that of looking upon the availability of the greatest possible number of cheap earners as good for the country, instead of a policy of saying let the wage-earner get as high wages as the industry will afford, and let those high wages be a continuous and steady stimulus upon the organizers of the industry to see that the labour is used in the most efficient way to produce the highest output.

1s 5s. a day a stimulus to men to work ?

It is a good deal better than nothing at all a day, a good deal better than putting men on the relief works without any prospect of improving themselves. It is no particular regard for the European who gets 5s. a day that makes you say that. I would like to see the man on that side of the House who would say turn out all these men and give the work to natives in the railway building. They would say that fast enough, but when it comes to providing other occupations for those men, they would be strangely forgetful of their obligation in that respect. We have been told we have got no policy. At the same time, we have been attacked on the two cardinal things we have been able to do: one, our protectionist policy, and the other the policy that we have embarked on, and that we are going on with, of seeing that a civilized man in this country gets the greatest possible opportunities of employment, and that we go on building up this country in fact, and not in name, as more and more a country in which Europeans and those of European descent can find a livelihood and expansion. When hon. members opposite were in office, they paid great lip service to these ideas, but all their actions were in the opposite direction. When we came into office, the country was suffering from more unemployment and more bitter poverty than for many a long year. There is a great deal more employment, both among juveniles and adults, than when hon. members opposite were in office. The hon. member tells us the longer we are here, the sooner we will go into the wilderness.

The more hastily.

We do not presume that we shall occupy these benches for ever, but we do say this, that the country will keep us here for a very long time on our own merits, and for a good deal longer time out of fear that they may again come under the government of hon. members opposite.

We have before us one of the most important subjects the House can occupy itself with, viz., the financial policy of the Government, the budget for the coming year. The budget touches very closely the actual interests of the population. If there is one subject in which all parts of the people are interested, it is the annual budget. So far, except this afternoon, there has been complete silence on the side of the Government.

There is nothing to defend. We are waiting for the attack.

The Minister of Defence said that the reason for the deadly silence is the fact that the attack from this side was so weak. Apart from any attack, it is the solemn duty of every member, when the House is asked to vote about £60,000,000, to express his opinion, irrespective of party. We are engaged in voting nearly £1,000,000 for agriculture. The Government side claims especially to represent the interests of agriculture, but has one of them risen to bring forward the interests of agriculture? No; they all remain quiet. Yesterday, the order went round through the lobbies that there was to be no further talking, so that the debate could end last night.

Who gave the order ?

The hon. member knows that the order did not come from this side of the House. Why the great silence? Because hon. members opposite desired the debate to end last night. Now this afternoon there has been a kind of resurrection on the Government benches. At last we have got the Minister so far as to make a speech. I must say that the speech of the Minister of Defence is one of the weakest he has ever delivered. He spoke as if industrial development had only occurred since this Government came into office, and as if this Government alone was responsible for industrial expansion. Since the Government came into office, not one more white man has been employed by the industries than when we were in office, as is shown by the census returns. In the last seven years of South African party Government there was development, and I will prove it by the census figures. When the South African party Government came into power there were 2,000 factories in South Africa, and when they left there were 7,000. In 1915 the wages paid in the factories amounted to £9,000,000, while in 1922 they amounted to £20,000,000. The value of the produce of the industries in 1915 was £40,000,000, as against £80,000,000 in 1922. In 1925 there were 100,000 workers in the factories, as against 171,000 in 1922. That is the progress during the last seven years of South African party Government, That is the industrial development. I hope that, when the Pact Government leave office, it will be able to show as much development as the South African party Government has shown. Much has been said about protection, but it is now applied in such a way that it drives a great part of the population into dislike of protection. We have, however, gone on a certain basis and here we have the results of our protection policy which did no damage to the farming population, but by which each industry was treated on its merits. Why has there been such a silence on the Pact benches? I will say why. Hon. members opposite are in a difficult position, because they are between two fires. If they speak they are compelled to remember hon. members on the cross-benches, and the socialistic doctrine which comes from there.

Moscow.

Yes, Moscow. Moscow is communistic. In Moscow they believe in direct action. Socialism is just another form of that found in Moscow, but the object is the same. Why is there silence opposite? If hon. members there were to speak they would have to defend the socialistic speeches made in and out of the House by their leaders, and if they do that people outside will ask why they do not condemn the speeches. They prefer to follow the old English proverb—

(Laughter.) Hon. members know very well what I mean. I say again that hon. members opposite have not the courage to speak, because they would have to condemn what is said on the cross-benches. The Minister of Justice made a speech one Saturday afternoon at Stellenbosch, at a Nationalist bazaar, in which he said there was no socialists amongst the Labour members. Eight days after, the eleventh Minister said at Somerset Strand—

He clearly stated, in contradiction of the Minister of Justice, that there were socialists in the party, and that their policy was socialistic. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), during the last session, stood on the same platform at Robertson as the Minister of Justice, and there declared that he was a socialist, but the Minister of Justice, to throw dust in the eyes of the people, said that there was no socialist in the ranks of the Labour party. I will only say that, as a representative of grain farmers. I protest against the idea of State mills. What will happen if the State controls them ? In the first place, the State will control the price of wheat. That happens where things are done in a socialistic way.

Is that the Government’s intention ?

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said he was in favour of the protection of farm produce on condition that the price was fixed for the consumer. That is the protection policy of the cross benches. The farming population must be assisted on condition that the price to be paid by the consumer is fixed. I hope that after the debate which has taken place this afternoon, our friends opposite will have more courage to speak about the grievances and necessities of the farmers, and also about the grievances and requirements of other parts of the population. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville when he accused the Prime Minister of breach of faith, as, according to him, the Prime Minister has given a definite promise in connection with the State bank. He further accused the Minister of Justice of breach of faith in connection with the establishment by the State of an iron and steel industry. The recriminations between the different sections of the Pact do not concern us much, but we know the conditions on which the Pact was formed. We do not know what the unwritten promises were, but from time to time we hear of certain conditions, and then we hear of a breach of faith. But what I want to bring out is the promises which were made at the last election right through the country, promises which were largely the cause of the Pact coming into power. The first promise was that great economy would be introduced. During the years that preceded the election, we were continuously abused because expenditure increased every year. What is the position now ? Have the promises been kept ? I want to ask the Prime Minister that. The facts prove the exact opposite. I compare the last full year that the S.A.P. Government were in power. In 1923-’24 expenditure in round figures was £24,000,000. To-day it is £27,000,000 in round figures, an increase of £3,000,000. In 1923-’24 railway expenditure was £23,300,000, and this year it is £27,300,000, an increase of £4,000,000. The increase in the general budget and the railway budget together amounts to £7,000,000. Now hon. members opposite say that the increase is necessary in the interests of the development of the country. That is the usual plea of every Government, that expenditure is necessary to carry on the business. That excuse will not satisfy the people after all the promises made, especially by the Nationalist party. We are accused of having increased the national debt every year. Under the Pact Government, the national debt is increasing every year by leaps and bounds. In 1924-’25 the country was further loaded with a debt of £11,700,000.

That is not correct.

In 1925-’26 the national debt was increased by £7,800,000. The new Loan Estimates are not yet before us, but my moderate estimate makes the amount by which the national debt will be increased this year come to no less than £8,000,000. In the three years in which the Pact Government has been in power, the national debt has been increased by £27,500,000. It is said that the debt is increased for necessary development works. The money spent in the past under the former Government was also spent for development work, but when we pointed this out, hon. members opposite ridiculed it. To-day the Government is doing the same thing, and hon. members are using the same defence. I often ask myself whether hon. members opposite have no sense of shame, after all the attacks they made on our party in the past, and after all the promises they made. The attacks appear to be rubbish, and not one of their promises is kept. I acknowledge that if the country is to advance, the national debt must he increased for development, but I ask why in the past despicable capital was made against our party, and the eyes of the people were blinded, whilst they are to-day following the same policy and using the same defence?

We are not creating a dead liability.

I hope the Government will some day appoint a commission of neutral people to find out what the dead liability of the country is, how it arose, and how much was taken over from the provinces at Union. In the Finance Department there are sufficient people to constitute such a commission, or a commission could be appointed consisting of the Minister of Finance and the Public Debt Commissioners. Then it will be seen what the position is. One member speaks of the unreproductive debt of £60,000,000, another of £70,000,000, and a third of £30,000,000. We, here, will never spoil the credit of the country. At the time hon. members opposite were in opposition, they tried in every way to spoil the credit of the country, as if it was on the verge of bankruptcy and the debt too high. Hon. members opposite must be consistent and fair. I want to remind the Ministers of Finance and Railways that we have to reckon with great economic fluctuations, and will quote a few figures. In 1920-’21, railway revenue was £27,300,000, and two years later, in 1922-’23, £22,6057000, a reduction compared with two years before of £4,700,000. The Minister of Finance knows that the same applies proportionately to his department. There may be at any moment an economic revulsion of feeling with the increased expenditure ; on the railways and in general expenditure, we are living in an extremely dangerous position. I now come to the question of taxation. The Minister, in the budget, expects to receive £19,300,000 from taxation. If one includes the taxation imposed by the provincial councils, divisional councils and municipalities, then the population of South Africa will in the course of the year have to pay nearly £25,000,000. Such taxation is becoming impossible. Has the Government made any attempt to reduce it ?

Yes.

There has been reduction on the one hand, but there has been increase on the other. Last year the preference which the British empire obtained was reduced to a sum of £600,000. The preference was taken off, but the amount was paid by the people of South Africa. The 3 per cent, reduction in import duty which the British empire obtained had to be paid—as the Minister himself acknowledged—by the population of South Africa. The Minister also made an alteration to an amount of £200,000, but he has acknowledged, as was his duty, that the population has been taxed by income tax to an amount of £400,000 more.

Why do you not say what has been taken off ? †

Taxes have been removed, but the Minister has acknowledged that what was removed has been put on again.

Don’t show only one side of the picture.

We know that the tobacco tax was taken off, but the farmers of Stellenbosch and Paarl still have to pay it. We still pay 6d. per lb. The Minister has taken off the medicine tax and we are thankful. Then another licensing tax has been introduced and I will come to :t later. Hon. members opposite promised that they would be a Government for the poor man, and I shall show later how the poor man is treated under the Minister's scheme of taxation. You may talk about industrial development as much as you like, but ultra protection is to be remembered. I sympathize with the protection policy of the Minister, but I want to tell him that the higher the taxation is, the less will the industries develop. If the man who puts his capital into industries and agriculture has to pay half of his profits in taxation, is it any encouragement to him to invest his capital so that industries may be developed? They are developed by using their profits. By imposing heavier taxes there is no chance of a profit. The investment of capital is not encouraged and there is no industrial development if the taxation is too high.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I was discussing the increase of the national debt during the last three years. I quoted figures in connection with the full amount of the Loan Appropriation for the past three years, and said that in 1924-’25 the total national debt was increased by £11,600,000. That was a mistake. That is the total expenditure of the loan account, but the Minister of course receives certain sums from other sources so that the total increase in the national debt in 1924-’25 was £6,400,000. I further tried show that high protection and high taxation were incompatible things. I tried to make it clear that although we were generally in favour of our industries being well-protected in order to build them up we could easily make the protection too great if high taxes were added, in which case the taxes would destroy all the benefit the industries would get by the protection granted, and in the long run the public would have to pay for the high taxation which would not assist in developing industries that ought to get it. I agree a good deal with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he says that we should concentrate on protecting and developing our agriculture before we go in for large protection of industries, the success of which is doubtful. Now the Minister, together with the Board of Trade and Industries, can levy taxation.

I always thought that only Parliament could levy taxation.

But the Minister has the power to suspend certain taxes with reference to import duties. The Minister can suspend the protection so that much power is given to the Minister and the Board of Trade and Industries. I am not against it in principle, but I want to point out that in many respects the business man often does not know what is going to happen, and in consequence of the uncertainty created by constantly juggling with the tariffs while high taxes are levied at the same time, we are interfering with the industrial development that we are aiming at. I say that agriculture is the backbone of the country, the primary industry. Last year we exported mealies, wool and other agricultural produce to the value of £30,000,000. We must not forget that the farmer of South Africa has to compete beyond our country, with an unprotected market. He gets no protection for his produce when it arrives overseas. His goods arrive there in a free market according to the laws of the country, and in addition he has to allow for high transport costs. It is therefore vital to the producer for his costs of production to be as low as possible, and I want to make it plain that we often go in for strong protection which is excellent in principle, but may have an unfavourable result in its application, and under which in the long run agriculture will suffer. When the cost of living is raised wages must also be raised, and that affects the farmers as well. Our economic system is one whole, and if one of the subordinate parts suffers, all suffer. As I am talking of farmers’ interests. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he knows that in taking off the dumping duty on wheat and flour he may reduce the protection of our wheat farmers. I want to make it plain to the Minister that the disappearance of the dumping duty, and the creation of a fixed duty of 5d. more per 100 lbs. of wheat will be to the detriment of the wheat farmers in South Africa. It will not be long—I think it will be in the coming season—before the farmers find out that they are getting less money for their wheat than they got under the existing system.

Because they are getting more protection ?

I think the protection is becoming less. As a representative of wheat farmers I have studied the matter carefully, and in my opinion the farmers will very soon find out that, under the changes made by the Minister, the price of wheat will drop. The miller regulates his prices by what he has to pay for imported Australian flour. He pays proportionately to what the Australian flour costs him. The imported flour has a direct influence on the price of wheat in South Africa. Now that under the Minister’s proposals the dumping duty has been taken off. Australian flour will in my opinion be imported much cheaper in the future than it is to-day, and as a result of that the South African buyer and miller will pay less for the wheat of the South African farmers. The South African miller must be enabled to compete with the Australian miller. The protection of the dumping duty is now taken away and in its stead we only get 5d. per 100 lbs. of flour and 5d. per 100 lbs. of wheat.

I must remove the hon. member’s misunderstanding. I did not go into detail in my budget speech, but the hon. member will find the details in the Report of the Board of Trade and Industries which was laid on the Table. The protection of the wheat farmers has not been reduced.

That is not what the public understand. As they understand the budget speech the wheat farmers will get 2d. per 100 lbs. less protection. There was, of course, a special dumping duty, and that was very effective and is now being removed. The Minister says no ; the duty is 5d. more per 100 lbs. of flour and 5d. per 100 lbs. of wheat, but the Minister knows that one cannot get 100 lbs. of flour out of 100 lbs. of wheat. The existing duty has always made the difference by imposing three times more duty on imported flour than on imported wheat.

That was wrong.

The Minister says that it was wrong, but I should like to continue the existing system. The Minister puts the duty at 5d. more per 100 lbs. for flour and for wheat, and this is the first time in our legislation that wheat and flour are put on an equal footing. The Minister now says the increase will be the same. I fear it will have the result of damaging our farmers for the benefit of the millers in Australia, where all the byproducts of wheat, such as bran, are used in the dairy industry, because there is a great demand for bran. In Australia they are not anxious to export wheat, but to export flour, and we must see when the Bill comes up, and I ask the hon. members for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) and Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) to give their attention to the matter, that it is made clear that there is still a system of dumping to protect the farmer Otherwise they are undoubtedly worse off than under the present system.

That is not the case.

The hon. member for Malmesbury may be cleverer than I, but I have the right of giving my view. I hope he will make his standpoint clear. If wheat is imported we want a good duty on it, but we can grind the wheat ourselves, so that we can have the benefit of the bran, instead of Australia enjoying it. I just want to say that the Minister will admit that all the industries, except farming, are being very strongly protected. Take, e.g., the boot industry. I have nothing against it, but that industry enjoys 30 per cent, protection. We, who represent agricultural districts, think that the Board of Trade and Industries ought to go carefully into the matter, so that the farmers can be protected just as much as the other industries. I want again to say a few words about my grievance against the Minister with reference to last year’s licences. The Minister has withdrawn the occupational licence i.e., that of the people who make boots and harness, and of women who make clothes, and I am thankful to him. I want, however, to tell the hon. members for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) and Somerset (Mr. Vosloo) that the removal of the licences is now being used to make capital against the Government officials. Those two hon. members came to hold a meeting at Villiersdorp in my constituency, and told my constituents that the licences were being demanded quite contrary to the law by officials opposed to the Nationalist Government, and with the object of the people giving the Government a slap in the face. I do not rise to plead for the officials, but to say that we have an honourable public service, and that such aspersions ought never to be made against the country’s officials as those two hon. members made at Villiersdorp. The law says: The licences are demanded from every person who does not pay licences in any other way under the Act. The result is that the head office in Pretoria ordered all the officials to collect the licences. Now the officials in my constituency are accused of carrying out the law with the direct object of injuring the Government. The Minister was right to give instructions to the department to cancel the licences. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (the hon. member for Somerset was not yet a member of the House) voted with open eyes for the licences and for the Act which provides that the licences shall be paid.

To a point or order, I should like to know where the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) got it from that we made that accusation.

That is not a point of order.

I did not make the accusation.

The reports in all the newspapers are incorrect then. I was at Villiersdorp last week and several people there told me that those speeches had been made there. Will the hon. member for Oudtshoorn get up and deny it?

If the hon. member for Caledon will give me an opportunity I will clear up the matter. I did not say that the officials had wilfully interpreted the Act in that way. I did, however, say that I acknowledged that many of the officials did not understand the Act, and that some of them possibly unknowingly had so interpreted it that the Government had been injured. I did not, however, say that the officials had gone out of their way with the intention of working against the Government.

After the lame explanation, I am not surprised that the reporters sent such a report to the newspapers. The licences are now suspended, but there is another kind of poor people.

Did the Minister have the right to do that?

The Minister will, I suppose, introduce an Indemnity Bill. I can say that there are many people who pay the tax who, it is now said, could get a refund, but when they come to the magistrate’s office they are asked where their licence is. These people have lost it, and then they are told that they cannot get the refund before they produce the licence. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that the Government had not the right to suspend the Act. I suppose, however, that the Minister will ask for an indemnity in this connection. There is another poor class in my constituency who are hit very hard by the licensing tax of last year. I refer to the poultry sellers, the fish and the fruit hawkers. These people only paid a few pounds in the past under the old system. Now they have to pay £1 for every municipal area they want to sell their goods in. If they want to go through the whole district of Caledon the licence amounts to £10. I can tell the Minister that, if he can bring about an alteration in this respect when the licensing law is amended, it will be very much appreciated. The Minister is possibly not aware of the fact that a large number of the poor people in the Western Province carry on this sort of trade. I hope he will bear this in mind when he makes amended proposals in reference to the other professional licences. The poor class of people are also badly hit by the budget through the increased duty on imported ready-made clothes, That is just the class of man that the hon. friends promised to protect. They represented that they were the friends of the poor man.

Why are we sitting here ?

The Government must keep its promises. The value of imported readymade clothes amounts to £2,000,000 per annum, and with an extra tax of 5 per cent, the poorer class man has to pay £100,000 more per annum.

Now the poor wives can earn more.

Perhaps the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) is satisfied if his wife makes his clothes, but that is not necessarily the case with other people. Then there is another provision in the customs tariff which specially affects my constituency, and that is the duty of 25 per cent, on the under parts of motor boats used in fisheries. I want to tell the Minister that we had a serious discussion two years ago about encouraging South African fisheries, and I made it clear at that time what the position was. I want to congratulate the Minister of Mines on his safe return to South Africa, and express the hope that his health has much improved. The Minister of Mines has appointed a commission to find out in what way the fishing industry can be assisted. That commission is now visiting the coastal villages in my constituency. We are specially desirous of encouraging the use of motor boats. The people have to work hard in the warm sun and they cannot go very far in rowing boats. Their work is much handicapped if they only use rowing boats, hence the idea to encourage motor boats. Safe harbours are necessary for anchoring the motor boats used by these hardworking people, the fishermen. Now motor boats are selected for taxation, and I think it is unnecessary, and that it presses heavily on the shoulders of the people. I live among these people and am daily in touch with them. I know their wants and the Minister can take it from me that this tax makes their position difficult. Then there is another matter. I am astonished that the Minister puts such a high tax on pipes that municipalities and others require for conducting water. I do not come from a district where there are irrigation works —we fortunately get regular rains—but we have large horticulturists, and they are all busy distributing their water by means of pipes. Undoubtedly, it is against the interests of the farmers to put a higher duty on pipes required for irrigation, etc

The pipes can be made in this country.

In the end the question is whether the farmers are going to pay more for the pipes. I argue that each industry must be protected on its merits, and I doubt very much whether we are so much developed that we can put an import duty of 25 per cent, on pipes. What of the municipalities ? In my constituency a new village has been laid out by the Church Council, and the waterworks, which are being constructed, cost £8,000, an amount for the most part spent on pipes. The municipality of Caledon is also constructing a water scheme at an expense of £30,000 mostly for the purchase of pipes. If we make the cost unnecessarily high it will react on the rent of houses, because if the duty on houses is higher the man who hires the house will, in the long run, have to pay it, and it should be our duty to keep the duty on houses as low as possible. Then, in this connection, something about railway rates. There has, for years, been a movement by the municipal association in the country to get a reduction of rates for municipal requirements. Besides the import duty on pipes, they suffer from high transport rates. The municipality of Caledon pays the Minister of Railways no less than £1,200 for the carriage of pipes from Cape Town to Caledon, so that I do not think it is in the interests of farmers, and in the interests of the towns to increase the duty on pipes. I am astonished at hon. members on the cross-benches remaining so quiet. They always pretend to be the only representatives of the poor man. Have they said a word in connection with the budget in the interests of the poor man? Then I want to say something about the Conciliation Act. I am not going to say a single word against the Act. I think that the best way to settle a dispute is that the two parties, the employer and the employee, should come together to settle the wage in a particular industry, but we must not forget that the Act also throws a responsibility on the Government. The Minister of Defence wanted to make out this afternoon, that the raising of wages was not due to the Act.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) said that the wages in the building trade in Pretoria had become lower. He has experience and ought to know.

That may be so in Pretoria. Only recently a furniture manufacturer told me that they sell their products at a profit of 33 per cent, more than before the increased wages were brought out. And who pays it? The consumer. Under the Conciliation Act it is left to the Government to validate an agreement. The Minister may do it. If the Minister does it then he does so on his own responsibility. What I want the Minister to do before he validates an agreement is to investigate how it will affect the consumer. We must not forget that at the moment the employer is between two fires. If he does not come to an agreement with the workers and the conference is useless then he is anxious about the Wages Act which is in the background, and this may have the moral effect that the employer will agree under the Conciliation Act to pay any wage, because he is afraid of afterwards falling under the Wages Act. It is therefore the duty of the Government before it validates an agreement—

What has the Government to decide in connection with a concluded agreement?

The Act says that the Minister may approve it.

Where is that said ?

In the Act of 1924. The Minister may declare.

If the agreement is voluntary? Do you say that the Minister can then refuse ?

The Minister may refuse. If he does then it ends in nothing. It is the duty of the Government to protect the consumer. Take, e.g., the wages and the building trade in Johannesburg.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) says they are lower.

But what has the Minister done ? After the agreement was concluded between the two parties he goes and declares it of force for the whole Transvaal. Let Johannesburg pay the wages if the building contractors wish it, but why make it operative in the whole of the Transvaal ? I have only tried to make it clear to the Government that when an agreement is concluded the responsibility is on the Government to find out what effect it will have on the consumer. The budget before the House shows no signs of economy. Whatever the good intentions of the Minister of Finance may be we fail to see an attempt at economy, and the promises of the Nationalist party to the people of South Africa are not being kept.

I intended to remain a silent listener during this debate, but the whining opposite is so great that I want to say a few words. We wanted to give the Opposition the whole of the five days to make their complaints, and to show us clearly where and how the Nationalist party are not fulfilling promises made to the electors. Not a single instance has been mentioned. We said that we would go economically to work and not waste money on unproductive work. We promised that we would not spend sums of £50,000, £60,000 or £100,000 for which we could not produce receipts. Is it not a fact that under the old Government every year since 1914 a sum of £50,000, £60,000 or £100,000 was spent for which the Auditor-General could find no receipt ? I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). His speeches are always worth listening to; but what did he say to-day? His great complaint was that so few members of the Nationalist party were present in the House. To what then must the unfortunate Ministers and ourselves listen ? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was much concerned because the Minister of Defence was asleep. But I wonder whether the hon. member has ever looked at the benches behind him during this debate. The attack must of course come from the Opposition side and they must mention points and say where we have not fulfilled our promises. When I asked the hon. member for Yeoville what speech we should listen to the answer was, to that of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I have much respect for him, but for five years he has at every opportunity made the same speech on defence, and if we turn up Hansard we shall see that the speeches are almost indentical, and his own Government never adopted a single principle thereof. Was his speech worth listening to? Is the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) surprised then that the Minister of Defence went to sleep? The hon. member would however, not believe it when I made the interiection that £700,000 less taxation had been imposed. If he does not believe it then he has not studied the speech of the Minister of Finance. If he has not done that how can he come and make an attack here. I will undertake to move that the reduction in taxation is £700,000. It is not a reduction from which the countryside will benefit at all. Take, e.g., the return to the penny postage. Few letters are written on the countryside.

Postage stamps are not a tax.

I know, however, that the tariff has been reduced from 2d. to 1d.

The fees for telegrams are not a tax either.

There you have the Bezuidenhout financier. He complained that the Prime Minister was not in the House and exhibited a feeling of personal venom. I want frankly to acknowledge that I asked the Prime Minister if he would not come into the House because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout found great fault in that respect. The Prime Minister left his work, and the remarks of the hon. member were then full of bitter venom, and the Prime Minister was greeted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with the words: “I wonder whether the word of the Prime Minister is worth 20s. in the £.” I ask my hon. friends opposite if they will in the future allow the Prime Minister to be insulted with impertinences of that nature by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout ? I was never so sorry for an offence that I had committed as for having asked the Prime Minister to come into the House. The hon. member for Yeoville asked why money is not coming into the country. I am not a financial expert. I know some years I get 7d. for a pound of wool, and some years 7s. If there is a man whose word I take then it is that of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He said recently: “We have unbounded prosperity and money is streaming into the country.” Is that the left or right wing that is speaking ? I have something interesting here, a Reuter telegram, which says: “At a meeting of women the opinion was expressed that there would be an election shortly in South Africa.” Can anyone tell me who made the speech? I wonder if the hon. member for Yeoville will not hold up his hand. Another friend for whom I have great respect is our late Speaker. He always treated me courteously. He now complains about the terrible silence which prevails on this side of the House. I also at one time learned English, but I have to-day learned English that I have never before heard, and that I shall never forget—

If a stupid person comes to the House then he sometimes learns wonderful things. Fortunately I must acknowledge that the hon. member for Caledon did not this afternoon have Moscow on the brain. He did not hold Moscow responsible for the splendid budget of the two Ministers I, however, remember his speeches during the by-election at Beaufort West. He is one of the big guns of the South African party, and the hon. members for Beaufort West (Mr. Basson) and Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) will agree with me that he said: “You should know that I am a big man.”

The meeting gave me a unanimous resolution of thanks for my speech.

I waited with fear and trembling for the result of the Beaufort West election, and really became afraid when I heard the hon. member had gone there. Then there is still the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) who made speeches and said: “If you want to lose everything you have then you must vote for the Pact Government. I can prove that if he denies it. I thought that Mr. Nel would get in, but we know what the result was. I hope the hon. member for Caledon will go and tell his electors that the protection the Minister of Finance gave them is not in their interests. Then the hon. member said that he would not give protection to South African industries. Let me tell the hon. member—

I did not Say that.

You said expressly that you disapproved of protection. Does the hon. member know that “wire netting” which we buy in South Africa—

Where did you learn Afrikaans ?

I mean the wire netting which we import from England. The South African farmers are willing to pay more for the protection of South African industries, and the industry close to Cape Town makes better wire. There is no one in the House who has greater respect for the hon. member for Standerton than I. We welcome him back to the House because we missed him. There is no one who listens with greater attention to him than I, but when he speaks of promises, then I say that in the pamphlet I have here there are twelve promises which he or his Government had fourteen years to carry out, but that was not done. Those promises were made on the 23rd of April, 1924.

Was it not on the 1st of April?

The people elected you to carry out your promises.

If we were elected to carry out our promises, then it is impossible for us to adopt those promises. If the Government has not carried out the promises which it made then, the population had an opportunity of making its voice heard on the matter. There have been enough by-elections, and the voice has been heard. The hon. member for Standerton knows what the result was. I thought that the hon. member for Standerton would prove his prophecies that if the present Government came into power the credit of South Africa would receive a shock, and that we should not be able to borrow money, and that that would cause a calamity in South Africa. The opposite occurred. I thought hon. members would make a terrible attack on the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) said that the losses in Natal were £100,000. I thought that when the House met this year, the hon. member would prove those losses to the House. He spoke in ignorance, because he also told the House that sheep that had been dipped grew three inches of wool in three months. Then the hon. member for Weenen made a speech, and referred chiefly to what the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearcel had said about the Afrikander shorthorn bull. He told us nothing about his secession policy. We heard that secession on the Opposition side was quite dead, hut the hon. member for Weenen is the new champion of secession. I thought that on this occasion we should hear something about it. I also expected that we should have a repudiation of Abdurahman as the South African party champion, but hon. members remain absolutely silent about it. If I had any say in the Government of this country, I think I could freely state that, in view of his statements, I would have prohibited Abdurahman from returning to South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is not here. I remember reading a speech of his, in which he said that all the money people intended to invest in South Africa would be withdrawn if the Nationalist Government came into power. I wonder how much money of the great sums he prophesied has been withdrawn by people who intended to invest money in South Africa. I further expected that there would be something in the speech of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I have great respect for him. He spoke thirteen times last year on scab alone, and I wonder if he knows such a thing as scab, and the difference between a pig and a sheep? Now, with his terrible venom, he has occasioned the suspension of one of the hon. members of this House. The hon. member does not know my language, but I just want to tell him that it is not cricket. That he will understand. It is not manly. He probably feels happy now, but a sportsman would act differently, and if I were the cause of a member’s suspension, I would be the first to go to him and shake hands with him to dispose of the matter. I now turn to other matters. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he knows what attempts are being made to see that proper supervision is kept over the importation of cattle from Rhodesia. I read here that in the month of March there were imported from Southern Rhodesia to Johannesburg 512 oxen and 360 cows, and to Durban 3,450 oxen and 1,034 cows.

What about the embargo ?

The agreement is that only cattle weighing at least 1,050 lbs. can be imported. I wish, therefore, to ask the Minister whether proper care is taken that no cattle of a less weight are illegally imported.

The election promise was that a total embargo would be enforced.

My hon. friend knows that no such promise was made. Then I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on setting an example to England in eradicating scab. Do hon. members know that scab is very bad in England ? And do hon. members know that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Wood, stated on the 3rd of August. 1925, in the House of Commons, that he intended to follow a new policy with regard to the eradication of scab, in which the chief method would be a general limitation of the movement of sheep, and the institution of a dip and a second dip between the 15th of July and the 31st of August every year? He explained that that period was fixed in view of the development of the tick. He further expressed the hope that the country would be almost free from the disease within three years. I think, therefore, that we can congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on setting an example to England. I should like him to tell us—I think he has not yet made a statement about it to the House—what the position with regard to scab is at present. I am one of those who will support heartily, and have always supported, all proper efforts to eradicate scab. That disease is a disgrace to South Africa, and damages our name in all countries of the world. If any farmer comes to me and asks me to plead for the non-dipping of sheep, I should laugh at him. Another great grievance is that something should be done with regard to stock theft. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) knows how we suffer through that. I think that our cattle mostly go to his constituency. It occurs that farmers lose 150 to 200 sheep in one night, and I have here a judgment of someone charged with the punishment of offenders to the effect that the punishments are not sufficiently severe. An instance came to my notice of a native who was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, and imagine my astonishment when he came back and told me that he had in the meantime learned to read and write. “If I steal now,” he said, “I can write myself out a pass.” I said to him, “Write out a pass,” and he did it, and very well. The punishment was too light. I do not only wish to thank the Minister of Railways for the reduction of rates, but to call his attention to a grievance still existing. I have already brought it personally to his notice, and do so now again. We do not wish to travel any more in the trains with Hottentots. We do not want natives to travel with us in the same coaches, drinking water out of the same jugs, etc. Something must be done. Now I come to the rates. I have already spoken about it to the previous Minister of Railways, and his answer was that we wool farmers had to go on paying. He surely did not know what losses we had from year to year. It is over 4,000,000 in small stock alone, which died of drought; 404,000 from theft, and 300,000 from wild animals. Let us look at the rates a little, e.g., in reference to the carriage of lucerne. In the case of lucerne, it does not matter what the sending station is, the rate is 10s. per ton for export. In the midlands, the cattle and sheep of the farmers die, but if they have lucerne carried by rail, then it costs them 27s. 6d. per ton per 1,000 miles. When the lucerne is for export, the rate is 10s. per ton.

The tariff is then 13s. 9d. per ton.

Why, then, is the rate for export lucerne less ?

It is to encourage export.

And how much is exported ? The people want to save their stock by lucerne and yet lucerne intended for export is carried cheaper. Lucerne is absolutely necessary in South Africa to save the the stock. If we take the rate for coal per thousand miles, it is £1 per ton, and for mealies it is 27s. 6d. per ton, but for wool it is £7 8s. 7d. per ton per thousand miles. I am glad that the Minister has promised to look into it. The Minister responsible for irrigation is unfortunately not in the House. I do not know whether he knows that the scandalous 1921 Act, by which the previous Government with a stroke of the pen took away all the existing rights of riparian owners still exists? The Kanthack principle which came from other thickly populated countries has been applied here. The Act took away the rights of riparian owners, and then they had to apply to have their rights defined, and that within six months. And if they did not do so it was all up forever, and their children and grandchildren had no say about the river. I hope in this connection that an amendment will be passed during this session. With reference to the construction of expensive dams, I think that nearly half the money is being wasted. I hope the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Lands will enquire into the dam which is being built on the Orange River for so small a sum as £100. The dam was disapproves of by the Department on account of the danger of washing away, yet the dam still stands, although it only has a breadth of 4 inches. The dam was constructed by Jannish Brothers, below Upington. They did not have much money, and the dam was built for £100. I think the Minister of Lands knows about the dam. I hope the Minister of Lands will in future so arrange his plans with regard to the settlements as to obviate the failures of the previous Government, and that an end will be made of the system by which returned soldiers are put on them. In Natal £136,000 has already been written off, and this year probably £150,000, and in a, few years it will possibly amount to £1,000,000. I wonder if the Minister of Lands knows of the great asset we have in the people of the country who are willing to work. We thought when the Sundays River Settlement was sold to the Government for £100,000 that we had made a good purchase. That is not so, because the debt on the ground below Lake Mentz is £66,881. Where do the people live who owe the money? Some live in Egypt, India and Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea, but the taxes are accumulating here. I am not a socialist but I think that the Minister should decide that if the people do not come here to take possession of the ground it should be expropriated. They took the ground although there are hundreds and thousands of our people anxious to get land. It is a matter which I am anxious to bring to the notice of the Minister Of the surface of 13,000,000 acres under cultivation there are only 817,000 acres under irrigation, and I hope the Minister will give serious attention to the damming up of the rivers of the interior, because the future of those parts depends upon it. Many people are leaving there and are going bankrupt. I have every respect for, and confidence in, the engineers, but the old farmer ought to be given a chance to build dams. They will build them much cheaper than the engineers and the dams will be just as good. I am glad that I had the opportunity of assisting my friends opposite, and I hope that they will now wake up. There are now only eight of them in the House. I welcome the budget. I entirely agree with it and I am quite willing to bear all the accusations and insults and to go to the country on this budget alone. We are very proud about it. Hon. members opposite who criticize the Government have found that they have to do with people of sound commonsense. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was venomous, but he is still young, and as there is a chance of his still becoming a man in the future and making a name for himself he will find that venom and bitterness will block his way.

I am pleased to have the opportunity again of complimenting the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways and Harbours upon the clear and lucid way in which they introduced their budgets and also for the patience and attention they have given to the various long speeches which have been delivered. Of course these Ministers have had a comparatively easy time. In their first two sessions they practically brought in budgets which were prepared for them by the previous Government. This year they are reaping the benefit of the previous Government’s administration and policy. [No quorum.] That not only applies to financial matters, but also to other departments of government. In view of the fact that we have had a very long week with late hours every night, and that this is Friday night and the House seems tired, will the Minister agree to adjourn the debate?

I do not know how many members still want to speak. I have no particular desire to have the debate protracted at all. It is a matter in the hands of the House as to whether they want the debate adjourned now.

There is not much satisfaction in speaking to an empty House I must say, and if hon. members on the other side are not going to attend and provide a quorum, it seems to me it would be more dignified to close down for the night. This Opposition has been criticized for not, having opposed or interfered more with the passage of Government measures during this session ; but, as we all know, the Opposition, as it is now, is not an obstructive Opposition. We only criticize when we have anything special to say. Having said what we want to say we stop there. The consequence is that there has not been so much delay in passing measures through the House, and I notice that members of the Government are taking great credit to themselves for having put through so much legislation this session. That is one of the reasons. Another reason is that the Government found, when they came into office, so much legislation prepared to bring before the House that, all they have had to do, is to bring these Bills, prepared by the previous Government, before the House and pass them through. Wherever the Government have altered any of these Bills, they generally put in some clause which spoils the Bill to a great extent and makes it much less effective. I think the criticisms of the budget which have been advanced, if taken to heart by the Government, ought to effect some good for the country. There are two points of which I wish to make special mention. One is the connection between the Board of Industries and the Minister of Finance. I do not understand exactly how this board is working. So far as I can find out—and I must say they work very much in the dark—they either go to an industry and ask them to put particulars of their business before them, or the industry goes to them and says—

The Board of Industries asks them to put a statement before them of the position, and tell them what they want. Apparently that is done and, without any further enquiry on the part of the board, they accept these statements and they put them before the Treasury with their recommendations. Very often, indeed, the Treasury accept these recommendations, and give effect to the proposals made by the board. I think that is a very wrong way of carrying out this part of the work. I am not much in favour of such a board at all, but if you have such a board they should go into matters in the open and should give every opportunity to the public of knowing what has been done. Why, reports are often put on the table without members knowing what has been put on, and next day, from the Votes and Proceedings, they find out that such reports have been put on the table. Very few, I suppose, are looked at, unless members are interested in the particular class of business dealt with. I hope the Minister will do something to make the board’s proceedings more public. The first thing we often know is that a proclamation is made that new tariffs will be levied from such and such a date. That is wrong, and is doing harm to business, and causing a great deal of friction and annoyance. I am informed that in some cases members of the board have even gone to an industry and said they would give it help. I think that is going out of their way. For instance, two or three reports of the board were put on the table this week, and I asked to see them as they are not to be printed. One of them is a recommendation to increase the advantages already given to the cement industry in this country. That industry has been prospering exceedingly and paying excellent dividends, and yet these people come forward and ask for further help from the Government in connection with the importation of cement. If the price of cement is increased, the cost of building and similar industries is also going up. There is also, I find, a report from the board in connection with the super phosphate industry, and the board has actually recommended an additional duty, a minimum of 5s. and a maximum of 10s. per 2,000 lbs., to be imposed on all super phosphates imported into this country. We all know what the effect of a big duty is. It raises the cost of an article landed here, and the selling price is raised accordingly. You are increasing the prices of fertilizers to the farmer, and I should have thought that they do not want to pay more than they are doing.

The Government has not accepted that recommendation.

They have not, so far, but I find, from past experience, that many of the recommendations are accepted.

I thought that you were under the impression that we had accepted it.

No. There are also the proposed heavy increased duties in connection with flour, sugar and clothing, which I am absolutely certain—I have no doubt about it— will increase the cost of living. If the same kind of article is made in this country, and if it costs less to manufacture than the imported article, the sellers of that article will fix their price just a little below the cost of the imported article, and the higher the cost of the imported article, the higher the price of the locally manufactured article. That has been my experience. I sometimes wonder how the Socialistic Minister of Labour, and the Bolshevistic member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) are going to satisfy their constituents that they were not parties to the raising of these duties on these articles, which so much affect their constituents. I am very much interested in the kind of explanation they are going to give. They are, in fact, bolstering up the industrial capitalists of this country, whom the Minister of Labour used to denounce so heartily during the war times. Now he is becoming a bit of a capitalist himself, and by-and-by he may embark on some of these industrial enterprises and get a share of those “huge profits” against which he used to declaim when he was a member on the back benches. Another matter I notice in connection with this Board of Trade and Industries is that they have a tendency to restrict our trade with the United Kingdom and the British dominions, and encourage trade with other countries, especially the U.S.A. Every recommendation they make hits at some part of the trade with Great Britain and the dominions, and if there is any concession at all. It is given to countries outside the dominions. I hope the Minister will check that. He knows, as well as I do, what we owe to Great Britain. I hope he will see that this tendency is not carried too far. I am not either a high protectionist or a free trader. There can be no such thing as actual free trade in this country, because of our circumstances and the conditions under which we live. Free trade means free trade without any restrictions and a tariff at all. The people in Great Britain are fair traders, and not free traders. I am rather in favour of helping industries which utilize the primary products of the country and make the most of them. I would do so by putting on a bounty payable by results and insisting on the condition that that industry shall employ a certain proportion of white workers. I think on these grounds we would be quite safe. I know that sometimes industries seeking help from the Government in connection with tariff matters say that if they are allowed this protection they will employ so many more white workers, but as soon as they are assured that what they want will be given they immediately look round for the cheapest labour in order to increase their profits, and their promises in regard to white labour are not carried out. I am informed, and I think I can take it as being correct, that this Government has definitely decided upon a high protection policy. They say that if you look at other countries which have done this, like the United States and Australia, they have succeeded very well. But it is very noticeable that the farming classes in these countries are now beginning to realize that they are not getting the benefit of these high duties which the other sections of the community are getting, and they are becoming restless and are beginning to rebel against this policy, and agitating to have a revision. A letter appeared in the London “Economist,” written by a correspondent in Australia, in which it was stated that the policy of protection is not by any means a settled question as it is building up a few millionaires at the expense of the agricultural and pastoral community. It also says that in Australia it is admitted that every increase of tariff means an increase in the cost of living. I think it is worth while for agriculturists to consider what Australia’s experience has been and whether it is worth while following her example in that respect. Another matter I would like to refer to pertains to the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He has had a great many interviews with people interested in the coal industry and I do not think that he has absolutely closed the door against their pleas for consideration. The carriage on coal on the railways is one of the most remunerative items, and the rates are about 125 percent.—that is the bunker coal rate from the mines to the coast—higher than they were before the war. There is, therefore, ample room for reduction, and if the Minister would only make a fair reduction to the ports an increased export and bunker trade would be done and the Minister would easily recoup himself from the increased traffic.

The export rate is not 125 percent, over the pre-war, and the bunker rate is practically pre-war.

I would like to point out what is taking place in other countries and which will show that authorities there are very wide-a-wake and look at the matter from a different point of view from the railway administration here. I was reading in a London paper about the Indian railway budget which has just been brought in. This paper says that an era of improved facilities, rapid extensions, and lower passenger fares and goods rates has begun, and that this has been largely achieved by the application of commercial principles, the same lines on which it is laid down that our railways are to be run. The paper goes on to say that not the least welcome feature of the railway budget is the substantial reduction on long distance coal freights intended to assist the Indian coal mines, which are all situated in Eastern India, in order to oust foreign coal from the western markets in Bombay and Karachi, “especially the bounty-fed coal from Natal.” It is also stated that they have been watching us and know the coal we send out has a lower rate than coal consumed in the country, and they were intending to take action to shut that out, but now that they have reduced their rates they find that it is not necessary. In pursuing the policy outlined these railways in India believe they can increase the area within which the industrial use of coal is economically possible and will thereby stimulate industries, which will ultimately benefit railway business in consequence of the growth of those industries. I think that is a wise policy, and I hope our Minister of Railways will take a leaf out of their book and do something on the same lines. The only other matter I want to touch upon is intended for the Minister of Defence. I wish to support what the hon. member for East. London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) said about the defenceless state of the port of Natal. When I put a question the other day to the Minister of Defence on this subject, he gave me a very unsatisfactory answer, but that is not unusual with the Minister, and we must take him as we find him. It is a scandalous thing that the principal port in the Union is utterly defenceless against any saiding attack which might be made from any part of the world. The Government ought to do something to protect the town, but at the present time any armed vessel can come along and bombard the whole town, blow up the oil tanks, and destroy our magnificent new graving dock, without any possibility of being able to repel it. If the Minister feels his responsibility as he ought to do, he should see that something is done towards providing adequate defences. Cape Town has some defences, but Durban has absolutely none, so far as I know. The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) told us that he believed in long thinking and short speaking, and that the people of Natal—with the possible execution of the railwaymen—were all satisfied with the Pact Government,. It is curious that another member of the Government party has also been thinking, for the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, addressing a Woodstock audience the other night, said—

I hone the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) will square this matter with his leader and find out what long thinking is going to result in, because they don’t seem to come to the same conclusion. The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) thinks that the whole of Natal is in favour of the Pact Government. Why does he not test the matter by having an election ?

Why don’t you resign?

I am all right. Let us have an election. The hon. member and his friends can bring on a general election at any time, for they have the Government by the scruff of the neck, and can make it do what they like. Let us have a general election, and see what the people of Natal think about the situation. The Pact will then get a great surprise, if not a great shock.

As my name has been twice mentioned in the debate and my constituency also, I will take the opportunity of making my voice heard. In the first place, I must answer the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close,) who stated last night that during the election we made promises we have not fulfilled. If the hon. member does not know, he ought to know, that the Nationalist party got a majority at the election, and thereupon formed the Government to carry out the programme of action, which was laid down before the election. I am glad to say that my manifesto has practically already been carried out. And as for the programme of action of the Government, the promises have been fulfilled on nearly every point. In the first place, more assistance was promised to the farmers. I ask if that promise has not been fulfilled, seeing we passed a Land Settlement Act last year, and have dealt with a Bill on agricultural credits this year? These Acts are in the interests of the farmers. I do not believe the hon. member for Rondebosch has been beyond the Paarl, except perhaps for a court case at Kimberley, and that he has become acquainted with the farmers of the country outside the Cape Peninsula. In the second place, a promise was made to prevent education being shipwrecked, and if the Government had not come forward with the Financial Relations Act, providing the necessary money for the provincial administrations, then thousands of children would not have been in school to-day. Thirdly, the Government promised to do its best to solve the poor white and unemployment problems. If more could have been done to solve the problem in such a short time, then I do not know what the word solution means. On the railways, more than 13,000 young Afrikanders have been given the opportunity of work, and many others have been appointed to the public service. The Land Settlement Act and other measures of the Government also tend to solve the poor white question. To-day, moreover, one does not find so many coloured people in Cape Town who stand about in groups in the streets. They have also been given work. I ask any hon. member opposite to show me in Cape Town where the old conditions exist, and where the coloured people can say that they cannot find work.

What did you say the other night at the African National Bond?

The hon. member is in too great a hurry. I am coming to that. In the fourth place, it was promised that an attempt would be made to solve the Asiatic problem. Did not the Government try in that respect to do what it could ? As regards the system of taxation, attempts have also been made to improve it. In that connection, the Government promised to be careful and not, when a deficit was expected, to make the budget balance without taking into account the influence of that attempt on one or other industry. That was the case with the former Government where it snatched at a tobacco tax, so making more poor whites. With the medicine tax it was the same, and when the poorer classes came a long way to buy their medicines, they found out that the tax was raised. These are people who have to think of every 3d. The Government promised that when taxation was imposed in the future, care would be taken that there would be no damage to one or other of the industries, and the poor classes would not suffer severely through it. Then another promise was made that the Government would try and solve the native question. Is it not occupied with that now ? The Government has five years in which to carry out its programme of action, and if the Government is given the power, it will do so. It is said that the Nationalist party also promised to establish a State bank, but that is not the case. The leaders of the Nationalist party in the four provinces promised that they would make an enquiry to see how far a State bank would be beneficial to South Africa. Then I wish to discuss another matter, viz., the increased customs duty on spirits and liquors imported from abroad. I am glad that the Minister of Finance has seen his way to do so. The increase of 7s. 6d. per gallon is possibly small, but yet it is something, and it has had the effect that the price of whisky has already been raised by 1d a tot.

How do you know that ?

I made enquiries and found that that is so even in Parliament House. I hope the wholesale dealers will see that the prices of brandy are not raised. I was myself a wholesale dealer for some time, and I want to assure the House that according to the prices the farmers receive the wholesale merchants make enough profit. Where the customs duty is raised it has been done with the object of giving a preference to South African industry. Here we have an opportunity of helping industry. It has already been proved in the past that if a South African industry cannot exist on account of the competition of the overseas article, then when an increased duty is put on the imported article, the South African producers and merchants also raise the price of their product. That is a failing of the Afrikander people. Where it is at all paying to keep the foreign article out of the country, advantage should not be taken of the opportunity to raise the prices of the South African article, because in that case protection does no good. Some people think that the future of the South African people must be looked for in the land, but they forget our climate. Sometimes drought, then washaways, etc., that farming is not so very successful. No, we must establish industries, and give protection to them, so that our sons may get work. I now come to another point in connection with the election at Barkly West in 1924, in view of the contemptuous remark of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He has referred to a punishment which was given in this connection.

The hon. member cannot discuss what was said in a previous debate.

I thought that a member could speak on any subject during the budget. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke sneeringly about a matter affecting my constituents.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was talking about a Bill and what he said in a previous debate cannot be referred to.

The hon.member for Bezuidenhout spoke on a former occasion and it would be a great pity if I have no opportunity of replying. Have I not the right to make a statement with reference to a matter which has been touched upon from time to time during the last three years in this House ?

The hon. member can deal with any subject, hut must not refer to what took place in a previous debate.

Then I just want to say that hon. members know that six people were sentenced in connection with the Barkly West election. Two admitted that they voted twice. One was under the influence of strong drink according to his statement. Mr. Snyman was No. 1616 on the voters roll, the same name appears again on the list as No. 1617. Both times it is Johannes Snyman, Willow Bank, near Klipdam. The two places which are given as residences are near each other. When Mr. Snyman arrived outside, one of the polling agents gave him a number, and he voted under it, and when inside he made his declaration he gave his occupation as a digger, and voted as such, though he is a gardener. He was punished for that. What, however, was behind the case ? In 1921 my agents gave me 21 names which I could have handed over to the police of people who did not vote for me, and who had voted irregularly. I did not however, want to persecute them and allowed the matter to rest. The Opposition is behind the matter. They cannot forget that I have deprived the Unionists of the seat of Cecil Rhodes. In the second election when the unholy alliance had come into existence I was beaten by 57 votes, but they cannot forget that I have won the seat of Cecil Rhodes. As for the statement that people voted in the morning at Johannesburg, and in the evening at Kuruman, I know nothing about it. The places are too far from each other. What happened was that someone voted at Barkly and afterwards at Klipdam. Then there is in addition the fact that four of the six people who were punished were given to me as certain Nationalists, and two were S.A.P. men. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has, I understand, attacked me in connection with the meeting of coloured people that I addressed. I was unfortunately not here, but he attacked me on a supposed statement of mine in connection with the Labour party. I refer to a report of the meeting in “Die Burger.” As for the “Cape Times” report, I just want to say that I expected some such thing would happen. The individual who came to report only stopped a short time. He possibly had a ‘working knowledge” of Afrikaans, but in any case he did not understand my Afrikaans. I did not take particular notice of it. I have known the “Cape Times” a long time. I knew it in 1899 at the time of the second war of independence and know it to-day. The paper has given prominence to what I did not say, and headlined it so as to catch the eye. In the report, inter alia, mention is made that I said that if the Nationalist party was strong enough we would throw the Labour party overboard. That report is quite incorrect, and I absolutely deny it. The reporter, with his “working knowledge” of Afrikaans, reported me wrongly. I only hope that when the Government gives out its printing work again it will take care to give it to printing works that give honest reports. Fortunately I can check the speech I am now making in Hansard before it appears, but as I said, the young gentleman who made the report referred to could not understand my Afrikaans. I rely on the Burger” report and on the whole meeting. What I said was that we knew the Unionist party and the Unionist S.A. party, that it always tried to raise bogeys. The party said that we would get no credit in Europe if the Nationalist party came into power, and that has proved to be a bogey. They also tried to keep the bogey of secession alive, but when I spoke about it to the former member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Merriman) he said himself that it was a bogey. They only use it to separate our English friends from us. The Prime Minister has, however, made a declaration regarding secession, and now that bogey is dead. But I have also said that to the true Nationalists the real ideal is to stand some day on one’s own feet, and that is my ideal also. If a child of ten years comes of age he stands on his own feet, and so it must also be with a people that is developing.

What did you say then?

I said that, the last bogey with which the Opposition were trying to frighten the people was the Labour party. Hon. members opposite go to the country and say that the tail is wagging the dog, but then they come to the town and say that the Nationalist party is master and leads the Labour party by the nose. We know the old policy of divide and rule, because that was used successfully between the two great Afrikanders, Gen. Botha and Gen. Hertzog. It is still the policy of the Unionists who are in the South African party to-day. On the Opposition benches there are only fourteen members who belong to the old South African party, and they are sitting under the thumb of the Unionists. There the Unionists are master. The best thing is the fact that one hon. member opposite came to see me and asked: “Are you satisfied with the Labour party?” I replied: “Are you satisfied with the Unionists?” He said: “We are devilish unlucky.” As for the Labour party, as long as there are points of agreement on which we can co-operate in the interests of our beloved South Africa, and to make one great people of the English and Afrikaans-speaking sections, we will co-operate, and then I say that the Pact will last another fifteen years. The fact that the old South African party men opposite do not come over to us is due to the fact that they live in the sacred hope that a division may come between the Nationalists and the Labour people. They may wait for that, but many of their followers will set their sails to the wind. Hon. members of the South African party who still sit opposite are the only ones in their families who are not Nationalists. We find that the young people are overwhelmingly Nationalists, that 90 per cent, of the clergy of our church and 99 per cent, of our doctors of divinity and literature are Nationalists. Hon. members opposite are living in the faint hope that we will re-unite with them. Here are our principles, and if hon. members opposite will subscribe to them first then can there be talk about Hereeniging. I can mention the case of the Hereeniging congress at Bloemfontein. There the South African party came with false representations. They had already definitely settled to unite with the Unionists, and shortly thereafter they entered into an unholy alliance with the Unionists, and subsequently the old South African party members said we have not amalgamated with the Unionists, they have abandoned their principles and joined us, but what is the truth? Read the speeches of the Unionists on the 2nd of November, 1920, at Bloemfontein. Tile hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) must be the last to speak. Did he not go with me to a congress in January, 1914, to Bloemfontein and agree with the resolution that the principles of the South African party were too vague, and that they did not comply with the demands of the people. It was then resolved to appoint a committee, and on this the member for Paarl took his place and he assisted in drawing up the principles of the Nationalist party. When he was asked at the Paarl what he had gone to do at Bloemfontein he said that he had just gone to prevent the breach becoming too wide. Then he suddenly altered his view and became South African party. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) may also want to join us, but I doubt whether we will accept him, because he was first a bondsman, then a progressive, then a Unionist and now he is a South African party man. Now I want to mention a question which affects my constituency, viz., the asbestos industry. The industry can be worked up to one of the greatest industries in South Africa. Asbestos is found there in the Rooibergen. I will go and show it to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort if he will accompany me there. It runs through from the district of Hope Town to Kuruman and there asbestos is found which is known as the blue cotton stone. That is the kind which is known as the best, and it is found there in lengths of from half-an-inch to two inches. I hope that the Government will see to it that the Union Trade Commissioner on the Continent tries more and more to open markets for this article. There are hundreds of people who are already making a living at it, and there are thousands that could do so. There is something else I would like to mention. We hear all kinds of stories that our Government is now introducing Socialistic legislation. We have merely an understanding with the Labour party today, an agreement to work together with them. The position in 1920 was that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had no understanding with the Labour party (it is now pretended that they are such bad people to cooperate with), then the hon. member for Standerton was not afraid of Socialism, because he offered a seat in his Cabinet to the leader of the Labour party. At the Hereeniging congress at Bloemfontein it was already a decided matter that the object of the South African party was not to re-unite with the Nationalists. It is proved by the fact that shortly afterwards there was a fusion between the South African party and the Unionists. The Unionists, however, joined the South African party with the object of getting the reigns into their hands. After the recent election, no party had an absolute majority in the House, and if the Prime Minister had not asked the Labour party to take a few seats in his Cabinet, then the hon. member for Standerton would have taken in the Labour party the day after. In 1920 we find that the previous Government tried to gain their favour by the Housing Act, the Profiteering Act, and by the importation of cheap flour and wheat, in consequence of which £800,000 was lost. In 1921 also, a Wages Act was passed in the House, but rejected in the Senate. Those are the people who say that the Government is introducing socialistic legislation, but the Nationalists do not allow themselves to be intimidated. One does not hear of Nationalists going over to the South African party, but we have the case of Commandant Kruger, of Kuruman, and his followers, who have come over to the Nationalist party. Then the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has referred to-night to the increase in the national debt. We are not opposed to the increase of the national debt, but we are opposed to the accumulation of unreproductive debt. The previous Government, e.g., bought a farm in the Riversdale district at about £100,000 but if this had to be sold to-day it would not fetch more than £20,000. Another was bought along the Olifants River in the district of Clanwilliam, and the former owner has got £13,000 in the bank to-day, but he is still kept on as manager. That was absolutely throwing money away. Then there is the farm Ausburg, Clanwilliam, which is quite unpayable and not worth what was given for it. Fortunately the Government will now probably use it for the establishment of an agricultural school. The money that has been spent will, however, never be recovered. The late Minister of Agriculture (Mr. F. S. Malan) came into my constituency and talked about the national debt, but it appeared that he knew nothing about the National debt and still less about the amount of unreproductive debt. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) complained about the excise. He said the higher the protection, the higher the article which was protected cost. That we all know.

I did not speak about the excise.

The hon. member spoke about the import duties on overseas goods. We know well enough that the protection of the wheat farmer may result in our having to pay a little more for the grain, and something more for bread, but hon. members forget that by protecting our industries work is given to our poor children who are now without it. People constantly come to me, even young people who have passed the matriculation, who can find no work at all in our native country. That is a sad condition of things. Then I just want to say something more in connection with a little matter regarding my constituency. We have a little railway here. 60 miles in length, and it crosses the Vaal River by a bridge. There are no hand-rails on the bridge, and when the river is full the water runs over the bridge. When people have to cross the bridge and they cannot see the railway then they properly refuse to drive across it. I would not do it myself. I hope that the Minister of Railways will alter and improve it. Then there is a halt at Kamfersdam, which is outside of Kimberley, where people often have to wait three-quarters of an hour or more before they can go on. I hope the Minister will go into this matter as well. Another thing in connection with railways. I said in 1920: “Do not be afraid.” I want compartments to be set aside for natives and coloured people. The coloured people agree that they cannot be put on the same footing with the whites. They are proud of their race and expect us to be proud of ours. They merely object that there are railway coaches which are third class at one end and second class at the other and the natives and coloured people mix together in the little passage that runs through the coaches. I want to ask the Minister to so arrange the short distance trains that, e.g., a coach for the coloured people in front is composed of first and second class compartments. Between them there is a compartment for white people, for first and second class (they do not travel third class much), and at the end there must be a compartment for the natives. It is no longer necessary, as in the old days, to put “Reserved” on certain compartments, to prevent the coloured people in that way from sitting with the whites. The coloured people quite agree that they cannot be treated socially like the whites. They, however, insist on their rights, and the coloured man’s money must, in this respect, be worth just as much as the white man's.

On the motion of Mr. McMenamin, debate adjourned ; to be resumed on 19th April.