as chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts on the Agricultural Credit Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report to be printed and House to go into Committee on the Bill on 26th April.

The Minister of Finance has been freely congratulated on bringing in his “safe” budget—an economist’s budget providing for a surplus, but it seems to me that it is too orthodox for a young country and a country that must develop, and that it lacks enterprise and foresight. As a matter of fact, this budget, as it purports to be, is a budget for this one particular year. I do not think the Minister has taken due cognisance of the fact that the mines, on which so much of the prosperity of this country is based, is a wasting asset. There is no attempt to arrange for the dislocation which will occur in trade and employment or to provide any funds for prospecting, or any funds for opening up new mineral fields. Too much dependence is being placed on further mines being opened by the big mining houses, but these to-day are not taking the interest in actual mining that they once did, and at best their principal interest has always been not so much in mining as in the stock exchange manipulations. We see that capital made in South Africa is now being allocated to Panama and other foreign countries. Conditions are now so well known in South Africa that opportunities for stock exchange booms are not as easy as they were, despite what has occurred in the platinum market, and the companies are not too keen on mining results only. But if these large companies will not develop new areas, then, it seems to me, that it is absolutely the duty of the Government to do it themselves. The Chief Mining Engineer tells us that we have millions of pounds’ worth of gold lying undeveloped in the far East Rand, but we live in a fool’s paradise if we rely upon this as an asset unless it is going to be worked. The gold is not worth a penny till it is brought to the surface. I would like to see the Government put an end to the present position of stalemate, in which the Government and the companies are haggling about the price for areas, by initiating State mining. The whole future of this country is now based on farming and the mines, and I am satisfied that with the working out of the mines, bad times are ahead unless some radical alterations are made, and the provision of employment is still the most important matter before the country. We want to at least double the white population, so as to be able to spread the taxation over more heads, but as matters are at present we cannot find employment for even those now here. I am going to make a comparison between South Africa and Australia, the conditions of which are analogous. The area of Australia is very large, the population is comparatively small, and the prosperity of the country was built up in the first place on gold mines. In 1903 Australia had its record output of gold. £20,000,000. Twenty years afterwards the output had shrunk to £3,000,000. South Africa to-day has an output in gold of £40,000,000. and if the output declines in the same ratio as Australia we shall, in 20 years’ time, find that it has shrunk to £6,000,000. If such a contingency comes about, everybody will be affected and the farmers will find that they lose their local markets and also their railway facilities, because without the mines they could not have anything like the same railway facilities they have to-day, or the cheap railway rates. But assuming these figures are not borne out, it is nevertheless certain that in the next 20 years the mining industry will be very much reduced, and I want to ask the Minister and the Government what they are going to do for the men who will thereby lose their employment. If the mines and the farmers could guarantee work to all who desire it there would be no need to worry, but they cannot do this. Farming is entirely dependent on climatic conditions, and it is not even keeping abreast with the demands for increased employment to-day. As far as the mines are concerned there has been a record output in the past month, which shows they are being worked out as quickly as possible, but through the use of labour-saving devices and otherwise they are utilizing less white labour than they did some time ago. In 1910 25,000 white men were employed, whereas to-day there are 5,500 fewer, or a reduction of 20 per cent. Australia at one stage was in exactly the same position as we are in to-day. They were faced with a shrinking gold output, but they went in for a system of real protection of industries which brought about a period of prosperity which is attracting thousands of emigrants who are passing our doors. Our Minister of Finance also favours protection, but if I may say so without offence, he has tried to please everybody and has pleased nobody. He has introduced a hybrid tariff, with an eye to keeping revenue and suiting Free Traders and Protectionists. It is an axiom that protection is not protection if it does not protect. Where an industry wants 40 per cent, and is only offered 30 per cent, the natural effect is that the industry is not protected, the people have to pay more for their goods without getting the compensating advantage of an industry, and the system of protection gets into disrepute. The Minister last year introduced a partial protectionist tariff and now comes along and tells us that industrialism is of slow growth and the result of last year’s tariff is an increase of only 4 per cent, in the number of people employed. I know it is hardly fair yet to criticize the effect of the tariff, but I am satisfied that if the Minister had gone in for a straight-out policy of protection he would have had a far better result. Australia is a fair comparison of what can be done in this direction. During the last ten years under a policy of protection the Australians in woollen goods, leather goods, clothing, and iron and steel manufactures have increased their products by no less than £23,000,000 a year. Last year in these four lines they distributed £26,000,000 in raw material and £20,000,000 for wages, profits, and overhead expenses. One of the benefits of protection is that it always gives preference to the raw materials of the country, and all these four items could equally be manufactured from the raw products of South Africa. Whilst we are producing some of all these things ourselves at the present time, South Africa is paying no less than £10,000,000 for additional articles which, in my view, could be manufactured in this country from our own natural products. We are paying all this money to employ the sons of other countries while our own children are walking about looking for work. What Australia can do surely South Africa can do. As a matter of fact we have some extra advantages. Nowhere else in the world can they get the same cheap coal, which is very essential for industries, and further we are told we have very cheap labour in this country. The last is an argument of the other side. For my part I think results prove that our native and coloured labour is not cheap because it is inefficient. However, I am satisfied if we are going to fail in a protection policy it is not going to be through, the inherent failure of the country, but through lack of patriotism on the part of the people. I think the Minister was right when he interjected in the debate that local people would not buy local goods, and it is that foolish prejudice which stands in our way. The big importers whose business it is to sell the goods of other countries have adopted a slogan of “stinking fish” as far as our manufactures are concerned, and the general public are foolish enough to listen to it. The hon.member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Tagger) in his speech the other day said that the manufacturers were living for the most part on the earnings of the farmers. Of course that is not true, for if the manufacturers are on anybody’s backs it is on the mining industry. I would like the Minister in his reply to tell us that he has decided to single out certain industries and give them full protection. What we want is to single out industries which can be carried on the raw products of the country, for it is just as absurd to try and bolster up industries, the raw material for which has to be imported, as it is to export our raw materials and get them back in the shape of manufactured goods, the manufacture of which has found employment for foreigners. Whatever is done I think should be done at once, because the time is running on ; the mines are being worked out, and there must come a time when we will have to find employment or else South Africa will be in a bad way indeed. There are a few anomalies in the tariff which the Minister is now going to put right, but I am sorry he has not gingered it up more. I am pleased to notice the Minister has decided to fix the price of sugar. That is a policy preached from these benches for years past, and we trust that on the question of other I foodstuffs the Minister, will fix prices so that the consumer will not be plundered, as he has been in the past and is now being. About the question of ready-made clothing, with regard to which so much has been said, the tax has been increased from 15 per cent, to 20 per cent., which means on a suit of clothes which cost 30s. at the factory the price here has been increased by 1s. 6d., which does not justify all the outcry. Speaking for the Witwatersrand, I know there are eight factories there making ready-made clothing and employing 500 Europeans. The women have a minimum salary of £2 10s., and the men from £5 to £8 10s. per week, so that obviously this is a class of industry which should be fostered. In one factory at Germiston 120 women are employed and it circulates £400 per week in wages. Quite close to that we have the gold refinery, which deals with one ton of gold a day, and the little clothing factory circulates more money in wages than the gold refinery and is therefore of more use to the community. Another argument one might use in favour of encouraging the clothing industry is that we are always talking about what we are going to do with our boys, but this is an essentially female employment, and it answers the question, what are we going to do with our girls. It is an industry which can easily be encouraged in this country, for it requires comparatively small capital and can work up our own tweeds, and I am glad the Minister is doing so. There had also been objection to the fact that the Minister proposed to increase the tariff on certain articles required by the mines, but I cannot see why these goods should not be made in this country. We often hear of the advantages of mass production, and I would like to ask can anybody tell me any other part of the world where they require so much mine equipment as on the Band, or where mass production could be so well undertaken. For these reasons I say that we are quite entitled to have extra duty on these articles, so that the whole of the requirements may be made in the country. The mines can start their own factories if they so desire, as they have done in the manufacture of shoes and dies and carbide. The big thing is to provide employment locally and cut out the imported article. In the debate we have heard the parrot cry that protection increases prices, but there was the illuminating fact that of the million pounds’ worth of agricultural implements annually imported into this country at least half comes from America, where wages are fully double what they are in Free Trade England. Free Traders always assume that the high duties are going to be paid, but it is manifestly impossible to protect an article and pay customs dues on it at the same time. I would be delighted if no duties were paid on manufactures in the customs but that the whole of the goods were made here. Further it is not true to suppose that local prices are always based on the cost of the imported article. If time permitted I could quote instances where competition between local firms had reduced the price of the South African product. At first under protection there will be increases of cost, but the introduction of the system may be likened to a young married couple who are desirous of acquiring a home of their own. They can perhaps conveniently pay a rent of £10 per month, but they go to a building society and by the exercise of thrift they manage to pay £15 a month and gradually get their own property. So long as the husband remains in work—which he may not do unless industries are protected—all goes well and eventually the couple can afford to smile at the hardships they encountered. The general public would be in exactly the same position as regards protection, which is a policy for posterity. It is a policy which has its disadvantages at first, in the same way as an insurance policy is a disadvantage while the premiums have to be paid, and while no parent would wilfully leave his children unprovided for by insurance, there is nothing he could leave them more beneficial than employment, which alone can be secured by protection and encouragement of industries. With regard to the wheat duties, of which much has recently been written and said, the Minister has abolished the dumping duties and put an extra tax on wheat instead. In this country wheat affords an exception to the usual rule of protection that assistance through the tariff should not be granted to any industry which may not ultimately supply the entire requirements of the country, and the cost to the consumer is therefore based on that of the imported portion. However, the wheat farmers have lately had a good season and I am anxious to encourage them to strive to supply all the wheat required in South Africa. If we do this the duty will not matter, for it is only operative when there is a shortage. There is a duty on maize, but as we produce more than we require the duty in no way affects the price, and I hope this may ultimately be the case with wheat. We have heard a lot about the prices of bread, and it is said that it is going to be affected by the duty on wheat having been increased. In South Africa we produce about three-quarters of our wheat supply, and on the balance we are asking to put 1s. 5d. per 100 lbs. If you spread the tax over the whole of our wheat supplies, imported and local, it comes to only one-twentieth of a penny per lb. of bread. The usual conditions of the local article being priced to that of the imported plus duty does not really apply here. In this country the milling companies control the market, pay what they like for the wheat, and sell the flour at what they like. Wheat as wheat is of no value, and as the milling companies are alone able to grind it into flour they are in supreme command of the position, and take full advantage of it. The farmers have to take whatever offer they are given for their wheat, and the consumers have to pay whatever is asked for bread by the bakeries controlled by the millers. The trust is now so complete that the “free” bakeries are too few to be worthy of consideration. I would suggest that the Government should assist by establishing State mills which would be to the benefit both of the consumer and the farmers. The price of a 2 lb. loaf varies in different parts of South Africa between 5d. and 8d., the latter price generally maintaining, so that it is obvious that the one-twentieth of a penny per lb. has very little to do with the price of bread, and we must look beyond the tax to account for the high prices. The farmers have been getting 25s. a sack for wheal, which allowing for wastage as bran gives 200 lbs. of bread which is sold at £3 6s. 8d., so that no less than 170 per cent, is added to the cost of the wheat for the milling, baking and delivery. That is altogether out of proportion to the value of the services rendered, and demands Government attention. I have received a letter from a large firm which deals with bread as a side line, stating that bread from the best flour obtainable could be baked for a trifle under 5d. a loan, and it certainly is unfair for the bakers to charge 3d. for merely handing the loaf over the counter, as is done in many places. Besides having State mills, on top of that the Government should fix the price of bread if the consumer is to get relief. Another matter which is pressing heavily on the consumers on the Witwatersrand is the recently established coal monopoly. Practically all of the colliery owner's of the Transvaal belong to the Coal Owners’ Association, which acts as wholesale agents and distributes the coal to the retail agents. Recently they decided that they will have no more retail Agents, and have thus placed a valuable monopoly in the hands of those already in the trade. As part of the scheme, they have re-organized by deciding that all payments for coal must be made in cash, and have also re-organized the delivery so as to cheapen their charges. No one would object to that but when, without any increase in the price of the product, the price is raised from 20s. to 25s. a ton, with extra for delivery in some cases, the public has good reason to complain. Certain of the existing firms desired to continue to supply their customers at the old rates, but were informed that if they did so their supplies would be cut off. As I have said there has been no increase in the cost of production, there has been no increase in wages, for nearly all the work of the collieries is done by natives. The coal at the pit mouth is sold at 6s. per ton, the railage to Johannesburg is 3s. to 7s., and the retailers put on 100 per cent, for delivering the coal for cash. I emphasize “cash” otherwise it might he said that there would be a lot of bad debts. The Government should not allow this monopoly to go on, because it is a monopoly that presses hardly on many poor people. It was stated that one way to get out of the difficulty would be for the railway to establish a flat rate for coal, but I understand this is not practicable, but if the Minister of Finance would do what he has done with sugar and fix a price for coal, he would be doing a good service to the Witwatersrand. But if he cannot do that the Minister of Railways might call on the colliery owners to play the game to the public in consideration of the substantial favours they themselves receive. To assist the companies coal for export is carried at a quarter the rate on coal for local consumption. If the Minister could get the Board of Trade to report on this matter he would find no difficulty in getting evidence to prove that the position is really worse than I have stated. Speaking of the Board of Trade I would like to state my appreciation of what they have done, and I can only regret that the Government has not had the courage to carry out many of their recommendations. Tn this House, members do not seem to appreciate the work the board has done and have satisfied themselves by casting abroad airy insinuations in regard to them. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) stated that “the board consists of three young men without special knowledge, strongly suspected of having got their posts because of their anti-British sentiments.” One might as well say that the hon. member had lived so long as to be out of date, and that he owed his seat to the fact that his title appealed to the natives and coloured men in his constituency. But apart from the taste of introducing racialism into a debate like this, he showed ignorance of the position. There are four members in the Board of Trade. Three members are certainly youngs but the fourth would feel flattered to be called so. The three are condemned because they are young—the fourth is left out of account altogether because he is not young! How can anyone regard foolish arguments like these ? But such statements cannot detract from the good work which, in my opinion, has been done by the board, and I am sorry the Government did not take advantage of the recommendation of the board to establish State cold storages. Cold storages should be a boon and blessing, but have been the curse of this country. We have instances where cold storages have been used to enable profiteers to keep back supplies of butter and other perishables, and we know what happened recently in regard to egg export. That is not the only instance where cold storages have been what one might call a danger to the community. We read in the papers a lot of flaming head lines about the experiment of sending meat to Italy. If was stated that we had at last found a market for our meat, and much advantage was likely to accrue. I understand, however, that the Trade Commissioner has reported to the Government that it was only by the greatest fluke in the world that that shipment passed muster. Some of the carcases in the consignment were absolutely putrid. If they had been passably fit they would have got into consumption and done harm to our reputation, but they were so bad that attention had to be drawn to them, and it was only by the exercise of a great deal of patience and persuasion that the remainder of the consignment passed muster. I understand the explanation since given is that these carcases were stored in the Imperial Cold Storage in Durban, and when they were making up the shipment there was a bit of room left, and several carcases which bad been in store for some months were put in to make up the shipment. These carcases were never examined by the Government vets., although the. Government gave a certificate guaranteeing the quality of the whole shipment. Of course there was a breach of the law and the regulations to be observed, but, apparently these powerful cold storage people consider they are above the regulations, which they believe are only for the control of the smaller fry. We often hear the argument that we want private enterprise with Government regulation, but in this instance despite the Government regulation, we find this thing is done, and the whole meat trade of South Africa has been jeopardized. The incident only proves no regulations will properly control private interests when it pays the latter to break the regulations. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will tell the House what he proposes to do to protect the country-against a recurrence of such a thing, and also to tell us when he is going to recommend the Government to establish cold storages, because those run by private enterprise have not only not met the requirements of the country, but have as is shown proved an absolute danger.

I do not wish to go over ground which has already been covered in this debate; but there are certain points I should like to refer to and to emphasize. In the first place I wish again to draw attention to the fact that this Government was returned at the last general election on a policy of economy. The fact has been continually stated in this House. There seems now to be some change of tone on the Government benches. We heard the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) say the other day that this cry for economy was a parrot cry, but there was no doubt that this Government was returned on a policy of economy in public expenditure, and the question is whether they have made good the pledges which they gave to the country at the time. I am going once more to put some of the figures to show the House and the country that the Government, so far from carrying out its promises, is doing just the opposite. Let me first mention the example set by the late Government in this matter of economy in public expenditure. When we came into office in 1921 we found the public expenditure at its very peak. Those were the great boom times. Everything was at the peak. The public expenditure stood at just over £30,000,000 per annum. When, three years later, in 1924 we vacated office, we had brought down that figure to £24,000,000. In 1924 the Government of “economy” came in—the people who had won the confidence of the country by promises of economy. We left the expenditure at £24,026,000. but the first year of Pact Government, the expenditure rose by half a million, and in the following year it went up by over £1,800,000. and this year it is proposed that another £550,000 shall be added to the expenditure of the country. Therefore, in practically two-and-a-half years of Pact Government we have an annual increase in the public expenditure by £2,900,000. We, on the other hand, managed in three years to reduce the expenditure by £6,000,000. That is how the pledge of economy has been carried out. The railway figures have gone up in an even more amazing way. We left the railway expenditure in 1923-’24 at just under £22,979,000. The next year—the first year of office of the so-called “economy” Government, the Government of unfulfilled promises—the railway expenditure went up by £1,140,000. The following year it rose by £3,000,000, and this year it is foreshadowed that there will be only the paltry increase of £200,000 more or less. Therefore, in railway administration, after this short period the Pact has been in power, so far from any economy materialising we have actually had the railway expenditure increased by £4,340,000.

With reduced rates.

That is how the promise of economy has been kept. If that promise had been fulfilled railway rates would have been reduced by many millions of pounds. Let me mention another figure to show how these promises have been carried out. Let us look at the revenue which the Government has got from taxation. In the last year of the South African party Government administration the revenue from taxation, was £16,800,000. In the following year—the first year of Pact government— there was a great change. The people paid in additional taxation towards the running of this country £1,500,000. Certain taxes were remitted, certain other taxes were imposed, the times improved so that other taxes made a better return, and the result was this, that, in the first year of the Pact Government, the people paid £1,500,000 more in taxation than they did under the South African party Government. The following year the people paid an additional £750,000. The Minister forecasts that this year there will be additional revenue from taxation which will amount to about £412,000. Therefore, during the time the Pact Government has been in power the people are paying £2,750,000 more in taxation than they paid the day the South African party Government left office. These are very remarkable figures. If this Government had come in on a different policy, if it had said that under the South African party Government was dealing too harshly with the people, I could have understood these figures, but just the opposite was said. They made these promises of economy to the electors, and the result is that in the general administration the expenditure has gone up by almost three millions and on the railways by over four millions, while taxation has been increased by £2,750,000. The country is pondering over the way in which the Government’s, promises have been kept. Now I wish to come to another point. A great deal has been said upon the question of protection. My hon. friend on my left (Mr. Jagger), in that very able and illuminating speech of his raised a number of points, and he was immediately afterwards asked by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar), who spoke for the Government, whether that was the policy of the Opposition, or the personal policy of the hon. member (Mr. Jagger). There is no question about the answer to that enquiry. There is no doubt that we, on this side of the House, are as much pledged to an industrial policy as any other party of the House. The point raised by Mr. Jagger was not that. He has been a protagonist for years of the pure free trade standard. He has, perhaps, been weakening in recent years, but the speech which he made did not touch that ultimate question. The speech, I take it, raised issues which are of more practical importance. In this House and in this country, if you will use the word “protection," we are all protectionists. I do not like the word “protection” very much, because I flunk it is a word which makes you think of the text books. We are all for an industrial policy, for any means that will develop the resources of this country to the fullest extent. What the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) asked in his speech was this—

You may call that protection, but I call it an absurd policy. If you degrade the high word “ protection” by attaching that meaning to it, you are making a great mistake. It is mistaken policy. In their application of the policy the Government are favouring the few at the expense of the vast majority in this country. The hon. member took the case of the clothing industry, and I take it once more, because it is a good sample of much of the protection which has been applied recently in the tariff. There is this increased duty on ready-made clothes. The vast bulk of the people of this country have to buy ready-made clothes. We have not the factories here now. Thousands and tens of thousands of the ordinary citizens of this country are going to be taxed. The question is raised at once, what is the status of this industry? The Government themselves supply us with figures which show that, for the last seven months, this clothing industry in the various important centres of South Africa has been in an increasing measure relying on native and Asiatic labour. In Cape Town, within the last Seven months, in the clothing industry, European employment has gone up by 16 per cent, and Asiatic employment by 43 per cent. In Port Elizabeth white employment in this industry has gone up by 8 per cent., in Durban white employment has gone down by 4 per cent. and Asiatic employment has gone up by 27 per cent. On the Rand again, in this industry, white employment has gone down by 3 per cent, and Asiatic employment has gone up by 87 per cent. This industry, which rests on this basis of an increasing dependence upon black and Asiatic labour, is an industry which is singled out by the Government for protection at the expense of the vast majority of the people of this country. I ask myself what is the policy? I thought, and we all thought, that the main argument in favour of a policy of protection was that we were going to stimulate white employment. Here we see the Government singling out for protection an industry which increasingly employs, not white people, but native and Asiatic people, and not a step is taken in this budget to forestall that.

What about the colour bar Bill?

The colour bar Bill won’t touch this. The position is that we shall give this protection to the clothing industry, there will be a burden laid upon every poor man and every poor family, and the result of that will be nothing to the general good of this country, but an ever-accelerated employment of natives and Asiatics. If that is the policy of the Government, let them say so. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Tagger) that that is not protection; it is simply stupid policy. The position is very much the same in several of the industries that we have been supporting recently. The figures supplied by the Census Department show that, while we have been calling upon the country to make these sacrifices for new industries, there is very little additional employment of white labour, but there is very much increased employment of natives and Asiatics. In the Cape Peninsula, with all the hundred and one industries which are going on here, there has been in the last seven months not the least increase of white employment. In Port Elizabeth there is an increase of 3 per cent., in East London there is no change, while in Durban white employment has actually gone down, in spite of prosperous times, and in spite of the way in which we are fostering the manufacturing policy. On the Rand there is 2 per cent, more white employment. If you pass on to natives, what do you see? In Cape Town we find 15 per cent, more in industry, in Port Elizabeth 25 per cent, more, and in East London 10 per cent, more natives employed. If you take the Asiatic figures, you find there are more Asiatics employed in the Cape Peninsula and Port Elizabeth, East London has the same figure, there are more in Durban, and on the Rand, with all its infant industries, there are actually 18 per cent, more Asiatics employed now than there were seven months ago.

Do you know the difference in basis on which the returns were compiled for comparison?

Yes, the comparison is given.

Are you aware of the difference?

Oh, yes.

Well, then, your comparison is valueless.

Oh, no. Whilst this country is agreed that we should have a policy of fostering industrial development, and whilst the country has been mainly induced to accept that policy because it thinks there is going to be a larger white employment in this country, it finds that the actual result is as I have stated. I think there is something wrong. It is not the policy that we are criticizing, it was not the policy that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) criticized, but it is the application of it. I now go to another point. In fostering this manufacturing policy, we must be very careful not to hit the great primary industries. While we are, with very few exceptions in this country and in this House, in favour of an industrial protectionist policy, we say: “Hands off the great primary industries, the mining and agriculture of this country.” I heard the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) say the other night that the farmers would gladly pay a few shillings more on wire netting in order to foster this particular industry. I would warn my hon. friend to be very cautious about that. The day when our protectionist policy is going to make an inroad on the great primary industries of mining and agriculture, we shall be doing this country far more harm than good. I wish now to say a few words about the mining industry. The mining industry, apparently, is in a flourishing condition. The prospects are rosy. The Government is getting a very large income from the mining industry, very high dividends are paid, and it seems as if. “everything in the garden is lovely," but the position essentially is quite different, and if I give a few facts here to-day I do not wish to alarm the country or anybody, but I wish the people to realize what are the basic facts in regard to the mining industry. The mining industry, especially the gold-mining industry, has been the mainstay of our public finances. It also gives the largest local market for our farmers. Therefore, we must look upon it as an industry of supreme importance for the public finances and the internal agricultural production. We had no better proof of this than in the calamitous events of 1922, when, for a number of months, this industry was brought to a standstill. The public finances, the railways, and the farmers felt the effects at once. What is the position to-day in regard to that industry? We have to-day, on the Witwatersrand, 36 mines which are at present working. Of these, 12 are not paying any dividends, or are nearing the point of exhaustion. One-third of the mines on the Rand are in a semi-moribund condition, and the end may come at any time. Of the remaining 24, nine are likely to be working out within the next five years ; we know they are nearing their end. If we look a little further, within the next ten years a very large additional number of mines will become exhausted. Even taking it on a conservative basis, if no new fields are discovered and if working costs remain what they are at present, then we may look upon it that ten years hence the mining industry will be probably reduced to about one-half its present dimensions. These are the two conditions which I give, if no new fields are opened up and if the working costs remain the same. If hon. members reflect for one moment, they will see what a tremendous effect that will have upon the future financial and economic conditions in South Africa. What I say is the fact—this is a passing industry ; it is a wasting asset. Our whole public finance is resting on the basis of a wasting asset. Our farmers must also feel that the chief internal market they have had will, in no long number of years, very largely disappear. It is, therefore, our duty to foster and protect this industry in any way we can, to give confidence to capital and attract capital, in order that new fields may be opened up. My other condition was that working costs remain the same. But are they going to remain the same ? There are many indications that they may go up. The white workers have, for a long time, been clamouring for increased wages. The native workers are organizing, and I am very much afraid that the result of all this will be that the working costs, instead of remaining constant, are likely to go up, and the ten years I have given for the reduction of the industry to half its present dimensions may be even shorter. I think it is a very serious position indeed, and therefore I say, in our legitimate and proper attempt to foster the industrial policy, do not let us hit a primary industry like that, an industry which we should do everything in our power to keep going as long as possible. Let us not apply the protectionist policy to agriculture and to mining. These are the great industries of primary production upon which this country depends, and which are far more important than our manufacturing industries. It shows the extreme necessity for us to exercise a policy of rigid and strict economy. What, I ask, is going to happen within the next ten years if there is this serious and far-reaching curtailment of one of our most important industries, on which public finance has rested in the past? We shall either have a very serious economic crisis, or, to forestall it, we shall have to economize on a very large scale, and we shall, instead of following the ruinous and expensive example of the present Government, have to go back to the example set by their predecessors. The Government can do a great deal to help the mining industry. Take the matter of labour. The Government has been curtailing the labour supply on the mines, and for many months the mines have been working on short supplies of labour.

We curtailed it, did we?

The Government has been applying the policy of their predecessors in a way which was never intended. The rule we laid down some years ago was that the natives of the Union, for the purposes of employment on the mines should have preference, and as long as there were sufficient forthcoming from the Union we should keep the importation of Portuguese natives down to a certain number, but if, for one reason or another, the natives of the Union were not forthcoming for labour on the mines, then we would relax the restrictions which we had imposed, and we did so from time to time.

What did you tell them ?

I do not know what the Minister is referring to. We looked upon the natives of the Union as having the first chance. Now we have seen in recent months that the whole countryside was covered by the organization of the Chamber of Mines in order to recruit labour. The Government would not relax. The Government allowed the mines to work on a short labour supply, and I say that is not sympathetic treatment of the mines.

What effect had it on the output ?

The Minister surely knows that if the mines had had another 10,000 or 15,000 natives the output would have been far larger.

Oh, no. Give the figures.

The Minister’s question is a fair one, but it is easily answered. The answer is this, that if the mines had had the labour which they required their output would have been larger and the benefit to public finance, as the Minister stated in his budget speech, would have been greater. I would also ask the Government to pay serious attention to the departmental report of Sir Robert Kotzc’s committee issued two years ago. That report was made by a number of departmental experts, whose whole lives have been spent in mining development in this country, and who make a number of particular recommendations in what way mining can be further promoted. None of these measures would have cost the Government very much. I should say if we do not want to see this country run to a dead end of mining, and if we wish to see new developments taking place, we should give the closest consideration to a matter like that. I pass on to agriculture. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) mentioned several things which the Government had done for agriculture. I have been looking round, but I have not seen anything the Government has done for agriculture— except hitting it. Only to-day I got a number of letters telling me of the losses from rotten oranges in the last shipping strike, which the constituents of the Minister of Lands have suffered. The Government neither in its legislation nor in its administration has shown much consideration for farmers. The hon. member for Wonderboom gave an instance. He said the repeal of the tobacco tax was of great service to the farmers. I say that repeal has been a great disservice to the tobacco industry. The proof is in the eating. Immediately after that tax was repealed, what happened? Prices slumped badly. The position of the tobacco industry became worse than it was before. I cannot conceive what the Government had in mind in making this remission except the ill-considered promises which they had made at the last election.

You made the same.

I made no promise in that way. Let the hon. member read it again and he will see it is a carefully guarded promise. I promised to remedy what had proved the weakness of that tax, namely its actual working and administration, which were wrong. But the tax itself, in my opinion, would have meant the same great reform for the tobacco industry that the brandy excise has meant for the brandy industry. The excise on tobacco has disappeared ; everybody is producing tobacco and the result will be that the industry will go backwards. If you want to see what is the real effect of the tobacco tax, compare the position in this country with the position in Rhodesia. Rhodesia is forging ahead by leaps and bounds in the tobacco industry. She put on a tax with us, and she kept the tax. It has helped to stabilize the industry. We have repealed the tax and we shall suffer for that repeal. I take another instance, the cattle industry. What has the Government done for the cattle industry. I saw a paragraph in the paper this morning, the market note from Johannesburg, saying that the cattle market had not for years been so bad as it was now and had been, for some time. What is the reason ? We know it. Meat is a drug on the market and I say that the cattle industry has never for years been in a worse position than it is to-day.

made an interjection.

Does the hon. member know what we are getting for beef in the Johannesburg market? Now go next door—go to Rhodesia, and what do you find there ? You will find that the cattle industry there is flourishing, and that the Rhodesian Government and farmers are exporting all their smaller animals. Last year they sent about 5,000 head in cold storage, and the bigger cattle they are selling at tip-top prices on the Johannesburg market. Our cattle industry in this great Union is in a bad way, the cattle industry of our neighbour next door flourishing. What is the cause ? I will give you two reasons for this difference, and the first is this—why are cattle not exported on any scale from the Union? The Minister of Finance in his budget speech mentioned the great export of cold storage meat from this country, but he forgot to tell the House what is the fact—that it is Rhodesian meat that is mostly exported, and I will tell you why. Because three years ago, when we gave this bonus on the export of meat, Rhodesia followed our example, and it is this bonus which has carried the meat of Rhodesia to the markets of the world. We got this new, this wise, this farmers’ government—and we shall have to pay for our “wisdom” and our experience. One of the first efforts of the new Government was to withdraw this bonus, and the result is that there is very little export of meat from South Africa, but a great export from Rhodesia. I do not see what good our Government has done the cattle industry in this matter. They have talked a great deal about it, and made great promises during the last general election, but when you come to test the facts, you have on the one hand the state of affairs in Rhodesia and on the other hand in the Union. The cattle industry of the one country dead, and in the other flourishing, because in the one you have a Government which followed the old South African party Government, and maintained the bonus, and in the other case you have a Government such as we see before us. What I say I have from the foremost farmers of Rhodesia. Let me tell you the second reason, and it is this—our Government, for what reason I do not know, has been waging a feud against the Imperial Cold Storage Company. The Government of Rhodesia does not do it, and has worked with the Imperial Cold Storage Company, and has actually given a monopoly of export to them—and you see the result of co-operation between that big company and the Government of Rhodesia—the export of about 50,000 head of stock in one year—and so it will go on. In the years to come I am very much afraid we shall find our cattle farmers in the Union left, and a great export of cattle from Rhodesia and South-West, and here in this Union, where the Government is waging a war with the Imperial Cold Storage Company, you find farmers suffering as the result of that policy. Look at the treatment the Imperial Cold Storage has been getting from the Government. Last year a commission was appointed—not a Government commission, but an enquiry by the Board of Trade, who went into the meat industry. It made a report which was a virulent political pamphlet against the Imperial Cold Storage Company—not a judicial document which would carry weight with any person who wanted to know the real facts. Amongst other things, the report recommended that the Government should institute its own system in this country, apart from the Imperial Cold Storage Company, and sidetrack the Imperial Cold Storage Company. This was the precious scheme, that the Government should build cold storages in various parts of the country and hire others on the coast, the tannery of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), I suppose, would be one of these cold storages—and the cattle farmers of the country should form co-operative societies to run these cold storages which the Government would place at their disposal. They did not seem to be aware that even without Government assistance the idea had been tried on a very large scale in Natal and the history of the Federated Co-Operated Farmers—the F.C.M.I.—we know, and the farmers in Natal lost hundreds of thousands in the venture. In spite of that experience the Board of Trade comes forward with that suggestion that this most difficult matter both from a financial and business point of view we should hand over to co-operative bodies of farmers in this country. This year it is this Egg Commission appointed by the Government, and I consider that the document issued by them, so far as it affects the. Imperial Cold Storage Company, is a scandalous document. Thousands of people in this country are interested in the industry, and we were most anxious to see why there had been this set back and suffering. We were glad to see the Government had appointed an enquiry ; but instead of having a judicial document reporting impartially on the facts, we find a document which, as I say is simply scandalous. The Imperial Cold Cold Storage Company escapes scot free. Whatever the liability or fault may have been, they escape scot free because the public say this is not a fair way of dealing with this matter, and that an ex parte, partisan, hostile statement, such as this, cannot carry weight with public opinion. I mention this as another instance of the consistent hostility the Government is displaying to this industry, and for which the farmers of this country have to pay. I am not an advocate and hold no brief whatever for the Imperial Cold Storage Company. Hon. members know perfectly well I hold no brief whatever for them—I want to see the country develop, and I know this country will only develop by building up a big export trade, and how are you going to do it if you wage war with the only great export agency we have here? If you wait until the farmers have formed co-operative societies to do this business you will have to wait until doomsday in the afternoon. We are not singular in South Africa. We know what has been done in the Argentine and the policy which has been followed in North America and elsewhere-You do not get away from the fact that these matters of export of agricultural produce and especially of cold storage involve great expense and difficulties of economics and finance with which our ordinary producers cannot possibly cope, and it would be a great mistake if our Government continues to saddle them with this responsibility. The Union is going to suffer, and our small neighbours are going to flourish because they do not keep up a feud with one particular company. No, there is no doubt about it, agriculture is in a difficult position, and the Government is not helping; on the contrary, the Government is making the position worse, because with the best intentions in the world the Government is taking away labour from the farms for its own requirements. I say deliberately I am not in the least opposed to the white or civilized labour policy which the Minister of Railways and Harbours has applied to the railways, so long as that policy is reasonably applied. We are bound to get a big distance with this very urgent problem at our doors, but at the same time we cannot close our eyes to the facts and to the great fact that very large numbers of the poor white people are being withdrawn from the farms to seek work from the Government. The Prime Minister said the other day at Malmesbury that the Government has already given employment to 13,000, and the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) said that another 8,000 are sitting at our doors. Where do these people come from? From the farms of South Africa, and the effect is this. Labour in ever-increasing proportion is being drawn from farms and from the countryside—yes. This has been going on for years, but it has now become a flood. The floodgates are being opened, and it is not only going to produce a very difficult situation for the farmers and the farming industry, but is going to be revolutionary in other ways too. These people go to the towns where they get employment, to a small extent in the factories, but on a large scale from the Government. It is low-paid wages they get. The civilized wage the Government can give at the best is very low, and we cannot afford to give more. The result is we are building up in the towns an under-paid white proletariat. They may now be voting for my hon. friend, but it will not be many years before they will be voting for the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge).

Why not for the S.A. party?

You cannot get away from it. We know it. The Government is fostering a policy which is not only hitting the farmers and withdrawing their labour, but slowly working towards a social revolution. The result will be an underpaid white proletariat in the towns, and rural South Africa, which hitherto has been the real governing factor in South Africa, will, when it is too late, find out that its reserves have been depleted, that the political centre of gravity has shifted to the towns, and our farmers will then feel the weight of the change just as farmers in other parts of the world have felt its full force. I speak in great sympathy for the farmers of this country. Probably I make no exaggeration when I say that the hon. member on my left (Mr. Jagger) is the best business brain in South Africa. He is a modest man, and I am sorry to have to say this in his presence. He has for a number of years been devoting his time and attention to agriculture. For many years he has been in business, in industry and in agriculture, and his testimony, after this long experience, is that farming is the worst-paying industry in the world. Now, sir, I have looked on South Africa as a country where we should do our best to keep to the soil. Once the white race here gives up the soil, the land, it is doomed, and has no future. And here we have testimony from an expert witness who was inclined to be hostile, but who in the end has come to admit that the lot of the farmer is a very hard one. And if we want to realize the stronger South Africa that we have looked forward to, then the policy of this Government, and of any Government, must be to stand by the agricultural population ; to foster farming in every way possible, and not to increase their burdens, as the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has suggested, but to ease those burdens and make farming attractive. In order to foster the agricultural policy, let us rather remove the burdens which have so far rested on farmers. Let us say, in the first place, to the industrialist: “Hands off agriculture.” I will go further, and suggest to the Government that they ask themselves whether, in view of the droughts, and other heart-breaking vissicitudes to which farmers are subject, they will not exempt them from some of the burdens which they are carrying to-day. I wou1d suggest to my hon. friend to consider whether he should not take the income tax off the farmers. No doubt there will be a howl from some on the Labour benches—

Why did you not do it when you were in power ?

How could I have done it ? It is always so unfair to use that argument. For the last four years of my Government we were struggling in the troughs of the sea, and I have shown the House that we had to retrench to the amount of millions in three years. The four years before that we were in the great World war. How could you ask of me the impossible under these circumstances? But we see from sad experience, and cannot get away from the fact, that farming is not in a sound way, and that if we want to maintain our ideal or rural South Africa, we shall have to deal much more tenderly with the farming community than any party has been willing to do before. My hon. friend is to-day in the position to do so. To-morrow we may not be in the position, and when my hon. friend gives way to another Government, that Government may again be in financial straits. Let him do it while it is possible, add help the farming community in this country. I have studied the various policies which the Government has been carrying out since it is in office, and I cannot understand who is benefiting from the Government policy. It is plain that neither the farmers nor the mines are benefiting. Are the workers benefiting? You see to-day a restiveness among the workers as great as ever before. Temper is no better than before. There is a profound disappointment all round with the policy of the Government. You can readily understand it. Life is being made much more difficult for the worker, and this Budget of itself will add to the burden which the poor people and the workers will have to bear. Last year we heard a great deal about the Wage Act which was to be the basis of the future white civilization of South Africa ; but the Minister seems to have cooled in his ardour in that respect to a very large extent. We hear very little about the Wage Act now. There has been a great delay in bringing this Act into force.

Is it not in force?

It is a very slow process.

You said all these things were due to the Wage Act.

No, I did not say that, I will come to that just now. The Minister in writing promised the mine workers on the Rand that within a month after the report of the Economic Commission, he would apply the Wage Act to them. He has been very slow in carrying out that promise. Many months have elapsed. The native workers in Bloemfontein have come forward and claimed the protection of this Act, and what has the answer been to them? The answer has been: We cannot lay down a minimum wage for natives because we can draw no distinction between white and black under the Wage Act ; if a standard wage is laid down for the black man, it must be the same as for the white man.

There is no colour bar there.

No, the colour bar is reserved for other things in the policy of the hon. member and the Government. I do not understand this position. The Government has been trying sedulously to build up a civilized, ideal, basis, or standard different from the native standard or semi-barbarian standard. But when it comes to wages, the Government says that the semi-barbarous native shall be paid the same as the civilized white worker.

If he does the same work.

This is to be the basis of the white South Africa, that the black man’s wage must be levelled up to the civilized standard of the white man.

You had better ask your neighbour about that.

My point is that the Wage Act becomes impossible under these conditions. The answer given by the Wage Board to the natives of Bloemfontein simply repeats what I have said in this House and on the platform, and what is the simple truth ? That it is impossible to differentiate under the Wage Act, and when minimum wages come to be fixed under the Wage Act, they will have to be the same for white and black alike. To my mind, that kills the Wage Act so far as it can have any good results.

Why worry?

You see, this was heralded as a great reform. This was to be the new basis for the white South Africa. And now we find the judgment of the Wage Board has knocked the bottom out of this basis, and awards the same wage for both black and white. The Minister of Railways, the other day, said to a deputation of coloured people that there is a difference even in the civilized standard as between the white and coloured man, because they live on a different scale. We know it, and when you come to the native, it is still more so. There is a great difference in the standard of civilization and living between a white man and a native; but with a great flourish of trumpets we have passed through this House an Act which says that the same wages for both, for the same work, shall be paid. If the workers of this country are looking forward to this Act to carry out a new social policy, they will be grievously disappointed. To me it has been one of the most significant things that, when anything has had to be done to improve the lot of the worker, it has been done, not under the Wage Act, of which the Government is really afraid, but under an Act of the S.A.P. Government, the Conciliation Act. I am proud of the Conciliation Act, which represents the social policy of the S.A.P. Government, and I tell my hon. friend that whatever serious improvements are made in the lot of the workers will be made under that Act, and not under the Wage Act of the Pact.

Due to the Wage Act.

I have one very serious criticism to pass on the Minister of Defence, in his former capacity as Minister of Labour, and that is that he very seriously misapplied the Conciliation Act. The Conciliation Act recognized the partnership between capital and labour, brought them together, and provided conciliation boards in which they might consult over their affairs, and settle conditions of labour and wages. The Conciliation Act went on to say that where an agreement had been come to in regard to wages or conditions in any industry, it might be applied to other parts where the similar conditions prevailed. That is perfectly fair and wise, but what has happened ?

What about the de Villiers’ award ?

The Minister went much beyond the intention of that Act, and applied an agreement which had been come to in great industrial centres like Cape Town to distant villages in the veld, and I say that was unfair, and was never intended. The Minister had no right to do that, and I think it was a violation of the spirit of the Act to apply agreements arrived at in Cape Town or Johannesburg to villages in the Transvaal or the Free State, where different conditions prevailed, and where, if an agreement had been made, it would have been an agreement of a very different character. The Conciliation Act is a sound reform, but it has been wrongly applied in some cases by the Minister, and that is what I have criticized him for it in various meetings held in the country. Workers will find that whatever improvements are in store for them, in wages or conditions, they will have to receive under an Act of the S.A.P. Government, and not under the much-lauded Act for which the Pact Government was responsible. I want to refer to one further matter. I do not want to create the impression from what I have been saying about the mining and agricultural industries that things are fundamentally bad, but the facts in connection with both these great primary industries compel us to view the situation seriously, and to take more drastic remedies than we have hitherto taken. There is no doubt that many thoughtful people are becoming grave and serious over the conditions in South Africa, and many are becoming pessimistic, and are asking what is to be the future of white civilization in South Africa. I remain an optimist. I have no doubt about the future of this country, but we shall probably have as a Government to take much stronger measures than we have taken in the past, and we shall not be able to allow things to drift as they have drifted in former generations and under former regimes. I don’t believe much in the policy of repression. I don’t think we shall right the situation by artificial rules and regulations and laws, which come into conflict with economic laws or ethical principles. They will do white civilization far more harm than good. Let us deliberately try and strengthen the white basis in South Africa. People are alarmed over the ratio of white to black, and over the economic progress which the natives are making, and they are even more alarmed at such a phenomenon as poor whites. The solution does not lie in repression, but in deliberately fostering a civilized policy and increasing the white population. Public opinion has matured and developed very much in recent years on a matter like this. We shall probably find that it is possible to take much stronger action now than we have taken before. We have had two recent occasions when there has been a very large increase in the white population, and both occasions have been connected with mining development in South Africa. The discovery of the diamond fields in the ’seventies and the gold fields in the ’eighties of last century had the greatest effect on the white population. When the diamond fields were discovered, the white population was less than 300,000. After the Boer war, when the gold fields were at their height, the white population had increased fourfold within 33 years, and was about 1,200,000. I think we might make another great effort, and I should like, now that the mines are becoming a wasting asset and South Africa cannot continue to rely for very many years more on that arm, I should like to see the mining industry make another contribution towards increasing the white population. What I would suggest is this. We, as a people and Government, should consider deliberately adopting a policy of white immigration. We don’t want the type of immigrants who go to many other countries—ours will have to be a selected type. But if we want to save the situation and to ensure the future for white civilization in South Africa, we shall have to do much more for white immigration than we have done hitherto. We want immigration of the proper type of white settler, largely agricultural, from England and Holland and other countries of northern Europe.

The worst paying business of the country ?

I should like to hear the views of the Minister on that point. You can improve agricultural conditions in many ways. You can, instead of becoming pessimistic over the future of this country, increase the white population, and you can once more make the mines bring it about. We have been receiving for years a contribution to our capital funds from property which we own on the mines and from mining leases. These contributions amount to about £1,000,000 a year. Let us earmark this £1,000,000 for immigration, and let us spend the money in a large, well-considered and properly-thought-out policy of strengthening the white population. If we do this, I am sure we shall be doing a real service to South Africa and taking a real step to insure the future of our white civilization. I don’t believe in repression or colour bars, and I don’t believe any of those measures will have the least effect in stemming the tide. These negative measures will prove futile. The only thing to do is to take a positive step and to increase the white population. The Prime Minister is going to London next October and he will have an opportunity to consider a matter like this with the Imperial Government. Let the mines once more help to increase our white population. The British Government are just as anxious as we are to foster an emigration policy, and they are also prepared to spend millions to further it. They are actually spending many millions in Australia in order to assist the emigration of people from Great Britain to Australia. If the Prime Minister, when he is in England, comes to such an arrangement with the Imperial Government, he would be doing a first-class service to South Africa, and we shall be doing our best to insure our civilization for the future. I believe public opinion is much riper for a policy of this kind than many people think. Thoughtful people all over South Africa have been pondering the facts and the figures, and the more they have thought about the matter the more they have come to my conclusion that, in a large, well-considered policy of immigration there is the only solution, and the only safeguard and insurance for our white civilization. I hope the Government will not hesitate for any merely political or party reasons to render this great service while they have the present favourable opportunity to render it to South Africa.

I think we may be thankful to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) for what he has said here this afternoon. I am convinced that if he had acted in the past according to his precepts this afternoon, then the country, if it had not already become more happy, would, in any case, have been wiser as regards some of the theories of the hon. member. I shall begin where he ended, because it was an important point, to wit, his suggestion in regard to immigration. He said here this afternoon that we should give up any other attempt to bring about a white South Africa and apply ourselves solely to immigration by State aid and at the cost of the revenue received from the mines. The hon. member had fourteen years to do something of that kind. What did he do ? During those fourteen years he, for a time, was the Minister of Finance. How many times did he ever attempt to practise what he is now preaching ? Oh, no ; perhaps he was then more bankrupt than the Government is to-day, but even if he wanted to make us believe that we cannot do so because there were days of prosperity during his Government as well. I must honestly say that the way in which the hon. member appeared at the last minute before the election with his programme makes me think very much of attempts which are so often made to bring a person on wrong tracks ; to lead him off the road he was following, in order to see what road the other people took. I should like to ask the hon. member to go back a little in the history of South Africa. It has hitherto been the case that white people have come here from Europe and, although their intention was to establish themselves here, it is, unfortunately, true that they never yet remained here in the numbers they came in. We know how many came into the country two years ago, but that more left than came, even of the old population. The people who left the country were, moreover, of the best classes. Some tradesmen left South Africa for other countries, because they could not make a living here I do not know what the hon. member thinks he is about to do, or what he will effect with immigration on a large scale to South Africa, unless the country is first so prepared that when people arrive here they will find a home, in other words, will find a field of employment in South Africa. The hon. member said that the people should come from overseas to farm. To farm in “the worst paying industry in the country?” We know that, to a great extent, it is true that farming is the worst paying industry in the country, but does the hon. member want me to believe that the people he wants to bring from Europe will make a success of it—people who will have to learn a lesson ; a lesson which will cost them dear? Will they make a success in the worst paying industry in the country ? How much will it cost ? The hon. member for Standerton said: “Well, take the million pounds, which is got by the State annually from the mines, and use that amount.” I still say the same that I did thirteen or fourteen years ago: “I am opposed to State, immigration to South Africa unless two conditions are complied with. In the first place we must commence by seeing that those of our people, who cannot make a living to-day, must be able to do so, and in the second place a livelihood must be created for anyone who is brought in before we bring such a pierson here, so that when he arrives he can stand on firm ground.” It would be folly for anyone of us not to welcome people who want to come here and may actually become good and useful members of society. But to bring people here and thereby simply increase the number of unemployed—which, fortunately, to-day is not so large as in the near past—would be nothing but criminal on our part. It appears a very attractive solution as against the excess of natives, hut then I ask the hon.member for Standerton: “How can we, by introducing, let us say, another million people by State aid within the next ten to fifteen, or even within the next three years, assure the livelihood of the white people on the basis of a white civilization? How, in other words, will that prevent the native, as is happening to-day and has happened in the past, always making that standard of life for the white man impossible, because he can sell his labour so much cheaper in the labour market? How will that, be prevented? And if it is not prevented, I ask how can we improve the evil which goes to the root of our entire continuance as a white nation in South Africa? Let immigration take place as a means of increasing our white population if the white people want to come, but don’t come and speak here of its being used as a means of combating the evil which exists to-day, an evil which we are engaged in fighting by means of the colour bar and other measures. The evil exists, and it is a cancer at the existence of the white population of South Africa. It has been created by the false relation in economic matters between whites and natives. I do not wish to stop there this afternoon, but this is a matter of great importance which we, as the people of South Africa, should look squarely in the face and properly consider, and about which we should decide in accordance with what is in the best interests of South Africa. I must congratulate my hon. friend on what he said here with reference to the abolition of the income tax for farmers. He said: “Abolish the income tax for farmers.” I hope that some day our finances will be so flourishing that we shall be able to do so, and then I hope that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will be just as ready to stand by us as he now is to advocate it.

And his friends.

Yes, and his friends too, especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I am not so certain that he will do it, that he will be prepared to abolish the income tax for farmers. I must, however, say that if my hon.friend for Standerton announces that among the farmers on the countryside then the farmer will on the one hand say: “I am very glad of it.” But on the other hand he will ask: “What has he got up his sleeve?” I am convinced that if the hon.member publishes that outside, the farmers will say: “Wait, you rascal, you want to take off the income tax, but to tax our land.” And that is quite natural. I think the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will not take it amiss of the farmers if they think that, because members of the Opposition have so often preached the doctrine of a land tax. Let me, however, say this that I do not believe that the hon. member for Standerton is serious. There are so many little things about which the hon. member can talk so seriously on platforms, but which he does not mean so seriously that I think I can safely assume that he does not intend this seriously either. I was, e.g. so pleased this afternoon to hear how proud he is of his favourite child, the Conciliation Act. I say his favourite child because he has treated it as such this afternoon. I think that so far as concerns the House, we were all unanimously in favour of the Act, but I am nevertheless glad that the hon. member is now so proud about it. I hope that when he goes to the countryside again he will not be so ashamed about his favourite child any longer. It was really amusing during his tour in the. Transvaal and Free State last year to see how the hon. member pointed out to the farmers the socialistic legislation of the Pact Government. In the Free State he went from place to place announcing to the farmers how the socialistic legislation was calculated to ruin the farmers and he mentioned, inter alia, that in consequence of the Wages Act, the workmen had got so far in the carpenters’ trade as to fix a wage of, I think, £1 6s. per day, and he told the farmers that that was due to the Wages Act. We can quite understand how the people laughed when I said to them: “My good people, the Wages Act is not even in operation yet, but do you know that what has now been fixed has been fixed under the Act which was passed under the Smuts Government two years ago?” The hon. leader of the Opposition was then so ashamed on the countryside of his favourite, and I am glad that he is now so proud of it. I mention this because I feel convinced that the memory of my friend could not have been so short as not to know that the Wages Act had not yet come into operation, and what is more that the thing to which he referred originated with the Conciliation Act. I only say this to point out that the hon. member should not always be taken so seriously. I now come to what the hon. member said here this afternoon about protection. It appears from his speech that he does not actually disapprove of protection, but I just want to say now that there is not a single subject about which my hon. friend has ever taken up the attitude of saying: “I want to have nothing to do with it.” His attitude is “Yes, and no.” Now he says quite rightly that he has declared himself in favour of industrial policy. We know that from the election programme which he issued, although at the same time it was announced that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) had already sent in his resignation as a Minister, because he was not in favour of that policy. But that does not matter. The hon. leader of the Opposition is in favour of an industrial policy. He was at that time also in favour of taking off the tobacco tax, but one never knows whether the hon. member is for or against anything? One of the hon. members said in the course of this debate that we had passed nothing which the South African party had not been in favour of. That is actually true, at least what a certain portion of the South African party was not in favour of, but that is surely not our fault. The fault lies with the hon. member for Standerton and his party, that seeing they were in favour of these things they never had the courage to put any of them through. Even if I cannot now make any claim for the present Government to any other merit than that it is simply putting through what otherwise would always have been hanging and hovering before the people, then the Government in my opinion will have rendered a fairly great service to the people. As regards protection the hon. member said: “We are pledged to it just as much as any other party in the House.” I accept that, but unfortunately he and his party all the years they were in office did nothing with regard to protection. The hon. member further said that he thought the chief argument in favour of protection was that employment was thereby found for the unemployed, hut that he does not see how the budget now before us makes provision for that. Nor do I believe that he can see anything of it in the budget. The Minister of Finance will later enlighten him as to how many poor, or rather unemployed white people there were when the former Government resigned, and how much work has already been given to the people. Has he forgotten the hopeless attitude the Smuts Government took up when he was asked what he was going to do with regard to unemployment? Then his hands were thrown up and his shoulders raised and he replied that nothing more could be done to stop the increase of unemployment. Even if the hon. member sees nothing in the budget one thing is clear and that is, that an end must be made to the concentration of the unemployed in the country. May I ask the hon. member if he does not remember that during the years preceding our taking office, not one passed without there being processions of unemployed in the streets in the precincts of Parliament Can there be a better proof of the fact that more employment is given to whites than that they have stopped ? If that is so then it is obvious that it must be the result of some, step or other which this Government has taken. Now the hon. member says that the result of the protection policy is nowhere to be seen. I know, however, from the returns which come in from time to time about the employment of white persons in the various industries that there is a great increase. And what would otherwise have become of all the poor whites? Ought they to have gone under? I cannot actually understand how the action of the hon. member for Standerton in connection with the matter of employment of white labourers on the railways and elsewhere squares with the doctrine which he preaches that the right place for the white people is on the land, while he at the same time says that—and I must say that if I were an out-of-work I should have become afraid to go to a farm after the speech of the hon. member— farming is the worst paying industry of the country. Then I say if that is the case, and it is so to a great extent, the hon. member wishes that the people should then go there and look for work in the worst paying industry in the country. And if that is not so, if he cannot wish that—and he certainly cannot wish it—how then can the police be regarded as a wrong policy if it is said that work is sought for the people in another industry that pays better ? How can that be wrong from the standpoint of the people and of the Government ? Let us admit that an important factor with us is that there is a great tendency and prejudice amongst our people towards the land. And we would surely all like to see that everyone who could should be on the land. It is a healthy life and has a healthy influence on life, on the physical as well as the moral standard of the people. But let us also acknowledge that just because we should like that we are going too far if we insist that everyone should go back to the land. We forget that with our people just as with other people there are among the farmers’ sons, sons who actually want to have nothing to do with farming. Many of them want to have nothing to do with land, for the very reason given by the hon. member for Standerton, viz.: that it is the worst paying industry in the country, but many too for other reasons, because they have no talent and no inclination for farming, because their inclination is in other directions. And it would be foolish to take those people back to the land. And if among the population there are say, 20,000 or 30,000 who have gone to the towns and do not want to return to the country, then I say it would be foolish of us to wish that those people should again go back to the land. Then it is our duty to try to find them a living elsewhere. We cannot allow the people to die. It is certain that under the former Government the unemployed increased alarmingly, until when it resigned the number was about 160,000. Nothing effective was done by the former Government. The Government did indeed try, but as the hon. member knows more in keeping the people alive than in finding a livelihood for them. The hon. member for Standerton says that we must be careful with the protection policy as regards the primary industry of our country, that we must not injure them by that policy. In this connection he mentioned the mines and agriculture. I think we must accept it as a general proposition that it would be foolish to do anything by protection which would be injurious to those two industries. Now I must say that the criticism in so far as it operates as a warning to the Government and to this House must make us thankful, but I am a little afraid that the lack of illustrations by the hon. member as to how we had sinned in this respect gave a little the flavour and impression that it was done more to create the idea a little than that we were actually doing it. In this respect I want to say at once that if there is anyone who has failed to prove that, it was the hon. member for Standerton this afternoon. He talked about the extravagant policy of the Government. I should like him to have indicated where. He gave no proofs. He said that in a few years’ time the previous Government had reduced expenditure from £30,000,000 to £24,000,000 and that, we have now increased it to £27,000,000. I believe that again the hon. member is not serious. Did it not occur to the Opposition that that had happened without any extra taxes being imposed? What is more, did it not occur to the Opposition that it was done in spite of a reduction in taxation? And what certainly is established beyond doubt is that the State is in a more flourishing condition than in 1920. I think the hon. member for Standerton must acknowledge that.

He did acknowledge it.

So much the better. But what a man ventures to spend when he is bankrupt is not the measure upon which his right of spending should be based when he is prosperous. It is true we have to spend more this year than the former Government did in 1920. But why? It is in order to pay the debts which have been incurred. The bankrupt funds must all be supplemented, and money must be spent on neglected public buildings. No, the hon. member wanted us to go on with an amount of £24,000,000 per annum, and it looks as if he wanted us to leave the railways and the public buildings in a neglected condition, that we should leave the funds in the bankrupt condition in which they were, and should leave education where they left it on the we of the election. Should we have left it there? No, it is clear to the people that things could not remain so. Certainly £3,000,000 more is being spent, but the people know that extra taxation has not been laid on them, and what is more the people know what the money is being spent on. If there is one thing for which we can be thankful to the treasury then it is that here to-day, and on the former occasion when the budget was introduced, nothing was done to hide anything. No, everything is as clear to the people as possible. If we consider everything then I must say that I doubt whether the hon. member meant it so seriously. I am sorry but sometimes it appears very clear that he does not always mean things so seriously. Take this, e.g., the hon. member said this afternoon that the repeal of the tobacco tax was a great offence. It is possible that the time will come when the tobacco tax will be a good thing, but one thing the hon. member must acknowledge, viz.: that that tax which was imposed by his Government was one of the most foolish taxes. It killed, as I prophesied at the time it would, the development of a large part of the Transvaal and the repeal of it was absolutely necessary. Now the hon. member goes, on and has made an attack here in the first place on the Board of Trade and Industries, though I must say that as far as that is concerned, regarded from a one-sided point of view, the hon. member can say what he has said, but I wish to say this, that, I have gone thoroughly into the matter, and there is quite another side when the matter is properly investigated, before concluding that, the report is sharp merely because it is sharp. To show how unfair the hon. member is, he went on to the report of the Egg Commission. I do not want to go into the merits of these commissions. I leave it there, hut the hon. member said: “This is an example of the consistent hostility displayed by the Government towards the Imperial Cold Storage.” If there is one thing certain it is this that the Government had nothing more to do with the report than referring the matter to the commission for investigation and report. Does the hon. member think that there should have been no enquiry ? Then I ask in the second place, has the hon. member enquired who it was that was appointed In the first place Col. Erwin Smith was appointed. Who is he? Is he a Nationalist? Let me say that I do not know the gentleman at all. But from the status he occupies, from his position in the Johannesburg municipality cold storage, I should say—

He is known as hostile.

Take, e.g., Dr. Juritz. He is well known in the public service and of the highest ability. Is he a Nationalist? Take Mr. Griffiths. He is an official in the department.

Gen. Smuts himself brought him from England and praised him tremendously.

With what right then does the hon. member for Standerton say that the report is an example of the continuous enmity of the Government towards the Imperial Cold Storage ? That is not what anyone expects of a man who occupies the high position of the hon. member. If the hon. member has ground for that he can criticize and attack the Government, but in this instance it is pure suspicion. That is unfortunately what I mostly find this afternoon in the remarks of my hon. friend, that he has no proofs. I do not want to go into the matter further this afternoon. As to that part of his speech dealing with matters concerning the budget I shall leave him in the hands of the Minister of Finance. Now this afternoon before I sit down I want to say a few words about the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). Let me frankly say that I should not have troubled about it if it were not for one reason. I have come to know the hon.member a bit and if he is not replied to he will not only repeat his remarks twice in the House but everywhere outside it. The hon. member has, for instance, his peculiar way of stating facts. I am only doing this this afternoon so as not to give him the Opportunity of saying later: “Why did you not put me right” ? I hope I shall so correct him that he not only will not repeat it but will not in future act with so much impertinence and conceit. On the 25th of May, during the last session, I said, inter alia, the following about the representation of the parties on commission about which the hon. member had asked a question of me. I then said—

That is all I said and my words will be found both in the English and Dutch text in Hansard.

You also spoke of the necessity of appointing members of Parliament on commissions.

There was no question of members of Parliament, merely of commissions in general. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is so obsessed about Parliament and members of Parliament, that I think I must take it that I am to regard his complaint as a personal one. He has put words into my mouth that I never used. Let us see what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in 1926—

It looks as if the hon. member was annoyed that he was never put on a commission. He says further—

What is the “pledge” ? Let us see. I said: “They will have the right to complain if they are treated as we were treated.” Now the hon. member says, “The Prime Minister gave me a guarantee.”

And wasn’t it a guarantee!

Was it given to you? Wait a bit. Look a little further. The hon. member went on and said—

And further—

I didn’t say that.

Here are the words. Let me read them again. The hon. member forgets what his presumptuous demand was. His words are on page 746—

That is what I read into your speech.

Exactly.

You said we would get fair treatment. You appointed a commission of five, and put one Opposition member on it. You have promised us fair representations on commissions, and you have not given it to us.

It is conceit which has enabled the hon. member to read that into it. Then he goes, because he is conceited enough to put a certain construction on it, and attacks me still further by saying: “I think it is a gross breach of the pledge given by the Prime Minister.” And that because a commission of five members was appointed, and they had one member upon it where we for fourteen years hardly ever had one member. The hon. member comes here openly and attacks me, and puts words into my mouth which I never used. Let me add this. The accusation made by the hon. member is a very serious one. I say that if a member of this House has the least respect for himself and for his words, then he would not allow himself to be led into making such a charge. But, unfortunately, the hon. member adopts a tone as if he were the “cock of the walk.”

Keep your promise.

I am keeping my word, but not according to a false construction put upon it. What the hon. member wants to hold me to is a distortion arising in his own brain.

You promised more.

All I said was—

That is all. Let it be clearly understood that the Opposition will be entitled to complain if they do not receive proper recognition in the appointment of commissions. If the hon. member, however, thinks that I would ever put it in his power to say whether we are acting reasonably or not, then he has an entire lack of appreciation of what is reasonable. Later, in another speech the other day, he returned to the matter again. “The guarantee was given that we would be properly considered.” The hon. member does not only complain that they did not receive consideration, but because the consideration was not adequate. Let me tell him that I will never submit to his judgment the acts of the Government—what the Government must or must not do—and the sufficiency thereof.

You say that my grievance is that I, personally, have not been appointed to your wretched commissions?

No, I say nothing of that. What I do say is this: If I look at the hollowness of the complaints, then it seems to me as if the basis is personal disappointment. And I said so.

Do you know that your Minister of Finance offered me a seat on the only commission on which this party has been offered a seat, and that I refused it ? Show some sense of responsibility.

I have nothing to do with that.

It shows your feeling of responsibility.

It is because I cannot escape feeling that it is a personal grievance. Otherwise, if that was not at the bottom of it, I cannot understand the false representation of my words. I do not wish to think so badly of the hon. member, and therefore I say it is a question of personal grievance which has been the cause. I am very sorry that I touched upon the question at all, but my experience, and that of others in the House, is that if the hon. member is not called to order he becomes impossible.

I think the country will read with amazement and with dismay the speech just made by the Prime Minister. This morning we read in the newspaper that the Prime Minister was going to make a statement in this House and naturally we thought that he would take advantage of the opportunity to give us a statement of his views on this country’s affairs. The country is facing grave issues, very grave economic issues, and the Prime Minister, instead of telling us how he views the affairs of the country and giving us a statement of the policy of the Pact Government, devoted more than half the time of his speech to a personal and vindictive attack on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He spent most of his time evading the issue, but, at any rate, he made two points clear to this House. He stated, in the first place, that he did not believe in immigration, in fact, he ridiculed the idea that immigration was going to solve anything in this country.

No.

I got the impression, at any rate, that the Prime Minister was definitely opposed to immigration.

You are wrong.

No, the Prime Minister poured ridicule on the suggestion of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He said—

The Prime Minister is a Free Stater, as I am myself, and I would remind him that in the old Free State coat-of-arms our national motto was “immigration.” We did not tell immigrants in the old days that they had to wait until there were factories to give them work. The Prime Minister now says—

That is a policy of despair, coming from the Prime Minister of the Union and going forth to the world that we have no room on the South African land for immigrants.

He never said that.

He did say it. He said that there is no room for any European immigrants on the land. He went further in his policy of despair and said that there is no room for overseas immigrants in South Africa on the land or anywhere else. He said it was all nonsense this idea of getting our people back, on the land. He further said that conditions are impossible, or rather, are very difficult on the land and that he would blame no one for not wanting to go back to the land. In other words, he pooh-poohed the whole idea of placing people back on the land. Those two are practically the only concrete statements that emerged from the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon. I think we ought to protest against a statement of that sort coming from the Prime Minister of this country. There is plenty of room for immigrants of the right type on the soil of South Africa, and there is plenty of room on the South African soil for our own people, and I think it is a great pity that the Prime Minister has made these two statements. The speeches which we have had from the right hon. the member for Standerton and the Prime Minister are, to me, the respective measures of these two men. From the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), we had a statesmanlike utterance in which he asked certain very weighty questions of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister evaded them practically all. To me it was an amazing exhibition. The speech of the Prime Minister was in the nature of an anti-climax. To me it was pure pathos to find the Prime Minister standing up here after the great speech of the right hon. member and wasting his time in bickering and making a personal attack on an hon. member on this side. The question put to the Prime Minister was this. Did you, or did you not, go to the country on a platform of economy? Did you or did you not promise the voters that you would economize ? What was the answer of the Prime Minister? He said—

That, in effect, was his reply to our charge that he won this election on definite and solemn promises of economy. I would like to remind the Prime Minister and the members on the other side what exactly was the promise made to the people of this country. The Prime Minister at Smithfield, during the election, said this—

This was a solemn promise, and I would ask you whether he and his party and his Government have carried out that promise. He goes on—

I am sorry hon.members across the way are treating this with unseemly levity, because it was a solemn promise. If hon. members at the time had said this was merely a joke to be laughted at, the public would have understood.

What are you quoting from ?

I am quoting from memory, aided by my notes. Is the inference that I am quoting incorrectly?

The Prime Minister never used those words.

It is a pity the Prime Minister had not the courtesy to remain here and speak for himself.

If the Minister of Finance will look in “Die Burger” of the 14th May, 1924, he will see it there.

Why not read it from “Die Burger”? You can quote.

I thought I could not; I have not got it here. If hon. members tell me I am misquoting the Prime Minister, then I want to know where I stand. I do not need to quote from “Die Burger” ; I appeal to the entire people of South Africa whether it is not a fact that the Prime Minister and his colleagues of the Nationalist party promised to economise and promised a reduction of taxation. However, I will continue reading—

It has gone up by nearly £3,000,000 in the meanwhile in taxation and cost of administration generally. He goes on—

It was not only the Prime Minister who made these promises. I have here an election speech made by the Minister of the Interior. This again is not a matter to be laughed at. Here we have prominent leaders of the Government having made definite promises to the public, and having as definitely broken them. I am quoting from memory, aided by a translation from “Die Burger.” The Minister said—

Has taxation been increased ?

Taxation has very largely increased. Expenditure has largely increased and has to be met by taxation. We have to pay £3,000,000 or over for the luxury of having an economical Pact Government. The Minister of the Interior went on to say—

We have been raising more bloated loans than before.

You said we were not going to get more money.

That is what I am accusing the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior of ; in fact, all round—that they make solemn pledges that there would be an end to borrowing. It is true that the Government has found no difficulty in borrowing money overseas. It is not on the credit of the Government that they are borrowing, but on the credit of the people of South Africa. These are not the only two promises, but the Minister of Railways and Harbours also had a few pledges to give, and the hon. Minister will remember that on May 23rd, 1924. During the election, he said—

His colleague said £210,000,000, but, after all. What is an additional £2,000,000 to the Pact ? The Minister went on to say—

From what are you quoting now ?

Your speech reported in “Die Burger” of May 24th, 1924, at Caledon. Yes, the “Burger” is proving extremely useful. Even if I were not quoting from “Die Burger,” it is not necessary to quote from a newspaper to prove that the whole of the Pact made promises that they would economize and decrease expenditure. We ask the country, has the Pact carried out their promises? They have not only not carried out their promises, but made no attempt to do so. If they had fallen on evil times, or if some emergency had arisen, I could understand their failure to carry out their pledge, but nothing of the sort has happened, and they have had far more prosperous times than we had.

Which items would you cut down ?

That is not the point. We know the Labour party do not cut down anything. Do not drag a red herring across the trail. We are accusing the Prime Minister and his party of not carrying out their promises.

What did you say at Victoria West?

The same things as I say here. I am not like the Nationalists, who are so used to saying different things at different places, that they are surprised at a man who says the same thing at different places.

What did you say about the Wage Act?

The same thing as the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has been saying this afternoon. I said it was a piece of socialistic legislation foisted on the country by the Labour party. I am not in the habit of splitting hairs or indulging in casuistry, as we have had from the Prime Minister this afternoon. I said the present Government has broken the chief pledges made during the election. It got into power on the pledge of economy, and made no attempt to economize. In fact, they have done the contrary.

They have economized on the State bank.

Yes, I suppose that is a little joke. Now, in the second place, the Government undertook to encourage and foster the industries of this country. The Prime Minister told us just now that we had done nothing to foster industries. Two most flourishing industries, or at any rate two very great industries, are the manufacture of boots and the sugar industry were protected by us.

That was very long before the South African party came into power.

As the right hon. member for Standerton said just now, there is no need in this country to label oneself as a free trader or a protectionist, which are political tags belonging to England. A man can be against a tariff of this sort, as I am, without being a free trader. If we look at this tariff, we see that there is not a single, item which protects raw materials and bona fide industries, or which helps the mines or the farmers. I would ask the Minister of Lands what is he going to tell the farmers of Rustenburg about the increased duty on tubs, buckets and trucks ? If these industries are to be protected, it is the duty of the Minister of Finance to tell us on what principle the Government is acting in protecting these particular items. If people come before the Board of Trade with data showing that these industries may succeed if they get this protection, surely this House is entitled to the information which is placed before the board. Is there any industry which makes tubs, buckets or trucks, and are there any European employees? We ought to know whether there is any prospect of these industries building up an export trade. Surely, before we vote these items, the country is entitled to know what the principle is that this kindergarten Board of Trade is proceeding on. It seems to me that any hole-and-corner proposition with a lathe in a back room can go to the Board of Trade and claim that they are an industry, and get protection. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why buckets are being protected ? Is there anybody in this country making buckets, and if so, how many people are employed in the industry? I take it this is not a question of raising revenue, but of fostering a bucket industry. Then we have lamp shades, reflectors, enamel ware, barrels for miniature rifles. Who makes these in this country? Why not also typewriters and fountain-pens ?

You can discuss all these things in Ways and Means.

But we are going to pass the principle now. Why should the rest of the country be penalized because miniature rifles are going to be made in this country ?

How many are employed in the undertaking industry ?

If you want to know about undertakers, ask the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius). I believe he is one. Who makes acetylene lamps, lampshades, structural steel work? What is the principle underlying it ?

Ask the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel).

Why not put a ring fence found South Africa?

Have you ever heard of the engineering industry ?

Yes, but I have never heard of an industry producing these articles that uses the primary product of South Africa. They are all bastard industries. I ask, where is there one item of local raw material which is used.

Coal.

Then why not protect coal ?

Have you ever heard of Newcastle?

This tariff means that the Government has singled out the two main industries, and penalized the mines and the farmers. Hon. members may laugh, but who is going to pay for all this ? Then we have tram lines, bridges, etc. It seems a curious way of protecting your industry, that in order to protect small tin-pot shows, such as those with a sewing machine in a little back shop—

You should visit some of the industries and see what is being done.

I never found anyone making lamp-shades, or electric batteries, or girders for bridges.

Ask the hon. member for East London about buckets.

Yes, they make them from steel, imported from oversea. I am not saying that the basis of all protection is the use of raw material in your own country, but you must aim at working up your own raw material, and in that direction the Government has completely failed.

Have you ever heard of Newcastle?

I have seen very little sign of your protecting Newcastle.

Ever heard of Vereeniging?

I would like to know what the Government Has done for Vereeniging or Newcastle. It is too absurd. One important basis in a protection policy is to use your own raw material, and in not one of these things is any local product of the farmers or anyone else protected. The other basis of protection is that if your country is geographically favourably situated, and you are able to use raw material from other countries and work it into the finished product, protection might answer ; but there is no sign of this here. Can South Africa make buckets in competition with America, Great Britain, or the Continent? They are allowing Newcastle to languish, where they might make pig iron. Then where is the ruberoid industry in this country ? Why should the poor man, who wants to build a house, pay 20 per cent, extra for ruberoid ?

We are making other things to take its place.

It would be just as reasonable to put a ring round South Africa and say you are going to manufacture everything ourselves as to select these things at random. I think it is obvious that the two planks on which this Government came into power, namely economy and encouraging of local industries, have failed completely, and I am afraid it is going to fail disastrously. This Government is costing the country more than three millions per annum extra.

It is worth it.

I would like to hear what the public says, but you have carefully gilded the pill with catch phrases. If you were to put a label on everyone of these articles, and show the public what they are paying there would be a howl of anger throughout the country. The country is only now beginning to realize the implications of the Pact Government. This day two years, the country will have something to say to the Pact Government.

You do not give us three months any more ?

No, you can take two years. Unless you mend your ways the public will give you very short shrift. I do not want to alarm people, but the only thing winch is flourishing is Government borrowing. There is m, fresh capital coming into this country. Let the Government tell us of any new industry of importance that has come into existence through this Government’s policy. Tell me of a single industry being started as a result of this protectionist policy which is merely enriching a small number of people at the expense of the general public. I prophesy that no real industry will be started under the Pact regime, for real industry and enterprise are being frightened away. I do not think it right to unnecessarily alarm the country for I believe at the core the people and the country are sound, but the public are going to pay very dearly for the present unsound and foolish policy of the Government.

I waited to see whether the attack spoken of so long by the Opposition would be a serious attack on the financial policy of the Government, on the Minister of Finance and on the budget. But we have heard nothing about the attack, and it is clear that the Minister has introduced a good budget. I think that if some members of the Opposition had kept their arguments to themselves they Would have shown greater service to their own party. I have before me one of the Opposition organs, a thorough young Unionist-Sap. paper. I refer to the “Cape.” In the issue of the 15th April, there is an article on page 10 written by a prominent South African party man, and if I am to judge by the style of the article, I say the writer of it is sitting on one of the South African party benches. I recognize the style of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) who is a bit of an amateur at this sort of work. He asks the question in the article whether the South African party will again come into power and when that will be. Further he asks—

Then he says further that—

The editor of the paper is clearly so pleased with the article that he invites members to make more of such prophesies about the future of the South African party. Which shows that the South African party is a declining party. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has again spoken on finance, one of his favourite subjects, of which, however, he knows little.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I was explaining that I could not quite follow the political economy of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and for the reason that he made two proposals. The first was that the income tax be taken off the farmer, and the second that the revenue from the mines be used for immigration. Now if we abolish those two sources of revenue, I wonder what will remain with which to govern the country. There will be practically nothing left. I am not surprised when one thinks of the policy of the few years before the present Government came into office and of the financial position before that time. It left much to be desired. So much so that our Government now in office will require years to put matters right. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and also the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) were concerned because the Nationalist party as they said has not fulfilled any of its election promises. I have before me the programme of action of the Nationalist party, upon which the electors of South Africa gave a majority to the Nationalist party and to the Pact Government, and I should like to look at a few points that appear in the programme of action and the promises made to the people, to see whether we have fulfilled or not any of them during the short period the Government has been in office. The first point in the promises, and I see the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is very pleased with it, is agriculture. The promises made to show more sympathy to the farmer and to take steps for promoting agriculture and the progress of the farmers. Then it is promised to do everything possible in the direction of securing markets in the interior as well as the exterior. Immediately the Government came into power trade representatives were appointed on the Continent and in New York, and a department of economics and marketing was established in the Agricultural Department to give effect to those promises. I must say that the result so far has been very satisfactory, and everyone who is acquainted with the farming industry knows that we have to-day obtained by means of the division of economics and marketing that our railways and our boarding schools take eggs, etc., direct from the farmers’ associations. We have obtained an Expansion Department in the Department of Agriculture so that insutrction and advice are given to the farmers, to enable them to work on a business basis. The embargo of three farthings per pound, which was always laid on South African wool in Bradford has been taken away and it is attributable to the zeal of the Minister of Agriculture and to simultaneous dipping that our wool is exported in a cleaner condition than ever before. Further, to push agricultural interests a sum of £250,000 has been granted to save the cooperative societies from ruin and from the desperate state in which they were handed over to us. If I understand the co-operative societies rightly the difficult position they are in is largely due to the fact that in 1921 when they got mealies at 25s. a bag, the embargo was put on the export of mealies that caused a loss of £3,000,000 to the farmers. The Nationalist party felt that that rescue work was necessary if the farming population was actually to be saved. Therefore the large amount of £250,000 was written off for the co-operative societies. If that is not assistance to the agricultural population I wonder what assistance is, and as my friend on my right says comparatively large sums have also been written off for the settlers. I do not know the amount. If that is so then it is meeting the people to keep them on the land. Our Land Bank Act was amended last year by which more facilities were given to the farmers, and a branch was established in London so that the farmers’ organizations are no longer dependent on the commercial banks. Then we have the legislation which is now before the House, viz.: the Bill about agricultural credits, by which we place financial facilities within reach of all the farmers, even the poorest. If that is not something for the farmers and is not a good thing for them, I want in turn to ask what the South African party Government did while they were in power to give similar facilities, not only to the farmers who could help themselves, but to those who could not do so. To meet the farmers the Government saw to it that the cold storage accommodation should not remain only in the hands of the Trust, as the hon. member for Standerton wanted this afternoon. The Government went so far as to establish cold storage themselves in Cape Town, so that the produce could arrive in Europe in a more satisfactory condition. Those are the improvements which have been brought about by means of the Agricultural Department in the short period of the twenty-two months that this Government has been in office. Now we come to the policy of the Government in connection with settlements. What has been done? Legislation was immediately introduced by which those who obtained ground from the Government should have forty years’ instead of twenty years’ time for spreading out the payment of their instalments. Under Clause 11 the farmers pay for their ground over a period of forty years instead of twenty years, and instead of their having to pay one-fifth of the purchase price, they have only to pay one-tenth. In this way a large number of people were put on the land during last year, and the applications for land settlement were so great that the Minister could not retain the half million pounds we granted him longer than three months, and if we had given him two million pounds then he would have used that for putting people on the land. Then we have other settlements which were supported by the Government, such as the Church settlements. Not to dwell on that point we now come to industries. Much has been said this afternoon about industries and that they would now be detrimental to the farmer. Every well-governed country in the world takes care that there is a proper relation between primary and secondary producers. The one is the producer of raw materials and the other the purchaser. And if there is not a good relation between them someone or other will suffer. Therefore the Government has adopted a policy to give necessary protection to industries already existing, so that they can keep their head above water. Although the public to day help the factories, the time will come when the primary producers will reap the fruits of that policy. Every factory that is established, or progresses in consequence of the Government’s protection policy, will increase the purchasing power of the country, and the producers of perishable fruits will also have a market for their fruit. Therefore we are not only going to support industries to make a certain article, but we support them in the first place as purchasers of raw material, in the second place to create employment for those walking the streets, and in the third place to build up purchasing power for the things our country produces. As farmer and business man, I feel that is the only way that this Government or any Government could act if it wanted to create a sound state of affairs. Then we have the third point of the promises, especially in connection with the poor and unemployed. It is said that the State should play a leading part, and should take active steps to remove the root of the evil. A promise is also made to create a portfolio of labour. We have created a Ministry of Labour, and have already reaped the fruits of it. Not only that, but the Government felt that it ought to give an example to the industries. Everywhere possible where work can be done by white men, white men have been put in place of natives, and in the railway service alone we have appointed no less than 13,000. The Minister of Agriculture has placed 1,200 people and 600 people have been placed under the tenant farmer scheme, or I should rather say the Department of Labour has placed no less than 2,100 people in all. Together with the 1,200, there are about 15,000 people who have been saved by the present Government during the twenty-two months from starvation, and already we note people amongst them who have progressed into becoming independent citizens of the country. What interested me especially was the steps taken by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, by which people are taken from the lower classes for the clerical appointments and for the high ranks in the railway service, so that there is room on the railways for the young men if they show ability to work themselves up. If we consider all the actions of the Government we shall see that everything done has been done on a permanent basis. It has been done in such a way that there is a future for the people in the appointments they now hold. When a man sees that, then it gives him courage, and what is necessary to turn him into an independent citizen. The policy followed by the Pact Government is an attempt to obliterate the spirit of independence which has increased among our people, and instead of it to introduce a spirit of self-reliance. This spirit is one of the most important things that people can have. The fourth point is the native policy. It is said that the native question must be solved, and that European civilization must be maintained. In view hereof, it is necessary to carry out a policy of segregation by which the farmers will not be crippled, and their farm labour not be taken away. We, to-day, have the whole of the native policy of the Government before us. The native policy of the Nationalist party is not only a policy of political segregation. We have here also a policy of industrial and of social segregation. We have had most of the legislation before us, except that of political segregation, and this is to be put before us, and we shall have twelve months to consider it. We have already had the rest and we know the opinion of the House and what the Senate has done. One is the colour bar Bill. Because the Senate rejected that, we are asked to wait a year longer, but I hope it will be put on the statute book this year What does that mean to us? It means that a part of the labour will be preserved for the white population of South Africa. We have also had the Wages Act. There is much to be said for it, and I am surprised that it was not rejected by the Senate. What does it mean? It means that we shall not only protect our industries by the protection policy. But we are also going to demand from them, under the Wages Act, that the wages they pay will increase the purchasing power of products grown in the country. Therefore, we have the Wages Act. It should work together with the protection policy of the Government. As for social segregation we have the Bill before us this year, and I hope it will not experience the same opposition as the other Bill. I want to say this, that, as far as I know South Africa, and I have travelled about a good deal since the native policy of the present Government has been discussed, my experience is that South Africa is very thankful that now ever since the beginning of history there is a man who had had the courage to say: “I will tackle the native problem and find a solution of it.” The people are glad that South Africa has produced such a man. I refer to the Prime Minister. Then there remains the system of taxation. I want to quote it. Our system of taxation must be revised and based not upon an opportunist policy of which the tobacco and patent medicines taxes were examples, but on a sound economic basis. It has been said that nothing has been done about that promise. We have made an alteration in the estate duty and where the taxable amount was originally exceeding £1,000, it is now exceeding £7,500. We have also reduced by 50 per cent, the postage stamps fees which can be regarded as taxation. In connection with the income tax we have raised the exemption, and it means a considerable amount. We have removed the tobacco tax, one that meant the ruination of the tobacco farmers. We have abolished the patent medicine tax because we regarded them as opportunist taxes. Now I ask whether our taxation has not been reduced ? Have we not altered the system of taxation? Did we not, by the Financial Relations Act of 1924, alter the previous condition which was particularly serious for the northern parts of the country ? Do we not subsidize the provincial councils in a fairer way than was done by the former Government ? We feel that, in this respect, our promises have been properly kept. Then there is the question of education. We also promised that it was the duty of the State to take proper care of the education of the youth, and that, therefore, legislation should be introduced and measures taken to promote it. Besides the amendment by the Financial Relations Act of 1924, by which the system of subsidies the provinces was altered, industrial education was taken away from the provinces and put under the Minister of Education to make the institutions more effective. That also means additional cost and expenses for the Union Treasury, but the alteration that has been made is effective, and the population is highly satisfied with it. The seventh point is the Asiatic question. The Asiatic Bill is now before the House. We have all seen it and know that the solution will be satisfactory to the Pact side of the House. We shall see whether it will be approved by the Opposition.

Natal is opposed to it.

Perhaps they are against it, because I understand they want to keep the coolies here. Then we come to the last point. Everyone will agree with me that, during the time the Government has been in office, it has kept the promises I have mentioned and, on those promises, the majority was given to this side of the House, which brought the Government into power. The last point is that of the State bank. It is said that the riches of the country cannot be dependent upon the action of the commercial bank, and that steps ought, nevertheless, to have been taken for the establishment of a State bank. I am quite satisfied with what has been done as to the fulfilment of the promises, and as the Government has a further three years to fulfil the last promise, there will certainly be a satisfactory solution found for it. There is another point I want to touch. We saw from the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that he is still an advocate of free trade. Of course that is a point which differs as the heavens from the views of this side of the House. We are in favour of protection, and we say so. We follow a policy of protection because we feel that that is the only basis for a sound policy, and to assure the future to our people. We feel that nothing can be done through free trade. Because that only promotes the welfare of a few and not of all. Hon. members opposite have mentioned that the masses have to pay for the policy of protection. The bulk of the people are workmen and producers. We cannot separate the interests of the primary producers and of the workers, because the latter are the purchasers of the produce of the former If the one group is not flourishing, how can the other be so ? I am glad that the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) agrees with me that we should first improve the purchasing power of our country through factories before we can abolish protection. If he is a farmer in the Paarl district he will have found it out himself.

He is not a farmer.

Then his constituency is wrong in sending him here We want to congratulate the Government on the way in which the policy of this party and of the Pact Government has been carried out. The only way along which we can see light is by following a policy of “South Africa first.” We cannot argue away the fact that South Africa first is the pole star of the Nationalist party and of the Pact Government. Therefore I congratulate the Government on its work, and want to assure it that it has us behind it to carry out its policy and make a success of it.

I find myself in very much the same position as I did on the last budget. I have been a consistent protectionist for many years, because I consider that there is no hope, no future, and no life for South Africa, except under a policy of protection. I believe that free trade is going to end in stagnation and the death of this white population, and it is because I believe that, that I am endeavouring to express my views to-night. There are free traders on both sides of the House, despite the fact that the policy of both parties is protection.

Not a single one here!

I can remember, some years ago, before I went to Parliament, the present Minister of Labour asked me to stand in the interests of the Labour party for Zululand, and I replied that if, for no other reason, I could not stand for the Labour party because it was a free trade party. I have a recollection of hearing the chief financial critic of the National party sitting on these benches, in years past, giving us pure unadulterated Manchester on every budget debate. If there has been a change of heart and the country has come round to a policy of protection, it is a late growth. I am not influenced by the distributing section of the population, because I think it has had an extraordinary good innings. The distributing section of the population for years kept back manufacture and industries. They have bought in the cheapest market and sold in the dearest to exploit South Africa, and it is only with the utmost insistence and push that there have been any manufactures established in this country at all. If it had not been for the misfortune—shall I put it?—of the Great War, there would have been very few manufactures in South Africa to day. The chief exponent of free trade in this House is my friend the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who ploughs a very straight furrow in this field of economic doctrine, and harrows in the good seed of free trade with great skill in every budget debate. But, as far as the good of the country is concerned, he might as well plant thistles and expect to get pancakes out of them. There is nothing easier than to make a free trade speech. I believe I could make as good a free trade speech as the hon. member for Cape Town] (Central). We have been bred up under free trade, and have imbibed it from our school days, and there is not an illustration of elementary economics such as any schoolboy can read in any text book which is not served up as profound wisdom in this House. This stuff is trotted out in every newspaper which has its large circulation in distributing centres, and is consequently nourished on the free trade doctrine. It is an amazing thing to me to hear of the editor of our daily press going to the office to write a slashing article on free trade, while the business manager goes to the Board of Trade to get increased protection for the printers! Here is the printing trade, the greatest protected industry we have, preaching free trade. We have an illustration, such as appeared in the “Argus” on Saturday, where we see that mythical person, the consumer, who apparently produces nothing, put under a protectionist press, in which you press all his life out of him—one of those popular forms of propaganda which have been used during the last fifty years. If there is one thing certain, it is that protection needs very much longer views than free trade, because, as the hon. member who spoke on the Labour benches this afternoon said, protection is for posterity. I will not go so far as to say it is for posterity, but it needs long views because it is for the future. When you come to build up your industries for the future, it needs longer views than the views expressed for free trade. I want to say a few words for my constituents, who are sugar producers. The distributors have become very angry because their profits are to be limited. The Board of Trade proposes that the retail price of sugar shall be fixed at the coast towns of the Union. The distributors’ profits are to be limited, and they ask—

although they are perfectly willing to see the sugar industry in this country wiped out with out any profit at all. I would have expected my hon. friend to show some real knowledge of the position of sugar in the markets of the world. Sugar is one of those commodities which is produced all over the world behind tariff walls, all Governments have endeavoured to protect sugar in their own countries, because nobody would put money into the sugar industry without protection. They thus produced for their own consumption, and only so much of that surplus production as is not required for their own markets spills over the tariff wall into the world’s pool, so that the sugar my hon. friend would import into this country is the surplus production of every country which grows it. In this, I consider Cuba as an adjunct of the United States, in the same way as Hawaii. The Union of South Africa produces 1,462,000 kilos of sugar, and we have an effective duty of 3s. 11d. per cwt.—112 lbs. Australia produces 4,267,000 kilos, and has an effective protection of 9s. 4d. ; India 25,770,000 kilos, and 25 per cent, ad valorem: Cuba, 48,005,000 kilos, and 2s. per cwt. of raw sugar, which is not refined ; Java, 19,899,000 kilos, 6 per cent., entirely a sugar exporting country: Hawaii, 6,557,000 lbs., 10s. 7d. per cwt. ; Brazil, 8,124,000 kilos, 114s. 6d. per cwt. ; Porto Rico, 4,736,000 kilos, 10s. 7d. per cwt. ; Peru. 3,130,000 kilos, 20s. 4d. per cwt. ; Argentine. 2,486,000 kilos, 20 per cent, ad valorem, against 15 per cent, in South Africa; Dominican Republic, 2,439,000 kilos, 5s. 10d. ; Mexico, 1,680,000 kilos, 15s. 7d. ; United States. 11,185,000 kilos, 10s. 7d. ; Spain. 2,524,000 kilos. 73s. 2d. ; Germany, 15,667,000 kilos, has an effective duty of 5s. 1d. ; Czechoslovakia. 14,238,000 kilos, 11s. ; France, 8,158,000 kilos, 20s. 4d. ; and Mauritius, 2,247,000 kilos, an entirely exporting country, 3s. 1d. Portuguese East Africa is our greatest competitor and puts sugar over our borders which was formerly permitted to enter the Union free. In that case, the effective duty is 32s. 6d. a cwt. and 560,000 kilos are produced. Russia produced 4 586,000 kilos, and the effective duty is 28s. 8d. ; Belgium produces 3,938,000 kilos, and has an effective duty of 16s. 3d., while the effective duty in the case of Holland, with 2,992,000 lbs., is 19s. 1d.; Poland, with 5,346,000 lbs., is 22s. 7d. ; and the United Kingdom, 11s. 8d. ; the latter, in addition to the duty, subsidizes its own sugar industry to the extent of something like £18 a ton. Ironi these official figures, it ought to be apparent to any hon. member that the South African sugar industry is, and has been for many years past, the least protected sugar industry in the world, and South Africa is the lowest producer, except Portuguese East Africa. Their sugar spills over that tariff wall on to the world’s market, and it is that sugar that the hon. member wants to bring here. That is unadulterated free trade. Out of the surplus of world’s production, where sugar realizes less than the cost of production, South Africa is to obtain its sugar? The sugar industry in Cuba and Porto Rico and other tributaries of the United States is mostly run by Americans. That sugar is refined in the United States. So much as they require they keep in the United States, and what they do not require they pour over the wall to the markets of the world. One of our men who went to Cuba only this year, and has returned, had an interview with one of the sugar magnates, who said to him—

I don’t believe it.

Has my hon. friend heard that there is a combine in steel between the Americans, the Germans and the English in order to capture the market of the world? The hon. member can only see to-day ; he cannot see to-morrow or next year and he does not see that there are 150,000,000 potential consumers on this continent of Africa. Does he not see that with these high tariff walls it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Americans to export their sugar. If they attempt to off-load it in any European market, which has an industry of its own, up go the shutters. They either prohibit it altogether or put on an increased protection. With the increased production everywhere where are the Americans to trade. Cuba is looking for potential consumers. America is looking for the cheapest spot into which to push its sugar, and here is the greatest potential market in the world, and South Africa has the lowest barrier to climb over. Is it not quite obvious to us that every one of these natives in the interior is becoming a potential consumer of sugar? The history of our own consumption in this country, curing the last 20 years, should show the great potential market there is all over Africa for sugar. If we cease to exist as an industry, the whole of Africa is open then to development as a market for the American sugar. My hon. friends must admit that I have proved that sugar is produced all over the world behind tariff walls and that the tariff wall in South Africa is the lowest in the world. The South African sugar industry is therefore the most vulnerable and the dumping of sugar in this country would wipe us out of existence. As this matter will come up on ways and means, I do not propose to say more here ; but would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will have the report of the Board of Trade and Industries, in regard to sugar, printed. I think the report is of national importance and that the people of this country ought to be informed of the true position. On the general question of free trade and protection I want to break a lance with my right hon. friend. I would say we have reached the cross-roads. If we are going to be a protectionist country, it must be proper protection. If we are not going to be protectionist, we must banish industries. If we are going to develop merely our agriculture and mining without regard to manufactures, anything which tends to put up the cost of producing raw material for export should be religiously shunned. It is sheer folly to go in for protection ; we must go in for free trade. What is the use of this lip service to protection ? It is just sitting on the fence ; going a little way towards free trade one day and then bringing a tariff into existence the next, and then letting the industry created die for lack of nourishment just when it has started to breathe. Do not deceive people and say that industries are going to be protected and then let them find only after they have put money into it that the industry will be allowed to die because of the lukewarm attitude of the Government. I want to state the fundamental of my protectionist faith. I believe our stay on this continent entirely depends on the prestige of the white man, and once that goes, not all our policies, whatever they may be, will save us at all. I want to read an extract from this very illuminating report by the Drought Investigation Commission. It is referred to by the Economic Commission in very approving terms and is one with which every lover of South Africa ought to make himself acquainted. The extract is from page 137 and shows that—

Is it not plain to any thinking man that if this submerged population of ours is going to sink deeper, as it is doing to-day, while the native mass is rising above it, and the coloured people also, that they will drag us all down. Whatever we may do in future, if we do not lift this great white mass of our population we will all go with it. How are we going to lift it? Put them on the land! That is the great panacea which everyone turns to. I want to quote what the Drought Commission says on the question of our land—

And on page 5 they state that—

I stated some time ago in this House that two-thirds of the land of South Africa had less than 15 inches of rainfall a year and that a great deal of the benefit of that rain was lost because it fell spasmodically or came in torrents that washed the side of the country away and spoilt the efforts of those working on the land. We talk about putting these people on the land—these people who lack that foresight and perseverance and thrift which is the root cause of their present condition. How can they possibly win out on the land? In Australia, where there is a most careful selection, and the settlers have a certain amount of capital, and the land is infinitely more fertile, there are 30 per cent, of failures, and the Minister of Lands will tell us that in Natal, where the applicants for the land are men specially chosen by the Natal Land Board, after personal interview, and where they have sufficient capital to win out, there are still 30 per cent, of failures. The best place to put these people I am speaking about is round the machine of industry. These are the facts. If the Minister of Lands were to produce the files of his office he could show settlement after settlement where the people are eking out a miserable existence, often on the verge of starvation, living on a daily diet of mealie meal, their children unshod, half clothed, attending no school, being reared in an environment of penury and ignorance. When they are able to do so they go off to the diamond diggings in the forlorn hope of finding a diamond or two which will enable them to better their condition. These are the people who can find no employment because they have no economic value. The private employers will not look at them and so they have become a charge on the State. The idea seems to be to put them on the land because they would be less trouble, and therefore the Government are being asked to go in for a land scheme. I believe this is quite a wrong policy. The only place for these people is in industry.

How will they survive the competition of industry?

Compare these people living in the settlements with the coloured man in Cape Town or Durban, working round the machinery of industry. Their wages are paid regularly. They are not asked to exercise those qualities of foresight and thrift and perseverence. Somebody does the thinking for them, and their children can be brought up in a decent environment. The coloured population is in a better position to withstand the buffets of fortune than the poor whites on the land. Take the same class of people as our poor whites in the factories in America. Henry Ford takes a man from Russia or Poland, who has never earned more than 1s. 6d. a day in his own country, puts him on a machine, and the man creates more wealth in 12 hours than he would do in a month in his own country. Writing from New York recently Lord Rothermere said—

One unit equals 100 workers—

We produce the cheapest power in the world. Electric power in Chicago costs one-third of a penny per unit. In Durban it costs only one-fifth of a penny. Instead of making use of that power here we employ white people to shovel sand on the railways, sweeping out railway carriages, and doing all the work that the barbarian is equally fitted to do, while our people are starving on the land, and their children are trying to pick up a livelihood on the diamond diggings. There is no other way at all, except through manufacture. The land is for those who are the most energetic. If the land is settled by those who have sufficient skill, energy, foresight and thrift to win through, South Africa will flourish. I want to come to the primary industry on which all other industries are built—iron and steel. From every standpoint, and from that of political economy, we have nearly every necessary condition for the establishment of an iron and steel industry in South Africa. We have ore equal to the best in the world. Recently a body of Germans made an extensive investigation and came to the conclusion that we were excellently situated for the establishment of such an industry. The ore is near the coalfields, and I am informed we can produce pig iron cheaper than it can be made in Belgium. The hon.member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked, where are our markets. Well, if we can produce pig iron cheaply enough, we can sell it in South America under the nose of the Americans and in the Congo under the eyes of the Belgian ironmasters. I have noticed a tendency to undervalue the potentialities of the developing of trade in Africa. The trade of British territories in Africa is over £100,000,000 without considering the Belgian and French Congo, which in 20 years’ time will have far greater revenue than the Union has. We are in communication by rail from Cape Town with the heart of Africa, and we shall go on developing with increasing rapidity. It is in the north that steel rails are to be laid, and bridges to be built, and we should supply the raw material. Geographically we are the closest country in touch with all the ports around the east and west coasts of Africa. What prevents the establishment of such an industry? In the first place, lack of capital. It is not a question of a lack of natural conditions. We are going through the same phase that America went through years ago. Over 100 years ago Hamilton told the United States that England had no natural advantages more than the States had in the shape of water power, ore, and material and men—all that England had was its advantage of priority of establishment. It was 50 years, however, before the Americans woke up, and they put their extraordinary high duty on steel. Gladstone said America was mad to think she could compete with England, but that decision of Congress laid the foundation of the present prosperity of the United States. I want to show how this can be done in South Africa, and here I have a bone or two to pick with the Government. It is true that we could not protect the iron and steel industry through the customs, for that will put up the price to all users of raw material and it will not enable us to sell beyond our borders. The South African party Government realized that, and offered a bounty on the production of iron and steel. But that is quite useless for the purpose, and it has proved so in New Zealand. We have to subsidise it in a manner which will bring capital here to establish industry. I believe that in a very short period after the setting up of this industry, and the subsidiary industries which would grow up around it, we should find employment for practically all the poor whites in the country. We are subsidizing non-employment to the tune of £2,000,000 a year. In eight months last year the Labour Department spent £452,000 in subsidizing people to do things which need not be done or if they had to be done should have beer done by those better fitted to do them. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) mentioned the other night that some £800,000 was spent on the railways in fostering white labour, but I am informed that the real figure will be somewhere about £1,000,000. I think it will be agreed that about £1,000,000 a year is spent and unnecessarily spent in subsidizing white employment on the railways, employing people in positions where they have absolutely no future. The Hartebeestpoort Dam cost over £2,000,000 and the Auditor-General says that £540,000 of that was spent in subsidizing white labour. There is also a fair sum spent on forestry every year at which the forestry officers grumble a good deal because it brings them into competition with the nurserymen outside and they cannot come out. The provincial and municipal subsidies bring the total to not far short of £2,000,000 a year. That is not the only subsidy. There is a general subsidy on land settlement in this country. We lend money to settlers on the land at 4 per cent, which has been borrowed at probably 5 per cent. We are spending and have spent in the past huge sums on various land settlement schemes which will never come back again. Then under a recent Act we are subsidizing the labour colonies of the Minister of Lands to the extent of £12 per head. This principle of subsidy is one that goes right through our legislation. Suppose we could take that £2,000,000 a year which is being spent uselessly to-day and transfer it to subsidizing production, would it not make a difference to this country? Would not that £2,000,000 which we are wastefully spending to-day return to us four fold later on ? With a useful subsidy we could sell our steel rails anywhere. In Central Africa where a good deal of our steel work should be used in future and will be used during the next generation there are international agreements which prevent the raising of tariff walls. It is a free trade area for the whole world, so there is no fear that if we subsidize our own goods in this country they would be discriminated against in those countries beyond our borders. If this were done, if a State industry—I do not mean an industry conducted by the State—but if a subsidized industry, a State-aided industry such as I have suggested were established, you could lay down your conditions of labour, you could state what labour shall be employed, and what hours shall be worked if necessary and what wages shall be paid, and you can from the commencement of your industry build up a civilized life for your workers which is impossible for them on our railways. It would change our whole native policy. There would be no need then to chase the natives off the railway ; there would be no need to be afraid of native competition. The native could then be left to work out his own destiny in economic contact in those lines which he has already secured without any fear from us. I do not think there is any branch of industry which to me carries such inspiration with it as an iron industry. The trades are not finely divided as they are, for instance in the building and similar trades. In a new school such as this, with a disciplined life, with a people living on the sunlit African veld, with proper amenities of civilization, with educational facilities for their children, the whole outlook of this poorer class of our people would be entirely different from what it is to-day. There would be no difficulty in obtaining capital for the establishment of such an industry, providing the interest on the capital invested is guaranteed by the State. I do not want to labour this point any more, but I have wanted for a long time to get this over the House. In face of this urgent need, before the shifting sands of opportunity disappear, I plead that we should drop our petty political shifts and expedients and gather round the anvil of great purpose to fashion out a destiny for our children.

I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), but if that is the policy he supports, then lie sits on the wrong side, because the policy defended by him was never carried out by his patty. He has attacked the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who opened the debate. It is remarkable that just that party of which we always hear that they always speak with one voice is so hopelessly divided, and has spoken in this debate With about fifty-two voices. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is a free trader. The hon. member for Zululand attacked him. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) attacks the Government policy on defence, and the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) attacks him. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) asks why the wheat farmers must be protected, and other members are entirely in favour of it, while the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) cannot understand that protection benefits the farmers, but thinks that it injures them. So it goes. One member gets up, and the next one opposes him. I now come to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who suggested that we should annually spend £1,000,000 sterling to advance immigration. I wonder whether he listened to what the hon. member for Zululand said about farmers, and if he wishes that 30 per cent, of the people who go farming and are failures should also become a burden on the Government. I think, after the speech of the hon. member for Zululand, he has been converted from his State immigration idea. I should like to know when we must take the hon. member for Standerton seriously? What standpoint must we accept as correct according to him? The other day the leader of the Opposition said at Ventersdorp that the previous Government had done everything possible to help the farmers through the bad times, and that the present Government was only following in their steps. To-day the hon. member condemns the Government because it does nothing for the farming population. Which of his two statements must we take as the right one? That where he says the Government assists the farmers and is following in the footsteps of the S.A.P., or that where he says that the Government is doing nothing for the farmers ? Or must we believe neither of the two? The hon. member for Standerton attacked the Government with regard to the Department of Agriculture. He began by saying that the Government had done nothing for agriculture except by giving the farmers knocks. Where has the Department of Agriculture tried to hurt the farmers? Further, he blamed us because last year the Government permitted so much fruit to go bad and to arrive overseas in a rotten condition. I wonder whether the opinion of the farmers themselves or of the hon. member is of greater value ? The board of the Co-operative Citrus Society of Rustenburg, at its meeting in connection with the matter, decided that the damage suffered by the spoiling of the fruit was in the first place due to the fact that they had had a wet summer, so that the fruit contained an excess of sap, which resulted in their easy deterioration. In the second place, they attributed the loss to the delay in the harbours in consequence of the shipping strike (which the Opposition also want to blame us for, I suppose). And in the third place, they attributed the less favourable result to the imperfect packing and improper grading of the fruit intended for export. How does the hon. member for Standerton, then, want to attribute the loss which has been suffered to the Government ? Then he attacked the Government on account of the repeal of the tobacco tax. He said that the price of tobacco had gone down. Let me tell him what happened. As a result of the tobacco tax imposed by the S.A.P., the production lessened from 15,000,000 lbs. to 9,000,000 lbs. And what was the result of the repeal of the tax by our Government? That this year the prices of tobacco have gone up 20 to 30 per cent, more than any previous year, and that the production is gradually increasing again. Where is the hon. member now? Then the hon. member describes the position of the cattle farmers. He has told us how terribly bad the market is to-day, and given two reasons for it. The first was that we exported so few animals from here because Rhodesia exported so much through our harbours. And that the cause of our not exporting is due to the disappearance of the bounty with us which still exists in Rhodesia. He said that Rhodesia exported 50,000 to 60,000 cattle last year. If the hon. member juggles with figures in everything as with the export of cattle, then I can well understand that his Government was defeated, and could no longer carry on. Last year there were only about 15,000 animals in all exported from the Union. How does the hon. member arrive at the figure of 60,000 from Rhodesia alone? Through which harbours were they exported ? It seems to me the leader of the Opposition has got the figures from the air. The export of meat when there was a premium was much less than it is now without the premium. In 1924 the export increased a little, and this year again, but the total export last year, 1924, was only 1,500 cattle. Then the hon. member comes with a big figure for the Rhodesian export, and says that that, is the cause of to-day’s bad prices. What is the price of meat to-day in England? The price is less than that of our inland market. That is the cause of the export being so small. No one will export cattle if he can get a better price here for them. I think Rhodesia would like to change with us and allow us to export and supply our market with cattle from Rhodesia. The price in England in large quantities for meat from New Zealand is 3½d. for forequarters, and 4½d. for hindquarters. On our own market the price of forequarters is 3d. and hindquarters 4½d. in large quantities. It is therefore more profitable to sell here. Then he attacked us because the Government is supposed to have taken up a hostile attitude for the Imperial Cold Storage. Is it hostile for us to order an enquiry? I can assure the hon. member that this enquiry was not inspired through hostility, but to see whether the company was properly fulfilling its duty to the country. What happened with regard to the cold storge ? If it had not been for our trade commissioner on the Continent who could look after the matter when the meat arrived in Belgium and Italy, the condition with regard to our export to-day would have Been much worse. If the company will carry on its business on proper business lines, it will have no better friend than this Government, but if it does not do so, and our market overseas is spoiled, then we will take action. I have here a letter about the carriage of meat from Durban to Belgium, which shows how’ carelessly it was treated. Meat was exported without being first inspected by the Government inspector, and the meat arrived in bad condition in Belgium and Italy. Hence a Commission of Enquiry was appointed. Is that a hostile disposition ? The hon. member further spoke about the kindergarten commission. The hon. member may regard them as such, but they are learned men, and they have not made a political report. The hon. member goes further, and condemns the commission with regard to the enquiry about our egg export. The hon. member surely knows that the egg exporters lost £80,000 through the negligence of the Cold Storage. Should then the Government have made no enquiry? Now the commission is condemned by the hon. member. The members of the commission are members 6f his own party, but because they have made an honest report they are abused. The hon. member for Standerton is a very good election agent for us. The people have done their best to make a good report which is honest, and they have taken evidence. That is exactly the way in which the hon. member pushes his people from his side. I am not going to condemn the commission.

What are we going to do in connection with the report ?

As I have already said, we are going to carry it out as far as possible.

That is a very vague answer.

The Government finds certain points in the report which it cannot accept and others which it can. We will carry out the report as far as it is acceptable. The hon. member for Standerton knows well that when we were in Opposition we always urged assistance being given to the cattle farmers. We said: “Lay an embargo on cattle coming from Rhodesia.” We did not say that total prohibition of importation should be proclaimed. The Government of the hon. member would not proclaim the embargo. Now this Government has put an embargo of £1,000, and the hon. member for Standerton said: “What is the good of it?” Just let me show that, as a result of the embargo, fewer cattle are being imported from Rhodesia.

You have just increased the embargo.

We never advocated a complete prohibition. We advocated the raising of the embargo. In 1923-’24, before the embargo was imposed, 41,716 cattle were imported from Rhodesia to our markets. In 1924-’25, after importation was limited by the embargo, there were only 19,250 cattle, that is, 60 per cent. less. Now it is asked what control we have over the cattle that are imported, and it is said that cattle are coming in anyhow. Let me assure hon. members that that is not so. The Prime Minister of Rhodesia has honourable intentions with regard to the agreement entered into with us. Every time our Government brings one or other irregularities to his notice, he is immediately prepared to take steps to correct it. He, however, went further, and established a weighing-bridge at Messina where all cattle from Rhodesia are now properly weighed to see whether they are above the minimum weight before they enter the Union. Now it will, perhaps, be said that cattle come on to our markets which come from Rhodesia for export. Let me at once say that 100 cattle came back again to our markets. They were accompanied by a proper certificate of export, but in Durban one of the legacies which I inherited from the South African party allowed of 100 cattle coming back again on to our market. I immediately took steps against the veterinary surgeon, and wrote to the Public Service Commission that such action was in conflict with the Whole policy of the Government and with the agreement with Rhodesia, but the commission, another legacy from the previous Government, answered that he could not be dismissed, and that a good reprimand would be sufficient punishment. I was not satisfied with that, and immediately transferred him to a place where such a thing could not occur again. We did what was possible and went still further. There was a big import of cattle from Bechuanaland. When I took over the department, the importation, that last year of South African party Government, was 47,143 cattle. In 1924-’25 I gave instructions to strictly apply the cattle sickness regulations, with the result that in 1924-’25 only 35,626 cattle came from Bechuanaland. We were still not satisfied, and felt that we should keep our inland market more for ourselves. Accordingly, we negotiated with the Imperial Government with the result that there is now also an embargo of £1,000 for the import of cattle from Bechuanaland. That came into force on the 1st of February, and I trust that this measure will assist in considerably diminishing the import of cattle from Bechuanaland, but the position there is less easy to control as the border is about 400 miles long. Smugglers work there for speculators, and the police force is not adequate to control the smuggling. A few smugglers have been prosecuted, one before the magistrate at Marico and the other at Rustenburg. The magistrate simply imposed a fine. I said that it was of no use to punish anyone with a fine of £25. It would pay to bring large quantities over the border. There-fore, the cattle were sent back to Bechuanaland and the fine imposed in addition. I have also asked the Minister of Justice for more police guards. The hon. member for Standerton further said that he had so much sympathy for the farmers. I have shown what sympathy he had for the cattle farmers. Our Government has not only had sympathy, but has assisted by deeds. I mentioned the repeal of the tobacco tax, and what the Government did for the cattle farmers, and want to mention, further, what it has done for the sheep farmers. Last year the Opposition was full of simultaneous dipping This year we do not hear a word about it. Last year we heard stories about a loss of £100,000 in one district, and many members made a terrible fuss. During this debate they were all perfectly quiet. The hon. member for Standerton went to the high veld and said: “See how many sheep have been killed by simultaneous dipping.” But the farmers acknowledge that last year was a very good one for sheep. Let me just say that in Bechuanaland 72,000 sheep died this year, as against 14,000 in Ermelo. The hon. member for Ermelo told me himself that they had a good year for sheep. As a consequence of our action—I wish here to make every acknowledgment to Mr. Michaelson—the embargo on our wool was removed. During the exhibition at Wembley the official wrote to me to send samples of wool there. I then sent 50 fleeces which were intended for the demonstration train, and let it be known that the Union was occupied with a simultaneous dipping. Then the embargo of three farthings per lb. was taken off, and that means extra revenue for the farmers of £250,000 per year. That is, perhaps, why hon. members opposite are so quiet. They were so terribly concerned about their sheep division. Do they still want me to reinstate it? I now just want to mention what the position is to-day with regard to scab. The cases of infection for the two months January and February, 1923 to 1926, were as follows—

The position in the Free State is good. It will perhaps be interesting to mention the districts that are clean. I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I find it is very desirable to name the districts in which scab still exists, because it is my experience that the farmers in those districts want to compete, and to assist the Government to get their districts clean. It will assist in knowing what districts are clean and what are not, so that at meetings it may be urged that the district should be made clean. In the Free State they are all clean except one imported case which occurred in the district of Kroonstad. Natal is as follows—

Is this done deliberately to prevent other members speaking: Why not raise this on your own vote? All you are doing it for is to prevent members speaking and you are doing it for that purpose. The matter has not been referred to and the object is to take up the time of members who want to speak before the debate closes to-night.

You had five days in which to discuss the budget.

There are points which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) raised.

If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is dissatisfied, I will keep on till 10.55 p.m. In the Cape the following are clean: Albanie, Albert, Alexandria, Aliwal North, Bathurst, Bredas-dorp, Caledon, Cape, Carnarvon, Clanwilliam, Colesberg, Cradock, East London. Elliot, Fort Beaufort, Fraserburg, George, Glen Grey, Graaff-Reinet, Hanover, Hay, Herbert. Her-schel, Hopetown, Humansdorp, Knysna, Komgha, Ladismith, Laingsburg, Malmesbury, Maraisburg, Middelburg, Molteno, Montagu, Mossel Bay. Murraysburg, Maclear. Oudts-hoorn, Paarl, Pearston, Peddie, Philipstown, Port Elizabeth, Prieska, Prins Albert, Queens-town, Richmond, Riversdale, Robertson, Stellenbosch, Steynsburg, Stockenstroom, Stutterheim, Sutherland, Sterkstroom, Tarka, Uitenhage, Uniondale, Vanrhynsdorp, Victoria East, Worcester. Still infected: Aberdeen. Barkly East, Barkly West, Beaufort West, Bedford. Britstown, Calvinia, Cathcart, Ceres, Jansenville, Kenhardt, Kimberley, Kingwilliamstown. Namaqualand, Piquetberg, Somerset East, Steytlerville, Swellendam, Tulbagh, Victoria West, Williston, Willowlnore, Wodehouse. In Transvaal there are clean: Barberton, Carolina, Bethal, Bloemhof, Ermelo, Heidelberg, Krugers-dorp, Lichtenburg, Lydenburg, Marico, Piet Retief, Potchefstroom, Rustenbtlrg, Stander-tort, Vereniging, Wakkerstroom, Waterberg, Wolmaransstad, Witwatersrand, Zoutpansberg. Still infected: Middelburg, Pretoria, Pietersburg. In Bechuanaland there are clean: Gordonia, Kuruman. Still infected: Mafeking, Vryburg. I just want to point out how the position as regards scab has improved this year. We have saved £39,500, but instead of scab increasing the position has been much improved. That economy was effected by our having less officials and less travelling expenses. I will give the hon. member for Port Beaufort another opportunity of talking, because I just want to refer to a few small points mentioned by the hon. members for Weeden (Maj. Richards), Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick). They opened their mouths very wide about the poor quality of cattle in the country, and that the Government should take steps to improve the position. I want to ask those hon. members whether the sheep farmers, when they wanted to improve their breed, came to the Government and said: Give us good rams to improve the breed of our sheep, or did they merely ask advice from the officials of the department to tell them how they could improve their stock ? They put their hands in their pockets and improved the breed of their sheep themselves. Did the wheat farmers run after the Government and say: Give us manure to improve our lands? Every farmer looked after the improvement of his lands. The position of the cattle farmers is the same. They do not require the assistance of the department which has officials at their disposal. If they want to buy the necessary cattle we will give them the people to advise them, but they cannot expect the Government to provide them with cattle. They must themselves do their share to improve the class of their cattle. When the class has been improved then they can expect an improvement in the export trade. As the hon. member for Umbilo has pointed out that it is best to export the cattle young, I hope that the farmers will now allow the cattle to get older than five years before they export them. An expert in the cattle market said that if cattle are exported at ten years old, then the meat is of such a nature that one cannot put a fork through it. The hon. member for Standerton has also this afternoon condemned the establishment of co-operative societies. That is the only security for the farmers if they co-operate properly to look after the marketing. Then the position will not be as it is to day. If the farmers co-opetate, they will be able to export and to export regularly. To condemn co-operation, however, and to put in the place of co-operative societies, a large combination like the Imperial Cold Storage, I cannot agree, arid therefore I hope to support the farmers in co-operating and in getting a proper market for their productions. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer, and I orily did so to express my views. We have been told about the great offensive, but we have seen nothing, of it. It has changed into an attack with loose powder coupled with smoke damp. But there is still time to commence the offensive.

I listened very attentively to the interesting and illuminating speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). The remedies that he suggested, even if they could be successful, would be many years before they could be brought to fruition. I am not going into a discussion on the relative merits of free trade and protection, but I would remind the House that one of the greatest authorities oh economics in France gave this as an example, that England is a free trade country, and she was the only country in Europe that was in a position to pay the whole of her expenses of the war and to lend considerable sums of money to her allies. I leave it at that. It is too dangerous a subject for this House to discuss. The Minister’s budget speech revealed the enormous benefit derived from mining, the progress and advancement that this country owes to it, and the big toll that it has extracted in the shape of taxation. I thank the Minister very much for that ingenuous admission. Turning to the budget, I must say that I do not approve of raising the exemption on income tax from £300 to £400. I quite realize the Minister’s difficulty. He is compelled to meet the persistent demands of the junior members of the new firm for fear that they might withdraw their support, I won’t say their capital. The family man with an income of £500 under the Minister’s new scheme will pay nothing to the State, but the native, with an income of £30 or £40 annually, will pay £1. That strikes me as being unfair. Anyhow, it is nothing for the white man to he proud of. I don’t like the increased duties on sugar, flour and imported clothing. I have always raised my voice in this House and voted against the raising of the duties on the necessaries of life, and I have voted with the Labour party on many occasions in this House on these questions, and I would vote with them to-day if they had not turned a double somersault. I remember that Mr. Burton, when Minister of Finance, introduced measures for the protection of the boot industry, and I also remember the howl of indignation that came from the Labour benches, and especially from the hon. members who are now gracing the Ministerial benches. It appears to me that they are now quite indifferent to these imposts. They accept with a smile these increased duties, especially on ready-made clothing, as if their deluded sup-porters and followers intended going about in future in a state of nudity. The Minister of Railways has admitted in this House that he is employing uneconomic white labour. I do not object to that in the slightest degree, although it is a bleach of the South Africa Act, which provides that railways shall be run on business lines. It is a most peculiar thing to me that at the same time the Minister of Defence, who is the chairman of the Labour party, is discharging men for reasons of economy. He has told this House that it is his intention to dismiss a certain number of drill instructors who are now engaged in training the cadets. I call this foolish economy. To my mind, it is penny wise and pound foolish. I suppose I am about the oldest member of the Colonial forces. I received my first commission fifty years ago, and, speaking with some sense of responsibility, I say that the schoolmaster, however capable he may be in instructing these youngsters in educational matters, is unfitted to instruct them in military matters. Instead of being a well-set-up, smart and highly trained body, the cadets will become slovenly, careless, and almost useless. While the one Minister, the Minister who, I think, comes from a Conservative family, is in favour of employing uneconomic white labour, the chairman of the Labour party is discharging white men. I cannot reconcile the policy of these two Ministers. I will let those two hon. gentlemen settle the matter among themselves. I would like to refer, for a moment, to my hon. friend the member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). In his illuminating speech on Friday, he said he was glad to see that the Minister of Finance had referred to the balance of trade. He had always hoped that some day we would raise a financier, someone connected with the Government, who would pay some attention to that question. He drew attention to the fact that the balance of trade in our favour last year, showing our extreme prosperity, was £22,750,000. If you take the case which has been given to me of 8 per cent., you get £20,000,000 of money abstracted from this country, and it never comes back. If the Minister goes into the question, he will find that in several years £ 100,000,000 has been abstracted from this country. The hon. member, like several other hon. members, labours under the hallucination that exports take money out of the country. On the contrary, exports bring money into this country, it does not matter of what they consist. The hon. member is under the impression that £100,000,000 sterling of trade balance in our favour does not exist ; it disappears and goes into the pockets of those terrible capitalists. I think that was his idea ; at any rate, that was the idea he conveyed to me. Engine-drivers and miners have to pass examinations. I think really M.L.A.’s should pass some examination in the rudiments of political economy, because they have the fate of the people in their hands. I would not advise the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) to go in for this examination, because I feel almost sure he would fail. I will endeavour to show him that £100,000,000, the balance of trade in our favour, has not melted away, but that it is in actual existence and possessed by the people of South Africa. At Union in 1910, the total debt of the four provinces in round figures was £116,500,000, of which £106,900,000 was external, that is, money borrowed overseas, and £9,600,000 was internal, money raised within the Union. At that time South Africa held only 8.24 per cent, of the total national debt. When the Smuts Government went out of office in 1924, the total debt of the Union amounted to £208,332,000. Of that, £133,363,000 was external, and £74,869,000 was internal. During the regime of Botha and Smuts, only £26,466,000 was borrowed from overseas, and £65,265,000 was raised in South Africa. Hon. members will see that while at Union we only held 81 per cent, of our own debt, to-day it has increased to 36 per cent. I think the hon. member will admit that accounts for some of the hundred millions he mentioned in his speech to-day. The favourable balance of trade is reflected in the £65,000,000 I have mentioned ; the enormous increase in the value of municipal and divisional council property, and the increased wealth of the people, beside which an enormous amount of money has been invested by South Africans in debentures, municipal loans, and in the preference shares of gold and diamond mining companies. So I think that accounts for the hundred millions of balance of trade in our favour. Instead of vanishing and going into thin air, that money is in South Africa, as it ought to be. I hope I have enlightened the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay).

Far from it! Your economics are all wrong.

If I have not enlightened the hon. member. I would like him to see a brain specialist. My figures are official. There can be no question about them, and they bear eloquent testimony to the improvement and prosperity of South Africa during the 14 years when Botha and Smuts were in power. Hon. members on the other side assert, inside and outside this House—inside this House they are under a certain amount of restraint, but outside they may think they will not be reported—to listen to hon. members people would think that when the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) left office South Africa was on the brink of ruin—

So it was!

And that the Pact came into power just in the nick of time to prevent South Africa compounding with its creditors. Members on the other side have repeated that fallacy so frequently that they are beginning to think it is correct, and they are beginning to believe it. Even the Minister of Defence on Friday last implied that South Africa had gone to the dogs financially during the Smuts regime. It is the bounden duty of members of Parliament, who have any sense of responsibility, to enlighten the people, and I regret that very few do so in South Africa. Naturally, during the course of 14 years, Governments, like business people, suffer from ups and downs, but when the Smuts Government left office, South Africa was on the up grade, and at the same time that Government handed over to the new Government a very nice nest egg in the shape of over £3,000,000 in the hands of the custodian.

And a bankrupt pension fund!

If I had the ability to take the office of the Minister of Finance, I do not think I should have handed it over to the new Government, but spent some of the money instead of imposing fresh taxation —but that is another matter. The Pact Government came in on velvet, and they have not the chivalry to admit it. During the 14 years the Botha-Smuts Government had been in power, as a business man who had been successful, and not as a man who has made failures, I say that, during their regime, this country went ahead by leaps and bounds. If hon.members will look up the records they will find that there was a vast increase in production, export and development ; in docks and schools, and in almost every direction. Mistakes were made, but who does not make mistakes? On the whole, we have a record which, without hesitation, I will say any party can be proud of.

Why did the country turn you out ?

Everybody makes mistakes and the people have made a mistake by turning us out. If the hon. member had not made mistakes he might have been a rich man to-day. I would like to address myself now to the Minister of Railways. In this House, on the 28th of April, 1917, I said that something must be done to anticipate the development that was coming, because the country was not going to stand still, and I suggested that our main line should be double-tracked from the interior to the ports. I can repeat these words to-day. In normal times you cannot even carry the coal to the port of Natal.

That means increasing the estimates.

But you will increase your business. You do not expect this country to go ahead unless you borrow money. The country’s development depends upon our power of transport, and if you have not sufficient transport available, this country must come to a standstill. Durban has a bad name, so far as obtaining coal is concerned, and ships are diverted from that port when otherwise they would go there. Owing to the meagre supply of trucks all the year round, I know of one big company with up-to-date machinery, producing a first-grade coal, having to go into liquidation within a month or two. I do not blame the railway staff. It puzzles me how they carry such an enormous tonnage over a single line of rails. I am not complaining of the management of the traffic at all, but I think we have a wrong railway policy. I think it is wanting in foresight. I do not care who is responsible. I think the line should be first of all double-tracked ; because experienced railway engineers have told me that with the same number of locomotives and rolling stock they could carry six or seven times the tonnage over a double line. Even if the carrying capacity were increased only four or five times, doubletracking would still be a very great advantage. With the enormous sums we have spent on electrification we could have double-tracked one or more of our main lines, and that would have been the right policy. Then, when you have more traffic than you can carry over the double track, go in for electrification. It is all very well to say the country is going ahead—I believe it is—but development and exports must come to a deadlock unless the Government looks ahead. The carrying capacity of our railways have already reached their maximum limit, and development is steadily outstripping the carrying powers of the railway. If transportation is not supplied, grain will not or the farmers will be compelled to sell their surplus at a great loss. The railways cannot carry both the coal and maize during the maize season. As maize is perishable, it must have the preference over coal. Our northern agricultural development will soon come to a standstill through want of transport. The Government that makes no provision for the future is neglecting its primary duty to the country. My advice is to get a move on, as there is no time to be lost. I have no desire to criticize or to score off the Government, but to call attention to matters which I honestly consider to be in the best interests of South Africa.

I am glad at the sound financial condition of the country. If we look at what was said when the Pact came into office and what the position is now, then I feel very proud that I am a supporter of the Government. I want to draw the attention of the Government to a few farming interests. I just want to say that the announcement of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) this afternoon that, in his opinion, the farmers should be exempted from income tax, was good news to me as a farmer. But it nevertheless surprised me that the hon. member, who was fourteen years in office, did not himself exempt the farmers from the tax. He stated that he governed during the lean years, and that he could not do so. But I remember that he also had surpluses, and that he nevertheless always turned on the screw. The farmers were, e.g., compelled to pay for the increase of their cattle, and more suchlike things. I do not know whether the farmers can take the hon. member seriously. I am very sorry that he did not do it in years when he was in office. Regarding the budget, I want to congratulate the Minister on the good position of the country. We must not lose our heads and give the people outside the impression which was given when hon. members opposite were in power when they said that the country was in a flourishing condition and money could be spent. We must, in the present time, dc everything we can to put the matters in the country in order. I am certain that the flourishing condition will not last forever. We shall again have years of drought and trouble, and as we now have the opportunity, we must put things in order, so that we can endure bad years without having to put heavy taxes on the people. I am very sorry to differ from members of my party, but the hon.member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) said that when people spoke about economy all day, it was merely a parrot cry. He did not speak for all the members of the Nationalist party. Our party are just as much in favour of economy as ever. There is, however, not one member of the Nationalist party who preaches economy and at the same time wants to hinder the progress of the country. We urge the Government to develop the country, as long as the money that is spent pays for the interest. What we, however, urge is economy in the administration. I want to suggest to the Government in this connection to do something, and I am very glad to learn and to see what has already been done. The Minister of Agriculture has said to-night that about £39,000 per annum was saved in administration in fighting scab. I want to recommend the Government to go on with this. There are many places where economy can be affected and I agree with hon. members when they say that if the country is administered by business men just as is done in a private undertaking much can be saved. I have here a scheme which was given me by one of the chief officials in which he proposes to save £200,000 in the registration of the population. I would urge with regard to this that attention shall be given to it. Take, e.g., the question of transport expenses. For this purpose the Estimates contain thousands and thousands of pounds. My experience is that much money can be saved in this respect if members of the Government will keep an eye on it. We must think of the distress caused by the recent financial crisis and how many Afrikanders were ruined in consequence of it. We must not say that the country is in a sound position and that therefore money can be spent. We must warn the people now to pay their debts so that they can be free of debt when the bad times come. When I think of the financial crisis and how the people suffered, then I come to the question of a State Bank. It is due to the bank that many farmers were ruined. I am not a financial expert but a farmer. I was still young when the Land Bank was established in the Transvaal. The same arguments were used against the Land Bank as are used to-day against the State Bank. I want a commission to be appointed to enquire whether it is not desirable to establish a State Bank. I believe, personally, that it is desirable and that if it can be established I am very much in favour of it. When I, as a farmer, state in the House that the great difficulty of the farmers is the scarcity of labour, then I am uttering the feelings of every farmer. Therefore I want to emphasize and ask the Government to give attention to it. During last session I introduced a motion with regard to native taxation. If the natives who go to work for twelve months on the farms are exempted it will assist the fanners very much. I do not say that that is the best way, but I want the Government to consider it, because if the farmers have no labour, it is difficult to produce. With reference to the income tax on farmers, I did not go so far as the hon. member for Standertou. We must, however, consider whether that is possible. I want to point out that the farmers used jackal proof fencing on a large scale to fence their ground. That means more money for the farmer. But the expenses are very great. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent and when the farms are fenced the farmers get more money and have to pay more income tax. But what our farmers feel is that seeing the fencing with jackal wire only lasts from ten to fourteen years the farmers should be allowed to deduct something for depreciation. I urge the Minister to meet the farmers in this respect. The stock farmers will appreciate it very much. Then the farmers require water on the land and the farmers construct dams which cost £1,500 to £2,000. The dams silt up after some years and the water does not remain the same. Under the Income Tax Act we can deduct nothing for the depreciation in the value of dams. Then a few words about the report of the Drought Commission. It is a very important report and one of the recommendations is the creation of a soil reclamation department to advise the farmers in damming up sluits, and I urge the Minister to go into the matter. In connection with wire netting, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet—I do not otherwise differ much from him—said that the farmers were quite keen on paying a few shillings more for their wire netting. In this case I think I must differ from them. The farmers in my district regard the wire netting industry in this country as bastard industry, and because so many thousands of pounds are spent on wire netting I think it is not the right policy to protect that industry. The factory in Cape Town cannot supply our farmers. If we reach the stage that we have all the material here for making it, I would agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. Another matter of urgent importance in my constituency I have to bring to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture. My constituency is the first in South Africa as regards the breeding of sheep, but the new sight one sees of sheep that have been bought for £500 or £600 with their necks broken is very alarming. Mr. Salley of Steynsburg has possibly lost thousands of pounds. A coloured man was punished there the other day for this sort of crime, but was only given eighteen months imprisonment. In my opinion the proper punishment for this would be hanging. Stock theft is a serious matter, and I want the Minister to give special attention to it. The Investigation Commission with regard to the police did very good work, and I want to throw no reflection on them, but it is a great pity that there was no farmer on the commission to represent our interests. In conclusion I want again to congratulate the Minister and the Pact Government upon the Budget and to assure them that the people are behind the Government.

As there is no time left now to deliver the Budget speech that I have prepared I will read an inscription which I suggest should he laid on the tombstone which I have erected for the Pact. The general election took place on the 17th June, 1924, and the death of the Pact was fixed for 8 o’clock on that day. I suggest the words—

being placed thereon. Now that the decks have been cleared and we have heard the speeches by the Labour party at Port Elizabeth, and also the speech of the hon. member for Barkly West (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) that the time had practically arrived for the dissolution of this Pact, I would in the meantime prescribe the following for their tombstones—

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, debate adjourned ; to be resumed on 21st April.