When introducing the budget I referred to the rumour that was current that an offensive was to be launched against the Government’s financial and economic policy. From one or two quarters on the other side of the House my attitude on that occasion was subsequently compared to that of the bellicose Irishman who was unnecessarily spoiling for a fight, and it was suggested that there was really nothing to warrant this expectation on my part. After listening to the debate during the five days that have elapsed, I, personally, certainly find it very difficult to know exactly what value to attach to the flood of oratory to which the country has been treated from the Opposition side. I find it very difficult to know whether it was really intended as an indictment by the Opposition of the policy of the Government in regard to any particular matter, a policy which the opposition would reverse if the country were foolish enough again to entrust to them the guidance of the affairs of this country. It is true that we have had some occasional flashes of what appears to be genuine indignation at one or other sin of omission or commission on the part of the Government, and now and then that suggested to me that this was probably to be the line of attack, but then again the hon. member was either not followed up, or, in most cases, he was violently repudiated from his own side of the House, and what we thought was to be the attack ignominously fizzled out. When the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) rose and gave us in what has been described as his “most biting vein,” his views on the conduct of the Government—well, I thought that was probably intended to be the clarion call which the disappointed followers of the Opposition have been looking forward to, and which would not only reconcile them to their enforced sojourn in the wilderness, about which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) spoke, but would probably give them inspiration and enthusiasm to take that march through to the promised land. When the right hon.gentleman boldly advocated a big State-controlled and State-aided immigration policy, I thought this was to be the bottle cry which would lead them on to victory, here was the old cry of the Unionist party being resurrected again to bring new life into the dry bones. Lo and behold, a prominent member on the other side promptly gets up and rudely shatters all these fine illusions about what the policy dressed in new clothes was going to bring to the country. This is what we have been having right through the debate. Some hon. members got up and challenged my hon. friend’s white labour policy, and what do we find ? We find later on the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) boldly coming forward and saying he does not approve of that point of view on his side of the House, and when I ask him if he also repudiates the suggestion from that side of the House that the Treasury should have to make good the extra cost, he said—

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) came forward and said he also approved of that white labour policy. It is true he added a qualification, that in pursuing that policy we should not entice people away from the farms. With that we all agree. We heard hon. members on that side wax eloquent about the growth of public expenditure, not coming forward and pointing out that we were spending money which they would not be prepared to spend, but generally pointing to the rise in the amount of the estimates, and at once an hon. member gets up and says we should have an extra million or so for defence.

Who said that?

The hon. member who interrupts. If his proposals were adopted my hon. friend would have to come to the Treasury for another million ; it would mean adding another million to the Defence Vote of this country. We find an hon. member saying we should spend more on naval defence. We seem to remember the debate which took place in this House some weeks ago attacking the Government—for what ? Because we refused to give to the country what hon. members call national roads and national hospitals, which they know, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows, if the Treasury agreed to, would mean an additional expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of pounds. Then the same hon. gentleman, speaking about the increase in the estimates, came forward with all sorts of schemes, schemes for which a case could be made out, but if adopted by the Government would necessarily mean an increase of expenditure. So we have it right along the line, these same hon. gentlemen differing on some of the most important points of policy. On protection they do not agree with the views of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), but when it comes to putting that protection policy into practice, they are not to be found helping us to do so. During this debate I remember a good deal was made of the supposed differences on this side of the House. We have never denied that there are certain matters on which we do not agree, but certainly we have much in common on very important points on which we do agree, and that is more than can be said of the other side, where they can hardly find one important question of policy on which they agree. Of course, these are the same hon. gentlemen who, if the present Government were no longer in power, I suppose would expect to be again called to guide the destinies of this country, and I suppose the hon. gentlemen on the front benches would again find it possible to sit in a Ministry with all these differences. The country would get what they had in the past, a Government impotent to do anything in connection with such important matters as industrial policy, which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) claimed was also one of the principal things to which he was going to devote his attention if returned to power. What we got from that side of the House gave very little indication as to whether they had a common policy. We have had criticisms in regard to various points in regard to the conduct of this Government. I want to deal with a few of the more important points. In the first place the right hon. member for Standerton complained that we were not carrying out the election pledges which we gave to the country. I have always found that there was rather a difference of opinion as do what pledges were actually given, but let me say this, that I am always somewhat suspicious when I see the solicitude of the Opposition in regard to the fulfilment of these election pledges. Presumably they were pledges which we gave to the people in regard to questions of policy with which hon. members opposite do not agree. If the complaint has to be met that we are not carrying out those pledges, and it comes from the people who sent us here, the Government will give some attention to that, but we are not going to attach very great importance to the solicitude of hon. members opposite in regard to those pledges. If we have not fulfilled our election pledges it will he for the country in due course to express an opinion on that matter, but we do not ask the opinion of hon. members opposite and we do not take their view. The other important point with which the right hon. member dealt was the rise in public expenditure for this country, whereas we, as a Government, were pledged to a policy of economy. Let me admit at once that I do not know whether we, as a Government, could have given a pledge, but I certainly say as far as the National party are concerned, we have always stood for a policy of economy. Let us just find out how much truth there is actually in this statement made by the right hon. member. What evidence has he adduced for that statement In the first place he has made the statement that in three years, in three budgets, I have increased the expenditure of the country by £3,000,000. That taken by itself may mean anything or nothing. When a statement like that is made I think we should go somewhat deeper into the matter and find out whether that is really to be commended or not. We must remember that this is a country where development is always proceeding. Hon. members opposite on several occasions have urged upon the House the necessity of development. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) amongst the other things asked for, asked my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours to double the main line, because of the enormous development the country is making. We find under the regime of the old South African party that in nine years—not in ten years—the expenditure of this country from revenue was doubled, and that would be an average of about 11 per cent, annual increase.

The war.

Yes, of course we had the war, but I am not dealing with war expenditure. I am dealing with expenditure from revenue. I know the right hon. gentleman showed a few days ago how fortunate I had been, whereas all their footsteps were dogged with misfortune. I was so fortunate that I had an overflowing Treasury, and the right hon. gentleman proceeded and stated it was the duty of the Government at once to exempt farmers from income tax, that I may not be there all the time, and hard times may return again.

That is true.

I am sufficiently modest to decline to accept that statement of the right hon. gentleman as the true position. He has had hard times, but he has also not only had good times, but boom times, and I have no doubt that will also be the experience of this Government. If, in his opinion, I have been fortunate, hon. members have also told me as a matter of fact, that I am also to expect lean years.

Do you expect them?

Yes, I would not be so foolish as to say that the times will always be so prosperous. It behoves the Government to try to be careful. While we have been in office—the right hon. gentleman has taken three years, but has forgotten to tell the House that, as generally happens, when there was a surplus at the end of the year I was told that was the budget of my predecessor, and that I was not responsible for that, but when it comes to the responsibility for allocating the expenditure for that year, I have to shoulder that. Let us take the three years, and we find that in 1924-’25 there was a rise of 2.08 per cent, in expenditure ; next year it was 7.63, and this year 2.09 per cent. I want hon. members to remember these figures, because we must examine what grounds there are for the charges the right hon. gentleman has been making that the finances have been mismanaged, that we are not carrying out our pledges of economy, and that we are squandering money. We find under the South African party regime, shortly after Union, when the services were being organized, for two years a decrease of expenditure. But then the game started. In 1916-17 the increase over the previous year was 12.58 per cent ; next year it was 6.51 per cent. ; next year 15.74 per cent. ; next year 16.90 per cent., and next year 26.20 per cent.

What was the value of the £ then ?

Then we find set in the period to which the hon.member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) referred the other night, when we who then sat on that side moved an amendment to the budget, stating that the expenditure had gone up to such an extent, and taxation had increased to such a limit that the country could no longer pay it. Then we had the period to which the right hon. gentleman referred, when he realized the justice of that complaint that the public service salaries had been swollen, and started to economize. For the next two years we find budget decreases. I want to give the right hon. gentleman all the credit to which he is entitled for effecting economies and bringing down expenditure, but do not give him credit for reducing the expenditure by £6,000,000 in three years’ time. That is one of the amazing things in his debate. During the recess the right hon. gentleman was making speeches in the countryside, and making criticisms in regard to the finances of the country, and at that time I was at a total loss to know where he obtained his information and his figures. Here we find him coming to this House the other day, and saying that his Government effected economies and reduced expenditure to the extent of £6,000,000. But the right hon. gentleman is so unsafe and unreliable in regard to the finances and the figures in which the country is concerned, that he overlooked the fact that in 1923 a law was passed which absolutely changed the basis on which our estimates are compiled, and in future the railway interest was not under these estimates, but was deducted. The right hon. gentleman has probably forgotten that. That was how the £30,000,000 and the £24,000,000 were arrived at. The peak was in 1921-’22— £25,757,000, plus £4,334,000 railway interest— and then, when he brought it down in 1922-’23 to £23,673,000, he forgot to add £4,560,000 for the railways interest. The right hon. gentleman is entitled to, and I want to give him credit for reducing the expenditure by £1,700,000. Between 1921-’22 and 1923-’24—but nothing more. Let us examine the position a little further. What was the position when these estimates were reduced by this amount? We found that at that time, as the result of the action taken, the provinces found them-selves-in difficulties, and had not the necessary funds for education, and were running deficits We found that nothing was being done for all the pension funds for which provision should be made.

Insolvent!

Yes, the insolvent pension funds. No provision was made for debt redemption besides the statutory amount for which the law provides. When we assumed office and tried to put the finances on a sounder footing, we looked these liabilities in the face. We recognized that we could not allow the provincial position to continue, and we could not allow education to suffer. We also had to make provision for the bankrupt pension funds. We had to make more provision for debt redemption, and all these things necessarily meant an increase in the expenditure, but as I have pointed out, even in making provision for these items we are still far below the average annual increase this country has been accustomed to in the past, and as a matter of fact, after we made provision for these necessary services, for that year, we had an increase of 7.63 per cent., and during this year the increase on the previous year’s expenditure is only 2.09 per cent., and that is an achievement about which we need not be ashamed. Right through this debate not a single item has been challenged on which we are spending money except two, and this was done by the hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin). He again trotted out the argument that we were spending too much on commissions, and that that was wasteful expenditure. I pointed out on a previous occasion that even hon. members opposite would admit that commissions are a necessary evil, but I gave the figures showing that we have been spending less than was ordinarily spent by them on these bodies. Then the other item he mentioned was locust expenditure. He said there was a certain measure of wastefulness. We had had that before in this country, but unfortunately with this difference, that whereas in former years we spent hundreds of thousands on this service our crops were destroyed by the locusts, but this time my hon. friend succeeded in saving these crops for the farmers. Hon. members opposite may not admit that, but they will find that the farmers do. If there have been a few examples, perhaps were the hon. member himself in charge, he would, before incurring that expenditure have gone to the Tender Board or, when the locusts had appeared, before appointing the necessary officials, had gone to the Public Service Commission, he might have done the job a little cheaper. But here we had conditions, analogous to war conditions, and I need only point out the experience this country had during war on former occasions. Besides these vague statements about the general growth of expenditure we have had a remarkable absence of criticism in regard to the policy and conduct of the Government in regard to general financial matters. The only points which were raised during this debate were raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in regard to my proposals in connection with debt redemption, the disposal of the surplus and my claim that I have surrendered revenue and reduced taxation. I will deal with this later on. I only want to remind hon. members in passing that here we have a remarkable instance where the criticisms of the hon. member were not followed up by those on his side of the House whom we are accustomed to listen to, and who perhaps can speak with more authority than the hon. member. I now want to deal with the other important matter raised during the debate, to which I have referred, where we again find a remarkable instance of unanimity on the other side of the House. That is in regard to the Government’s general industrial policy. In this connection I am afraid that last session I did the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) an injustice when I said that he was ploughing a lonely furrow, and that his opinions were not shared to any appreciable extent on his own side. The hon. member has always been an outspoken advocate of free trade, and we have always, listened with interest to what he has had to say. He puts his case with force and ability, and we have always given proper consideration to what he has to say, but judging by the general statement of the matter to which we have been accustomed to listen from the other side, one had reason to think, in the past, that the hon. member’s opinions were not shared by many members on his side. Hut I have come to a different conclusion. We must remember that we had this remarkable fact: that the hon. member, holding these views in the past, was able to be a member of the old Government for a number of years when they professed to be in favour of this industrial policy. Then the general election came, and a manifesto was issued from that side of the House, and the hon. member took alarm and resigned, but it is quite clear that he was needlessly alarmed, and that when a statement of the case for protection is given by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and other members, and even the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), he states the matter in such a way that we could all agree with the general terms ; but when it comes to putting them into practice, it is quite a different matter, and that is the secret why nothing was done by hon. members opposite. They were absolutely impotent.

Was nothing done?

Except a few isolated instances, and that is the view of the industrialists in this country. Our experience of last year was that we came forward with a tariff protecting a number of industries and, with a few isolated exceptions, I cannot recall a single item where protection was given and where it was not fought tooth and nail on the other side. Here again, with the present proposals before the House—

but every one of these items or proposals in regard to protection is violently opposed by hon. members and by professed champions of protection.

You are attacking some of them by a whole schedule you have placed on the Table to reduce a lot of the duties you put on last year.

Yes, but why is that I In the case of most of these reductions—the hon. member has not looked at them—they provide for the admission free of raw material for industry. I want to examine the general statement I have made. Take sugar. We listened to the eloquent plea put up by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). Is there a single other champion for that proposal on tue other side of the House?

Any amount,

Well, they have been wonderfully silent so far. These things will have to be debated in due course in committee ; I was beginning to feel rather perturbed about the whole position, but I am very glad to hear that I will be able to reckon on assistance. The press tell us that the sugar industry only employs coolie labour, and is of no value to this country. I do not know in how far that view is supported opposite. That industry may not be employing as much white labour as we should like, but it is of considerable value, and we are prepared to ask the people to make some sacrifice to preserve it. We shall deal with iron and steel at the proper time. I now come to the proposed protection for the wheat farmer. How many advocates have I opposite for that proposal? Hon. members whose constituents are vitally interested— the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and Swellendam (Mr. Buirski)—are they going to help me? No, they say this proposal is worth nothing. Although the proposals do not amount to any change as far as the price of flour is concerned, they do mean 5d. per 100 lbs. extra for the farmer on his wheat, If the hon. members were not hostile to the proposal, they were certainly very lukewarm.

I said you have reduced the farmers’ protection.

I assure the hon. member that I have not done so, and if I am able to prove that in committee I hope I shall be able to count on his active assistance.

I go by your budget speech.

When anything is before the House which entails increased protection for an industry, we are at once met with the argument that the primary producers—the farmers and the mines—will have to pay more. Can the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) point to a single instance in the tariff which is hitting the mines, with the exception of the proposals regarding rock drills? I invite hon. members opposite to point to any action we took last year which has done anything to raise the duties on commodities used by the mines. I wonder if hon. members opposite do not see that any proposal for protection must necessarily mean that the portion of the community using the protected article will probably have to pay a little more for it. We realize that. Where, however, the farmers are requested to pay more, it is not as farmers but as members of the general community. But you cannot have your cake and eat it. The Canadian and Australian farmers are objecting to protection, but fortunately for this country our farmers are sufficiently patriotic to realize that if they want employment for their sons, who are fast being driven off the farms, then they will have to co-operate in the policy which will mean the bringing into this country of manufacturing industries where other fields of industry can be found for their sons. There is only one point in connection with this whole argument in regard to protection, to which serious attention need be given, and that is the point made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the right hon. member for Standerton—we should not ask the people to shoulder this burden which is involved by the protection of certain industries—unless those industries really do provide increased employment for white people. That is a lair test, and it is a test to which I subscribe. When I brought forward proposals last year which meant increased protection, it was in the belief and expectation that those industries will play the game, and will provide that increased employment for white people.

Are they ?

It is unfair to put that question at the present stage, when the tariff has been in operation only about seven or eight months. All the objections in regard to this matter have been based on this— that according to the figures of the Statistics Department it appears there has not been that large increase in the number of white people employed that we would all like to see, and also that there has been a greater increase in the case of non-European than Euorpean labour. My reply to that is that it is far too soon to draw any definite conclusion.

When can we expect to draw conclusions ?

Surely when the tariff has been long enough in operation to enable the industrialists, who are only now beginning to realize what we are holding out to them, to come here and establish industries. I certainly think seven months is an insufficient period from which to draw any definite conclusion.

The tendency is the other way.

I don’t think the figures quoted are of any real value. The basis on which those statistics were compiled was changed, and we did not have a return of all the employees in those industries. Those figures related to certain industrial establishments which employed only 70,000 out of 170,000 persons. We shall have to be patient, and wait until the proper industrial census is taken. Last year we made provision in section 4 of the Tariff Act, that in the case of industries receiving tariff protection which did not maintain proper conditions it would be open to the Government to return to the minimum duty. Hon. members may think this will not work in all cases.

Have you applied that in one case ?

The tariff has not been long enough in operation. The Board of Trade has in the past been very busy in investigating many important matters and subjects, and have not been able to give that attention to this matter we should have liked. I can speak on behalf of the Government and tell the country that if we find that these industries receiving tariff protection do not bring increased employment for the Europeans of this country the position will be reviewed, and such steps will be taken as may be necessary to bring about a change, and not give those privileges in the case of the industries that do not play the game. I agree that if this policy of protection through the tariff does not bring to our people increased European employment, we should not pursue that policy, but he fair and do not expect, results at this stage. Hon. members opposite have in criticising these particular proposals asked me what are the lines on which the Board of Trade proceeds before coming to a conclusion to recommend to the Government protection to any particular industry. The duties of the Board of Trade are laid down in the Act. I may say that the Board of Trade is always prepared to hear views from anybody and from all sections and interests that are concerned. Of course, if they deal with the investigation of important subjects like sugar and wheat, it was common cause and everybody knew that these matters were being investigated and it was open to all the interests concerned to come and give evidence and lay their views before the Board, and as a matter of fact, they did so. Hon. members will see that when it comes to the ordinary tariff adjustments, then you deal with certain particular commodities, and where you have to deal with the matter of increasing customs duties it would obviously be impossible to publish to the world that the Government contemplates increasing the duty on a particular commodity. You would have the country flooded with that particular commodity.

They ought to take evidence in public.

The Board has always been prepared to take evidence in public when parties come forward and give evidence.

They have never yet been known to take evidence in public.

I don’t know. This is a matter which we can look into, but let me tell hon. members that there is absolutely no intention of having this Board functioning in some sort of secret Star Chamber way. If hon. members can bring forward practical suggestions for the working of this Board, we shall be only too pleased to consider them. In regard to the particular proposals to which exception has been taken in some quarters of the House, I want to refer to a few. Of course, they will be fully debated on the resolution for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means. I have already dealt with sugar and wheat. Another important item where the duty is being increased is in connection with rock drill spares. This is admittedly a commodity which is used by the mines and let me say to the House and to the country that the Government has no intention of proposing anything which will have the result of injuring that industry or of increasing the working costs of that industry. We honestly believe that this proposal will have no such result or effect. Rock drill spares, it appears, are imported into this country to a fairly considerable extent. The machines themselves we admit free of duty, but we propose to put a duty on the spares. The board have investigated the matter and have found that there are a number of engineering firms in the country that specialize in manufacturing these spare parts and they can manufacture them.

They are making big profits already.

I shall deal with that aspect of the matter. I say there are firms in the country that make this commodity and they complain that they are unable to improve their plant and improve their manufacture owing to the fact that a very large proportion of the purchases that are made by the mines do not come to them, but are being placed overseas and if they get these orders they will be able to improve their conditions of manufacture, increase their output and supply these spare parts at a cheaper price.

Did the Board take any particular evidence from the mines on the point?

No, but as sensible, practical men they did consider the effect which this would have on the industry itself.

They are not practical men ; that’s the point.

I want to read an undertaking which was given—

Surely, they are a hopeless body if they don’t take evidence from both sides before they form an opinion.

No, because they could form their own opinion as to the effect this would have as practical, expert men. On the 8th April, that is after these proposals were introduced, one of these engineering firms, admittedly a firm that is supplying this commodity in large quantities, wrote stating that at the interview it was promised that, should reasonable protection be afforded to their industry, far from increasing the cost to the consumers they would, if mass production be arranged, be prepared to make substantial reductions in their prices. They go on to outline representations which they have made to the heads of the chief mining groups offering to supply these spare parts on a sliding scale of reductions. But there are other alternatives. If, as the hon. member fears, these people will take advantage of this protection to unduly increase the price to the mines, there are other alternatives, and one of these is this, that it will probably have the effect of bringing that industry to this country, the people who at present supply the mines with this commodity will come to this country and we can have that industry here. If that does not take place, the mines have indicated to us another alternative, and that is, if they are not satisfactorily served through existing channels, they may have that industry themselves and they may supply themselves, as they are at present doing in regard to certain other requirements of theirs. In either of these cases it will not have the effect of increasing the price of these rock drill spares. Then we come to the item of ready-made clothing. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has told us that the workers and the poor people of the country will have to pay more for their clothes, but it is curious that, while we have this plea put forward by hon. members opposite, we have not heard it suggested by those who are able to speak on behalf of this particular section and the reason is because it is realized that this proposal means providing work for these very people. We have extensive importations of ready-made clothing at present and this proposal will mean that a large proportion of that, trade which is now going outside this country will be done here and provide work for numbers of people here.

For natives and Asiatics.

To take another important item, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said—

I have already pointed out that other vehicles, heavy vehicles, used by these bodies, pay duty and there was really no reason why in our proposals of last year we should admit free these steam wagons. Our proposals will have the effect, also of encouraging the building of the bodies of these particular vehicles in this country and there is no reason why one vehicle, electrically-driven or pelrol-driven, should pay a duty and the other should come in free. In regard to these general proposals, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has said that they are no good, because what this country wants is a decrease in the cost of living. But when I name other proposals providing for decreases of duty, the hon.member says that they won’t help a bit, because the consumer will not get the benefit.

You have only just put them on the Table.

Where I provide for a substantial reduction of duties on such an item as cotton piece goods the hon. member tells us that although we are sacrificing between £50,000 and £100,000 in revenue, that won’t reduce the cost of living, because it will never be passed on. We know that, as far as last year’s proposals were concerned, the prophecies of hon. members opposite did not materialize because prices have gone down. It is quite true they now say that, although they said the proposals would increase the cost of living, prices would have gone down even more. If we can encourage our industries through our tariff and get a reduction of prices, even if not to the extent which the hon. member himself would have perhaps liked to see, I think it is worth while paying the price and making the sacrifice. The hon. member said that these proposals would increase the burdens on the people. That I also deny, because, surely it is only fair to take the proposals as a whole. In most cases they are duties designed to protect, but there are a number of remissions which will mean very much decreased bordens and if you take the proposals as a whole they will not mean an increased burden on the people of the country.

Have the Treasury made any estimates of the results of the further proposals ?

Yes, there will practically be no difference. Intentionally they were designed so and that is why I surrendered revenue which I would get as far as the increased duties are concerned. It will make no appreciable difference. It is very difficult to estimate what the effect of the tariff will be, for instance, on an item like the increased duties on whisky. Generally speaking, the increases are set off by the reductions which we propose. I would have liked to have given the House details showing the result of enquiries made by the Board, but, although we cannot now get the statistics to show what the actual increase in European employment is, our industries are making progress. We know there is a considerable increase in the industrial development of the country. I just wish to quote what Mr. Millward, the chairman of the Manufacturers’ Association, said in connection with what he was able to gather in his travels through the country. In an interview he stated—

That is the important point—industrialists now know where they are. They know that if they play the game they can rely upon the Government to give sympathetic consideration to their claims for protection against unfair competition. He goes on—

I think there is no doubt that if hon. members are patient, after the lapse of sufficient time, we will see that considerable progress is being made as the result of this greater security and greater stability. Perhaps I may quote what the Director of Census stated a few days ago on the point made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in regard to European employment—

These statistics go to show an increasing tendency to employ Europeans.

Those figures do not show it.

They show an improvement on the figures given by the hon. member. I want to say a few words in regard to the points made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), where he criticized the Government’s proposals in regard to debt redemption, and the disposal of the surplus. Here again the hon. member was singularly misinformed, and he based his calculations on altogether incorrect data. The hon. member, in referring to the difference in the basis of calculating the unproductive debt, pointed out that, according to the evidence given by the head of the department before the Public Accounts Committee, where he stated that the unproductive debt was £61,000,000, differed from the figure I gave to the House of £55,000,000. Let me first tell him that the basis of calculation in both instances is exactly the same, namely, as to whether the interest on the object of expenditure was recoverable from the object itself, or made up from revenue. Hon. members may not agree with that basis, but certainly it has the merit of being scientific.

That is not the basis of the Auditor-General.

No, but I maintain that this is the correct basis. The point the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made was: How could I reconcile the figures I gave with the figures given by the head of my department.

I said: You did not reconcile it. You gave it without explanation.

I thought the hon. member questioned the accuracy of the figures I gave. I will tell him now that the figures of the Secretary for Finance, before the Public Accounts Committee, related to last year (1924-’25), but an improvement has been effected in the position of our unproductive debt during 1925-’26, which the hon. member has not taken into account, and that destroys the whole basis of his argument as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of our contribution.

Your Secretary of Finance only two months ago in the Public Accounts Committee, gave that figure.

Yes, he may give it to-day, but that is not the point. The point is, to what period did it relate ? The situation has undergone a considerable change. The reduction in the twelve months is due to the amount of capital expenditure met without borrowing, through the application of the proceeds of the mining leases, etc. That is one of the items Then there is a large amount of fictitious debt previously recorded as due to the Custodian. The adjustment made had the effect of reducing the unproductive debt. Then, of course, there was the surplus of last year, which the hon. member does not take into account, and there was the very small amount of unproductive expenditure incurred last year. All these factors laid the result of decreasing that figure of £61,000,000, and if you apply this decrease, you get at the figure of £55,000,000 which I gave, and which was arrived at on exactly the same basis. Because the hon. member did not realize the significance of that, and did not sufficiently take it into account, therefore, he says that the provision we are now making is inadequate. I want to point out to him that when he quoted the figures of debt redemption in the past, he lost sight of the fact that in 1911-12 the Consolidated Revenue Fund received a contribution of £1,159,000 from the railways, which we did not receive subsequently, and it resulted in a surplus of £681,000, and went towards debt redemption, and if that had not been received we should have been considerably on the wrong side. What is the position ? I pointed out that, during the last few years, there were no surpluses, and redemption from that source amounted to practically nothing. The statutory redemption was only £400,000. and my proposals now contemplate increasing that provision by over 50 per cent. I think that is a considerable advance. There is the other important point that through the application of these extraordinary revenues to the loan account, that automatically has the result of increasing our productive debt and, therefore, the position is continually improving. If I agreed to the suggestion of the hon.member to base the provision on a percentage of the debt, we would be considerably worse off very soon, because that would decrease our provision, and we would very soon contribute very much less than the amount of £650,000, which I contemplate fixing.

Three-quarters of a million you should contribute every year.

I have even heard the figure of £1,200,000 suggested. If we do not break the law and divert these receipts from their legitimate object, I say this fixed and definite provision is adequate as far as our unproductive debt is concerned. In any case that is as much as we can afford at present. I do not think there is any necessity to go further, and what we propose is a considerable advance on the position which has obtained until now. The hon.member has also criticized the disposal of the surplus, because I do not utilize the full half-million for the redemption of debt, as laid down in the Public Debt Commissioners Act. He says I have broken the law. No, I have not, and I submit there is nothing unsound in the procedure which has been adopted, not because it was adopted before by the previous Government ; but, under all the circumstances, I submit there is nothing unsound in it, and the spirit of the law in any case has not been broken. What do we find? Here I propose to utilize a quarter of a million of this surplus which was realized last year (1925-’26) as a contribution towards the deficit on one of the bankrupt pension funds. That was a deficit realized last year, and if I had not known definitely towards the end of the financial year that I was going to have this surplus, I could have simply asked the House to vote in additional estimates last year £250,000 as a contribution towards this deficit. What was done in the past-I refer the hon. member to what my predecessor did in 1921. In section 5 of Act 38 of 1921 we find—

This proposal was criticized at the time, and I think rightly, because what took place here was that, after there was a real surplus after the financial year had closed, the amount had actually been paid to the Public Debt Commissioners, and when the following year came round, the surplus was gone. Here we are doing something different, and it is not analogous. We are doing what we did in 1924 and again in 1925, since this Government has been in office, and we did it without any criticism from any part of the House. The House thought it was nothing out of the common.

You shall have to put a clause in the Financial Adjustment Bill.

I shall have to do it.

Is it fair to the sinking fund ?

Yes, absolutely, because this goes towards the deficit for which provision should have been made in the year when the surplus was made. An authority like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) does not agree with the hon. member, and approves of the suggestion I made here. To my amazement, the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) proceeded to question my claim that I have surrendered revenue to the tune of £700,000, and said that the reversion to penny postage was not a remission of taxation, it being for services rendered. Technically, the post office makes this charge for services rendered, but that is not what you find the public outside say. As a rule, I am rather careful in the way I state facts, and I stated—

In effect, it does amount to a reduction of taxation in the ordinary sense that the man in the street regards it. The hon. member also proceeded to question the claim I made with regard to the repeal of the Employers’ Tax in the Transvaal, and questioned my right to take credit for that. Here he is obviously wrong. In the Transvaal we made an arrangement last year when the Financial Relations Act was passed, and said—

They said that they wanted to retain this tax, and I said that—

The policy of the Government in dealing with provincial councils is, as far as possible, not to curtail their rights except with their consent. The subsidy was reduced, but later on I was approached by the Transvaal, and they said they had rather come to my way of think any and we could repeal this tax but in that case they would require me to make up the subsidy, and that was put in the Act. We had this position—last year the Transvaal received from the Consolidated Revenue Fund a subsidy based on the number of children, decreased by the amount of the Transvaal tax, and then they got the Transvaal tax. As the result of the reneal of the tax, I will pay the Transvaal the full subsidy in 1926-’27, as the tax has disappeared.

You are now paying the subsidy to the province on the same basis as any other province.

Yes, but I need not do so. I made adequate provision for the Transvaal, as for the other provinces, without their getting this tax. The amount is £180,000. Now I wish to make a few remarks with regard to another important matter dealt with by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) in regard to the banking position. I do not want to go into the question of the State bank now—hon.members know we had a discussion on that. The hon. member deplored that we had no longer in the Union a commercial bank with its head office here. We all very much regret that that is no longer the case, but if you take all the circumstances into consideration and the position the National Bank found themselves in, they cannot be very strongly blamed if they attached themselves to a stronger institution, considering their position, a step which brought a good deal of money into this country. Where are the interests of such an institution ? Surely they are in the country in which they are doing their business, and the Government has impressed on the management of this institution the necessity of giving the widest possible powers to the management in this country, and I have no doubt that that will be done. Unfortunately, our banking laws are not generally in a satisfactory state, and there is need for a cosolidating banking law. It will be necessary to introduce legislaton to deal with that, and I hope it will be possible to do so next year. As far as the reserve bank is concerned, I hope during this session to lay certain proposals before the House in the direction of the proposals put forward by the currency commission by widening the scope of that bank to enable it to do other classes of business, compatible with its functions as a bank controlling the credit of the country. The hon. member has dealt with another important point—the position of the Public Debt Commissioners in relation to the Treasury. The hon. member seems to be under the impression that under the existing legislation and the practice at present being adopted, if the Treasury issues stock loans, the Public Debt Commissioners are compelled to get their stock from another institution and pay the commission to that institution. That is not so. We make the necessary provision to enable them to acquire their stock without paying any commission or brokerage to any other institution. The hon. member said that it would be advisable to provide for the Public Debt Commissioners to acquire stock at any time that the Treasury was in need of funds, but it must be remembered that there is really no identity of interests between these two institutions. The Treasury is always anxious to borrow money at the cheapest possible price, while the interest of the Public Debt Commissioners is to get the largest possible yield for their investments. The only fair way is for them to obtain their stock on the open market. If short-dated money js substantially cheaper than long-term borrowing, it is not fair to compel the Treasury to issue stock to the commissioners. Conversely, if short-term money is the dearer, it is not fair to compel the commissioners to accept stock. The Public Debt Commissioners deal with trust funds, and have to deal with them on the most advantageous terms. When, at the close of my remarks, when I introduced the budget, I put forward certain claims in regard to certain salient facts, which I submitted were reflected in the budget, one was I claimed that the finances were again in a sound condition. I also claimed that the last few budgets showed that they had been made to balance, and that it was in future to be regarded as a normal state of affairs to have a balanced budget. I also claimed that we had abandoned the unsound and questionable financial expedients of the past, which in the past we were compelled sometimes to resort to. I also claimed that we had looked our liability in regard to the pension funds and debt redemption full in the face. These claims have not been controverted, and the country will judge when they hear the wild statements about—

These statements are totally unsupported by facts and figures. There has been criticism of another nature, especially outside the House, where it has been stated that this budget is no good because it is too eminently sane and cautious. Well, it is intended to be so, because I think the true interests of the country demand it, and it is what the majority of the people of the country desire. That is the course which I propose to pursue in the future. I hope, when the House is asked to deal with the budget in future, we shall criticize particular items and let the Government justify particular items for which it seeks approval, and let us leave this futile and fatuous talk about increasing the expenditure of the country without going into the merits of the whole case. That is the only proper conduct, if we want to advance the interests of our country.

The House is in a difficult position owing to the attitude of the Opposition, because it is impossible for us to know what their view as a party is. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) comes after long preparation and mentions certain things as his point of view, and we take it that he talks for his party, but when he has done we find that other hon. members opposite, who occupy just as important a position as he, totally disown what was said by him. Take one case which is outstanding and important, viz.: the policy of the Government with reference to civilized labour. The hon. member raised serious objections on various occasions, and again in the budget debate against certain principles that I have adopted, and finally he said—

The member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) followed and said it was a principle for which he also stood, but when we are done with that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that it is all “nonsense.” The railways ought, he says, to go in for that policy, and the money ought to be found by the Railway Department. Where do we stand this year so far as this policy is concerned ? It is true that the Opposition can say that, it has nothing to do with it and that it is our responsibility. The Government appreciates its responsibility and is prepared to bear it. But the Opposition also has a duty in connection with the problems of the country, and the electors have the right to expect members of the Opposition to be consistent. The Government welcomes the statement of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and I want to bring it to the notice of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), to make him ashamed. The hon. member for Tembuland, a representative of a large number of native voters, had the courage to state that as regards the policy of civilized labour applied in the Cape Town docks, he entirely agrees with it. This tends to shame the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), who has now for two years been considering the problem and has not yet expressed his opinion. We only get from the hon. member from time to time a lot of vague expressions, and I want to suggest that if he wants to maintain and improve his influence in the House he should make no loose statements but give facts. While I was listenings to the Opposition during the debate it became clearer to me why the country had become tired of the South African party Government, because not only while they were in power were they afraid to follow a settled policy, but now that they are in Opposition they cannot speak with a voice which carries weight. Is it not peculiar that in all the speeches that have been made not a single word was said by the Opposition in connection with the way in which the railway surplus is being applied. Even the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) had nothing to say about it.

What about the lean cows ?

What has the railway surplus to do with that? The hon. member for Bethal knows that I respect him, but he must not talk about something of which he knows nothing. What I want to make clear is that the leaders of the Opposition have not had a single word to say in connection with the appropriation of the surplus by us, and yet we have to do with an important new principle which—I think I can say so—is being created for the first time since 1914. It seems strange in view of other statements of the Opposition. The country has the right to know the view of the Opposition. I must assume that hon. members opposite agree with that. But their attitude is peculiar. Let me mention another instance suggesting that members of the Opposition are afraid to express their opinion, and I now refer to the application of the eight-hours day. Has there been one speech from the other side on this point during this long debate ? Members are afraid to express their views. They are afraid to say that they are in favour.

Oh, no.

As you have applied it, you have made a terrible mess of it.

That is strange. We have discussed the matter on five or six occasions, and now that the budget debate is over the hon. member for Standerton at length expresses his view and says that a mess has been made of it. When the fight is over it is safe to fire shots. I will say a few words later about other random shots of the hon. member. But that is the first statement of the Opposition in connection with this matter. Let us see what hon. members are coming to whilst not expressing any opinions on matters of great importance. Let me take the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) again. He quotes a long extract from evidence given in the select committee.

That is not true, and you know it.

Is it untrue that that is the information possessed by the hon. member ? The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He must not get excited. I will mention the hon. member’s source of information, and show him where he is wrong. He says that the senior and responsible officers of the Railway Department are opposed to the policy of civilized labour. Is it untrue that he said so? The hon. member asks: What is the truth as to the Minister’s statement in his budget speech that the officials of the Department are carrying out his policy? I will tell the hon. member what the truth is, because it is clear that he has not yet understood the methods of this Government. The Government does not allow its officials to settle a policy. The Government settles that itself. I know this is a rude awakening to the hon. member. I will tell him everything about the action of the officials. The Government is responsible, fixes the policy, and the officials are obliged to carry it out. I have never yet asked the senior officials what their private opinion was about civilized labour, and do not intend to. They are there to carry out the policy of the Government, and if they do not wish to do so must make way for others. The hon. member need therefore not be at all afraid. I have from personal experience not the least doubt that the senior officials are faithfully carrying out the policy of civilized labour. Let me refer the hon. member to the distinction there is. This Government welcomes and appreciates it when senior officials point out difficulties in connection with the practical execution of the policy. It is not only their duty to carry out the policy of the Government, but they must also bring the difficulties to the notice of the Minister. The hon. member can refer to the evidence again, and to will not find a statement by any official disapproving of the policy of the Government. The answer to the hon. member’s question then as to what their attitude is in that connection is that the officials are carrying out that policy. If the hon. member knows of individual cases where that is not the case, he can bring them to my notice and steps will be taken. But let hon. members opposite once and for all understand that the system pursued by the Government with reference to civilized labour is not their system. Their system was one of emergency loans. Amounts were voted from time to time for emergency loans and in this way—I admit it—work was given to a considerable number of white people. It has happened from time to time since the days of the late Mr. Sauer, but this Government says that the policy of civilized labour is a factor which forms a part of the whole administrative machinery. It is not an experiment we are making, but settled policy. And the idea of dealing with the whole problem by emergency loans granted by the central Government is wrong and unsound. As a consequence of settled policy I can now state that the commission appointed to investigate—I have the strongest reasons for thinking so—is doing work which will be crowned with the fullest success, because as to the employment of while labour I know that we may not only defend it on sentimental grounds, but it must be backed by proper and efficient work done for us by the civilized labourers. And I want to make this clear also that vilized labourers—white or coloured—who enter the service in pursuance of our policy without giving their best are not welcome. We will only be satisfied with civilized labourers who are prepared to do their best as railway workers for the development of the country. I have already pointed out how in consequence of our policy a source of supply has now been created out of which we can choose the best men as officials in the various ranks, while formerly foremen, officials exercising control, etc., had practically to be taken from the streets. Now the people are in the service of the Administration, and can satisfy the Administration and the officials as to their efficiency, and this reservoir has given us a splendid chance of picking the best men. I have not the least doubt that as a result of this policy the people will not only get work but that the Administration too will be benefited.

Do you deny that you are attracting white people from the land ?

I will go into that later. I am now on something else, viz.: The statement of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). If only the hon. member would study a little. He tells the House that the Railway Administration is dismissing coloured bedding attendants on the fast trains, and putting white men in their stead. If the hon. member will take the trouble to refer to the estimates and look at the introduction, he will find on page 3 that he is hopelessly wrong. There it is said—

As in connection with the fast trains, there was a complaint about the condition of the lavatories, etc. European heads have now been appointed to see that lavatory facilities are adequate. That costs £4,446. As the hon. member has mentioned it, I may say that not a single coloured bedding attendant has been dismissed. He has imagined it, and I do not know how he came by it. He wanted to give the impression that he got it in select committee, but I can tell him that the statement is without foundation, that there is not a single word of truth in it. The hon. member went further and said that, with our policy of civilized labour, we were drawing good labour from the farms to the railways—both white and coloured. I have taken the trouble to ask the Department of Labour, which is responsible for recruiting labour for the docks, to make enquiry, and I give the House the information obtained. As to the 800 coloured men employed there, 432 of the coloured men were born in Cape Town and surroundings ; 273 have lived in Cape Town for more than two years, and only 95 have lived in Cape Town for less. Of the latter class there is only one from Namaqualand, but I am only mentioning the cases near Cape Town. There are seven from Malmesbury, six from Stellenbosch, four from Piquetberg and four from the Paarl. What does this prove ? It proves that the employment of coloured labour at the docks has given work to the coloured people of Cape Town. That is the man who wants to make out that he represents these people. A standing order is given to the Railway Department that no white or coloured men who are working on farms are to be employed.

And we see that the order is not carried out.

Why does the hon. member not mention concrete cases ? I have given figures of 800 coloured workers in the docks. To make still more certain of the matter, the Department of Labour was instructed on March 18th that, under no circumstances were people to be employed who came from farms where they had work. The hon. member can take it that, under no circumstances, are they taken away from the farms. As regards the building of new lines, instructions have been given that, under no circumstances, is a single man to be employed without the Department of Labour being consulted. The engineers have that instruction, and the Department of Labour sees to it that no farm labourers are employed.

I know of cases—

The hon. member is surely referring to the time when he was still the head of the Railway Department. He wants to quote now what happened in his time, because he will not say that he knows what is now going on in the department with regard to internal arrangements. The hon. member also seems to think that no change has taken place. I do not wish to follow the member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) any further in the incorrect statements he makes from time to time. I want only to discuss general matters, and not to go into detail, which can be done in committee. I want to refer, first of all, to the travelling together of white and coloured people and natives, and to tell hon. members who have spoken about this what the present policy is. As far as possible, complete separation is made between the three groups— as far as possible—because in many cases it has not yet seemed practicable to make a distinction between coloured and natives. We have reserved a large number of coaches, both first and second class for coloured passengers ; but, unfortunately, the number of coloured first and second class travellers is not yet large, and especially for long distances—about which there is the most complaint—it is often not possible to separate second class coloured passengers. Accordingly, as coaches cannot be set apart for them, the white second class passengers are put at one end, and the coloured ones at the other and, between the two, there is a door which is locked. In this way there is adequate separation.

I hope that, on our line, we shall also get those doors.

The hon. member will realize that it takes a little time. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) laughs, but if he knew anything about it he would not laugh. When one comes to apply it in practice, it is an extremely difficult problem. I want to express my appreciation of the attitude taken up by a large section of the coloured people, as expressed through the Afrikaans National Bond, whose congress declared that as far as they were concerned, they wanted no mixing at all with whites. It is not long ago that the coloured people thought they should travel with white people. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) shakes his head, but Dr. Abdurahman supported it. Or, must I take it that the hon. member also repudiates Dr. Abdurahman ? I shall wait and see whether he will do that or not. But I expect the hon. member will say nothing. It is an extremely difficult problem. I want to assure hon. members that we are trying to execute this policy in the most sympathetic manner, and if there is any cause for complaint, I hope it will be brought to the notice of the Railway Department so that the necessary steps can be taken. The whole question bristles with practical difficulties. I want hon. members to understand that the policy of the Railway Administration is to keep white and coloured people separated.

What of the suburban line ?

It is already practically applied on the Simonstown line. There is still difficulty about the Sea Point line, and if the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) will give his assistance, and not criticism, then we will settle that difficulty too. The hon. member further spoke about the control, and said he thought the task of the general manager had become too difficult, too much for one man. I cannot agree. It is a difficult and troublesome task, but, in my opinion, any sub-division of the central responsibility as to control would have serious results. The hon. member clearly does not know what the existing system is. The general manager consults with his assistant general managers from time to time about matters of importance, but I do not think it desirable or possible to leave to one person—as the hon. member proposes—all the general matters, and to entrust another with financial matters. That appears to me unsound. The general manager has competent men under him, even as to financial matters, and they can give him all the necessary information. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) criticized the amount being voted to reduce the interest-bearing capit this the hon. member apparently speaks only for himself, because no other member of the Opposition disputed that the amount of £250,000, which was taken out of revenue, should not be debited against the interest-bearing capital. He is under a wrong impression when he says that the money is made over to the Public Debt Commissioners, and that a commission has to be paid on the money used for loan requirements. The position is that the sum of £250,000 is simply transferred from revenue for loan requirements. There is, therefore, no question of a transfer to the Debt Commissioners. I do not think that, with a view to the growth of the public debt and the consequent interest, there can be any objection to our policy. Since 1923-’24 the amount of interest had increased by £759,828. If hon. members appreciate how the enormous growth of capital debt has increased the burden of interest, they will not have great objection to the step. If the user of the railways is to get relief in the rates, we must be careful with the increase of our capital debt, which involves a heavier interest account. Hon. members have also brought forward the question of bunker coal and especially the member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), who said we were retrogressing. That is not the case, because shipping has increased, and I will give figures. The production for the year 1921-’22 was 1,598,000 tons. For 1922-’23 it was 1,523,000 tons ; for 1923-’24 it was 1,847,000 tons ; and for 1924-’25, 1,922,000 tons. The figures for 1925 are not yet available. The hon. member will see that there was no retrogression as regards bunker coal, but rather an advance. Hon. members opposite, who emphasized the necessity for reducing the rates for hunker coal, forget two other elements in the case, to which they should have become accustomed. Firstly, there are the shipowners who would get all the benent of the reduction. Why do not the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) and other members say to the shipowners that they must reduce the shipping freight on produce? The other persons interested are the owners of the coal mines, why will they not reduce the prices of bunker coal : The reduction of the price of bunker coal at the coast only concerns the railways, but must also be shared by shipowners and coalowners. Now I come to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who has thought it safe to leave the House. The hon. member, just as he did in the case of my colleague, has made the statement that the Railway Administration is wasting money, and that he is astonished at it. He is astonished at the terrible retrogression of railway policy to expenditure. The hon. member’s statement makes me think of his statement last year, when he criticized railway policy and said that the surplus was squandered, though the fact was that the surplus was applied to wipe out the deficits of his own Minister and Government. The hon. member says that since the year 1923-’24, the expenditure has been increased by £4,331,000, and he says it is astonishing, and he is alarmed at the increase in expenditure. It is strange that the hon. member has not taken the trouble to go into a single figure. He has made random statements with the idea that because he was a former Prime Minister and a world-known person, he can make a statement, and on that account the public outside will take it as gospel, and say that the present Government is responsible for a terrible increase in expendiure. I shall be glad if he will take the trouble to investigate the facts. In comparison with the year 1923-’24, the year he took, the increase in mileage of the railways is 3,567,698, or more than 3½ million miles. When I take this and the costs calculated for 1923-’24, to which the hon. member will make no objection, because it was during my predecessor’s time—I find that the mere increase of the mileage is alone responsible for an increase in expenditure of £1,493,973. It is increased business. Subsidiary services, such as the supply of bedding, catering department, elevators, and road motor services, are responsible for an increase of £357,291. Does he want to make out that the Railway Administration should refuse the additional business? No, he will admit that that would be too stupid. Why, then, such vague statements, without informing the public that the business of the Administration has expanded ? Let me further show how expenditure has increased. The hon. member apparently forgets the £250,000 which was contributed from revenue to the reduction of interest-bearing capital. Is he opposed to that? He can surely in no case say that it is money wasted, although some people will perhaps say it is unnecessary carefulness to put that sum aside. But there is another item. The Minister of Finance has already said this afternoon that it was necessary to remedy the insolvent condition of the pension fund when we took over from the previous Government. The same applies specially to the railway. Hon. members have spoken about the reduction of rates for the benefits of users. Why did not the previous Government put the pension funds on a proper basis, when they knew in 1919 that the funds were insolvent? No, they allowed things to continue, and to-day this Government has to tackle the matter, and it costs large sums of money to put the funds in order. Then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) twits us reproachfully, in irresponsibe vein. Let me give a few figures. We have to contribute £213,780 more for deficits, and on the pound for pound system an increased amount of £205,966, and on the increased credit balance the interest is £124,110. Then we contribute a larger sum to the renewals fund than in 1923-’24, an addition of £267,866. Except the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), not one hon. member opposite complained of any of the items. That the larger sum was spent for the item, hon. members opposite are just as responsible as those on this side. The figure for interest on capital, viz., £759,828, has already been given. Do hon. members opposite want us not to pay the interest? What does the hon. member for Standerton want ? If the Government proposes to reduce the interest-bearing capital, some of the leaders opposite disapprove. Now I come to another point, viz., the ordinary annual increase of salaries to staff, which is £649,643. Is the hon. member for Standerton opposed to that ? Does he want us to reduce the salaries ? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Tagger) apparently wishes that. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) does not, however, want to bear responsibility for that. The reduced working hours cost £240,000. He has said there is a waste of money, but hon. members opposite have not objected to the items. Take the cost connected with the policy of civilized labour. I want to put him right when he thinks I said that £160,000 is the total increase in cost. Let me go into this. I said that the cost last year was £160,000, but this year there is an additional £160,000. and it therefore amounts to £320,000. This is all increased expenditure to which hon. members opposite have not objected. The total additional expenditure is £4,883,010. As members will see, a sum of £551,510 out of the amount I have mentioned has been saved, as follows: The amount of the increased expenditure for 1926-’27, compared with 1923-’24, is £4,331,000. The figures I have given show an increase of £4,883,010, therefore a saving of £551,510, and the explanation is that since 1924 we have saved £250,000 upon the general stores account. The hon. member for Standerton will be astonished to hear that we have actually saved £301,510 through economy on the various items I have mentioned, to which not a single objection has been or could be taken. In addition, as hon. members know, we have reduced the rates by £1,100,000, and I may add that we expect an increased revenue of £2,795,000 on the estimates. One would surely have expected from the hon. member, with his so-called world-wide view, that he would be glad and thankful for the extension and progress of this business. Instead of that, he criticizes in a petty and irresponsible manner.

Play cricket.

As if the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has the slightest appreciation of what playing cricket means. With the experience we have of him, and that of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), he is the very last person to dare to say such a thing. We have here to do with a normal increase, with a satisfactory development, of which we can be proud. But instead of appreciation, we get petty and irresponsible criticism from the hon. member for Standerton. It is disappointing, when we have to do with such an important matter, that the right hon. member and other members do not look at railway matters in a more responsible manner. I shall have an opportunity later to deal with individual points. I want to express my satisfaction that, with the exception of the irresponsible criticism referred to, there has been so much appreciation of the attempts which the Administration, the senior officers, and every member of the staff in this great Administration, have made.

Motion put and agreed to ; House to go into committee now.

I move—

I am putting in words similar to those in the immigration laws. It will make it more precise, and we know what it will mean.

I may say I think this amendment is an improvement on this particular clause, and therefore I am willing to accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

The object is to impose imprisonment upon refusal to hand over the letters of naturalization when cancelled. The letters of naturalization are of value to a person going abroad. Suppose the Minister cancels the document and the person concerned says that he is willing to pay the fine, but refuses to hand over the document, then he can continue using the document abroad. That must be stopped, and it is laid down that refusal to hand them over can be punished by imprisonment.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

With regard to a British woman who marries an alien, losing her nationality, women’s organizations are very keen on this point, holding that she should not lose her nationality, and I am sorry the Minister has not seen his way to accede to their request. I was hoping that the Minister would follow the lead given by Australia in this regard, and in this connection I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a paragraph which appeared in a local newspaper recently, as follows—

Australia is making a move in this direction, and if the Minister does not see his way to do what is asked, as far as the present Bill is concerned, I hope he will give us his support at the Imperial Conference. It is an important matter that a British woman married to an alien should not lose her nationality, as it is her right, and she should be allowed to retain it if she desires to do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

This amendment is quite necessary. As the clause reads, it gives a certain right only to a wife if she was at birth a British subject, but we must not forget that in this country we have a large number of women who were not British subjects at birth, but became British subjects on annexation. It is only right that they should have the same rights as the others.

In connection with my previous remarks, I should like to ask the Minister, in connection with this clause to state definitely whether he proposes to meet the wishes of the women’s organizations generally throughout the empire on this question.

I think the hon. member is referring to that clause which provides that the wife shall have the same nationality as her husband.

Yes.

I think, during my second reading speech, I made it quite clear that personally I am against any alteration of the Bill in that direction. My contention was that if a woman marries a man she not only marries the individual but marries into his family and nationality. I think I interpret the feeling, I won’t say, generally, but very largely, of the members of this House, when I say that if I proposed any amendment of that nature it would be opposed and lost in this House, and under the circumstances I do not think I can agree to the suggestion of the hon. member.

You’re getting old-fashioned.

Old-fashioned people are very often right.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

On Clause 30,

I should like to know from the Minister why, in line 16, the words appear—

These are not kept in all British consulates. Why restrict it to a British consulate where a register of births is kept ? I think sub-section (2) of this clause is in the wrong place. It is not an interpretation of terms and should go somewhere else. Then in line 60, I think, the words—

seem unnecessary. I only mention these so that the Minister should look into the points raised.

In regard to the first point raised by the hon. member, I think that the practice is that any person who lives outside His Majesty’s dominions, who wishes to retain not only his own nationality but—in spite of any law there may be in that country in regard to the nationality of a child born in that country— wishes also to retain British nationality for his child, he can register the name of that child, as a British subject, with the British consulate. It stands to reason there must be a register, and if there is no register that right falls away.

There may be an office for the registration of births outside the office of the consul.

As a rule governments are represented in foreign countries through their consuls ; there are no other representatives.

Provision should be made for the registration of the birth of a child where no register is kept at a consulate.

I will go into this matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, the schedules and title, put and agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments ; to be considered on 23rd April.

I am entirely in favour of the broad principles of the Bill. I rise mainly to point out the extraordinary constitutional procedure when the Minister of the Interior, having delivered a most thoughtful and learned speech on the principles of the Bill, and having delivered a lofty peroration in the interests of science and of scientific discovery, he was followed in an impudent and even an impertinent manner by one of his own colleagues, who delivered a most scathing and bitter attack on the measure. We have heard to-day that there are no differences of opinion amongst members on the Government side, but if there ever was a difference of opinion, it was that displayed the other evening, when my hon. friend’s colleague tore his passion to tatters. We view that procedure with a great deal of regret, because if there is one thing we all desire—with the exception of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Defence with his cheap jeers—is to maintain the dignity of this House and proper parliamentary procedure. If there were any grave differences between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Defence, the proper place to fight them out was in the Cabinet room. If those two Ministers were so opposed to the principles of the Bill introduced by the Government, they should have either held their tongues, or loosed them on the cross-benches, and the Minister of Labour should not have deliberately struck his colleague in the back. To be struck as he was in the back by his colleague was really a most deplorable exhibition. I said then, as I say now, that I was really sorry that the Prime Minister was not in the House because I would have asked him with which of his colleagues he agreed. As a very wise statesman in England once said—

At Malmesbury the Minister of the Interior explained that the great danger of a coalition was that there would be divisions of an extra ordinary character that could not be bridged over, and if ever there were an example of the truth of that statement, it was the exhibition which we had the other evening, which proved conclusively that when the Minister of the Interior thundered against the immorality of coalitions, he was perfectly right. I do hope that when my hon. friend gets up to reply on this debate he will give the necessary castigation to his colleague, the Minister of Labour, for the extraordinary manner in which he attacked the vital principles of this. Bill.

Correspondence which I have received on the subject of this Bill, and I think a great deal of the debate which has taken place on at least two previous occasions rather reminds me of the epitaph of the man who wrote—

It may be taken from that remark that I am not thoroughly orthodox. I believe I am thoroughly orthodox. I believe absolutely in the efficient training of our professional men, but I believe it is just as possible for doctors to make serious mistakes as it is for lawyers, and the experience of so many people who have suffered—and suffered for a lengthy period— from complaints for which they have been unable to obtain orthodox relief is so overwhelming that I think there is something to be said for the practice of osteopathy. One of the witnesses who gave evidence before the select committee on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House, said—

Hon. members will probably have noticed that this matter has been discussed recently in the British House of Commons. The object of the mover here was to stop this practice of osteopathy and chiropraotics, and after the discussion in the House of Commons, it was decided to leave matters as they are. The hon.member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) proposed the following amendment in the select committee to which this Bill was sent last time—

The committee divided on this particular clause, and it was only thrown out by the casting vote of the Chairman, who, I presume, voted twice. If the Minister would only give some indication that he is prepared to consider sympathetically some such amendment as this, I think this Bill will pass through the House, but personally, of course, I shall always stick to the fully qualified practitioner. In all other respects it is deserving of the support of the House. We know that after the war there was a large number of wounded men for whom ordinary medical science was unable to afford any relief. I am speaking now very largely in connection with my own experience. A great number of these men were treated by Mr. Barker, and were cured, in a large number of cases. I ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration in connection with these people and their rights.

I would like to say something in connection with Clause 34. The Minister, in his second reading speech, dealt with this clause pretty fully, and among the things he said was that no one who, at present, possessed any rights under existing legislation, would be deprived of those rights. The position in regard to people practising these culte would practically remain unaltered. The only requirement in the Bill was that no one would be able to practise medicine for hire or gain, or exercise any of the functions which belong to the medical practitioners for hire or gain, He went on to tell the House that all those who practise these culte will be allowed, under the Bill, to practise, but they must not do so for hire or gain, or if they do, it must be under proper medical supervision. It seems to me that the Minister is not quite open with the House in connection with this matter, because while he says these people can practise, they are not to do so for hire or gain. The Minis ter must know very well that in doing that he is simply shutting them out altogether. These people cannot afford to do it for nothing.

I think that is the general opinion of the public, because right through the country we have been getting telegrams and letters asking us to oppose this clause, which would mean the stopping of these practitioners from doing their work. It is tantamount to saying: “We do not intend to kill you, but we insist upon your committing suicide.” It is a fact that people sometimes die under medical treatment. We also know that medical men make mistakes sometimes fatal to their patients. That may happen in the case of drugless healers also— then why not let people have their choice ? It seems to me to be an interference with the liberty of the subject. The Minister has depreciated the degrees which these drugless healers obtain in America. In taking up that attitude he is not quite au fait with the Minister of Finance, who has paid such high regard to men with American degrees that he has chosen them to act on the Board of Trade and Industries. I have received numerous telegrams from people in Durban in connection with this matter, asking us to oppose this Bill. They all say that they, or their friends and relatives, have received great benefit from these people. They say that in many cases where medical men have given up hope of effecting a cure, they have gone to these drugless healers and received benefit. These people are neither fools nor liars, many of them are personally known to me, and their testimony is thoroughly reliable. Why should people be prevented from going to these healers if they think they can get benefit from them? I think the Minister is carrying this matter too far when he attempts to shut them out altogether. If he is going to take up that attitude, he may as well deal with these quack medicines which are so largely sold, and which, I am sure, do far more harm than all the drugless healers put together do. It was mentioned that this matter was also raised in the British House of Commons upon a motion introduced by a medical doctor. The motion was as follows—

A very interesting debate took place upon the motion, and the Minister of Health took up this attitude. He said—

He also said—

And the motion was not carried. That was a reasonable and moderate view to take up on the matter, and that is what we should do in this country. If the Minister should insist on having this clause in the Bill, he should have some board set up, consisting of unbiased and impartial men, to go into the qualifications of those who desire to practise as drugless healers and osteopaths, and to decide whether they were properly qualified or not. I admit there are some cases where men may set up to be drugless healers and osteopaths where they are not properly qualified, and they may do more harm than good ; but these, as far as I know, are few. I hope the Minister in the committee stage will accept some amendment in this direction, to enable the matter to be dealt with, and to satisfy a large number of people.

This Bill has had a very chequered career so far. It was introduced in 1923.

In 1917.

It passed through the Senate in 1923, and was sent from there to this House. Many objections raised to it then exist to-day. There is still some objection in particular in Clause 34, about which we have heard so much this afternoon. I believe in having a consolidated measure, and that only qualified people should be entitled to practise ; but there is a large number of people at present making a living in carrying on these various practices, and before we deprive these people of earning their livings, we should go very carefully into it.

What about lawyers?

There was a Bill dealing with lawyers long ago, and no lawyer can practise without being qualified. A private Bill was introduced by the lawyers. Mr. Long, then being the chairman of the select committee, when he was a member of this House several years ago, reported that the preamble had not been proved. Where will you drive these people to if you deprive them of earning a living ? To the farms ? This matter has not been sufficiently considered. I have a letter received from the Society of Oculists, and they fear that under Clause 34 they may be deprived from carrying on sight-testing—a practice they have enjoyed for many years. I would like to ask the Minister to be good enough to consult his medical and legal advisers to see whether, if this clause is passed as it stands, these people would be deprived of the right of sight-testing.

The Minister, in introducing this Bill, stated that in Natal there are 3,700 witch-doctors practising, and that while he intended to permit those at present licensed to continue to practise, no new licences should be issued. I can hardly credit that the Minister said what he is reported to have stated, because it is not in accordance with fact. In point of fact, in Natal we have no witch-doctors, and the practise of witchcraft is illegal under the native code, and a very heavy penalty is provided. Chapter 21 of the native code makes the practise of witchcraft, or consulting witch-doctors, diviners, rain or lightning doctors, an offence. What we have in Natal is the native medicine man, or herbalist, and, as far as I know, he is a very harmless man, who has the confidence of the natives. He is the man to whom a sick native appeals when he is ill. These medicine men, or herbalists, have been recognized in Natal since the white man came, and I understand the Minister is intending to put a stop to the practice; they have to pay a licence, and to be approved of by the chief and the magistrate, before they are granted a licence. If the Minister is going to do away with them, what is he going to put in their place? The native herbalist also practises in the native territories, although they are not registered there, as they are in Natal. Chapter 14 of the native code dealing with medicine men and herbalists provides that they may charge a fee of 2s. 6d. to-10s. Should a cure result, a further payment is claimable, but failure to cure is not followed by any payment. It is one of the customs among the natives. These men are held responsible for any neglect, as they are open to an action for civil damages, independent of any criminal charge which may be preferred against them. Under section 194 of the code, no medicine man can, as I have said, practise without being licensed by a magistrate, and section 195 provides that the applicant for a licence must be approved by the chief. I hope the Minister is really not serious when he says he is going to make a clean sweep of all these native herbalists. If that is his intention, what does he propose to put in their place? Very few natives are in a position to afford to pay for a registered medical practitioner, and they would suffer great hardship, as medical assistance will not be available to him. The native has every confidence in his own medical attendant, and has been accustomed to be treated by him. The Minister is aiming a blow at a long-established custom. We are not over run with witchdoctors in Natal, as the Minister appears to think. If the Minister persists in his proposal, a large percentage of the natives in Natal and the native territories will be deprived of any medical treatment whatsoever. Very often natives reside out of the reach of registered European medical practitioners. What does the Minister propose to do in those cases? In regard to the question of the drugless healer, I have had numerous telegrams from people who say they have been successfully treated by them. I myself know many who were regarded as incurable by the doctors, but whose treatment by drugless healers has given every satisfaction. The practice of drugless healing will go on, whether the law is against it or not, and I intend to vote against the provision which makes the practice illegal. I desire to associate myself with what the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson) said regarding the establishment of boards to enquire into the qualifications of those who desire to practise drugless healing.

I am glad the Minister has brought forward this Bill again, and I hope it will pass into law this session, because it is long overdue. I think it was in 1917 that the Bill passed the Senate, but, owing to the pressure of business in this House, nothing further was done. Not only in the interests of the medical profession, but in the public interest, it is very necessary that the law affecting this great profession, which has to do with the health and welfare of the public, should be unified. The law brought into unification with regard to admission to the profession, and with regard to discipline and other matters in connection with it. I hope the Minister will set his face like a flint against any attempt to recognize so-called drugless healers, whether chiropractors, osteopaths or manipulative practitioners, or whatever they like to call themselves. I think what Mr. Chamberlain said in the House of Commons is sound: that all these people who intend to practise on the bodies of the public should undergo an ordinary medical training, and then if they like to specialize, either in rubbing the spine or manipulating the bones, or in any other way, let them do so, and in that way the public will be safeguarded, because there is no doubt that in two or three years a man, even if he goes to an American university, cannot acquire the necessary knowledge in regard to the anatomy and physiology of the body, in the same way as a student who undergoes five to seven years’ training in a medical school. It is the height of absurdity to ask this House, as the Government does, year after year, for money to support our universities, where students are trained in medical science, and to insist upon their putting in a very intensive and thorough training, and at the same time to turn around and licence people to practise on the body who are not so qualified. It amused me very much to hear the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) say that we should not deprive men of their living. Somebody interrupted and said, what about the lawyers ? And he said no one could practise the law unless he is qualified, because it is agianst an Act of Parliament. It is against the law at present for the people whom he is defending to practise, and take money for so practising. The law at present in all the provinces prevents an unqualified man setting himself up as a medical practitioner, and diagnosing and treating disease and charging a fee. This Bill is to bring the law into uniformity, and I think the Minister is perfectly right in simply leaving these so-called “cult” practitioners exactly where they stand at present. If the Minister gives way to the blandishments of one of his colleagues and attempts to consider the advisability of licensing all these cult practitioners, he will get himself into a good deal of trouble. We do our best to see that sanitary inspectors and plumbers, as well as lawyers and doctors, are properly qualified. We even see that a man who drives a motor-car has the necessary knowledge to do so; surely we are entitled to say to those people who desire to practise on the bodies of the public that they should first go through a medical course. Of course, doctors may make mistakes, like other people, but the law does all it possibly can to ensure that medical men are properly qualified.

There is an important matter affecting the mercantile community to which I wish to draw attention. Mercantile people are afraid that the sale of sheep dip and so on will be confined to chemists, and it is not clear from the Bill that that is not the case. In Clause 51 it is laid down that permits may be given to general dealers to sell poisons to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture, or as a dip for cattle, sheep or other animals, or to be used exclusively for the destruction of insects, plants, fungi, or bacteria, or for the preservation of wood, and poisons to be used for veterinary purposes provided that there is no chemist within five miles. That will shut out from general dealers the sale of articles they have been accustomed to deal in ever since those articles were placed on the market. Sub-section 4 of the clause mentions preparations referred to in paragraph (C) of sub-section 1, but there is no paragraph (C). Is that an error?

I know about that. It is a mistake.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) recently attacked the Minister of Labour because he said something against the Bill, and the hon. member added that the differences between Ministers should be settled. I want to tell the hon. member that if there were no differences, it would be regrettable because then every one would run after each other. We must have the frankness to say what we feel against the Bill.

This is a Government Bill.

I know, but it is our duty to point out where the Bill should be altered. We do not all run after the Government like a lot of lambs. I also object to the Bill and do not feel quite satisfied as to the country areas. People in the towns can talk easily ; they have doctors at hand, but that is not so in the country. The countryside feels nervous about the Bill. There are of course good doctors, but there are others that are useless, who make many mistakes, and there is no law against doctors who do that. If a doctor gives too much chloroform the patient dies, and then the doctor usually says that the man’s heart ceased beating because it was too weak. In hospitals many people die and it is always said that the heart stopped and that it was too weak, but who says that the doctor did not give too much chloroform ? On the countryside we have the same difficulties as formerly with the doctors.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.8 p.m.

I do not say this in criticism of the Government, nor do I want to give offence to doctors or dentists, but I feel that in Parliament we should be at liberty to express our opinion and not to remain quiet when we think that things are not all right. We should injure our own party if we did not state what our own experience was. I expect to be criticized for my speech. Well, I said that doctors make mistakes, and I know a case, I think in Sea Point, where someone took three children to the doctor to have something done to their noses, and two of the children were dead the same morning. I am speaking, however, chiefly about conditions in the country where people live far from the doctors. People in towns do not know how difficult it is for those outside to get a doctor, dentist or qualified nurse to treat them. In the old days we managed without all these qualified people and were a healthy people. However, I want to ask the Minister not to be severe on the countryside. Take the case of one living 30 or 50 miles from the nearest doctor or dentist, and who wants immediate assistance. Are we not to be permitted to call in the assistance available ? Shall we not be allowed to call in the help of people we trust? We know that the doctors will stand together and, I may say, form a ring so that if anything goes wrong when someone is called in who is not qualified he will get into trouble. The Minister must not go too far and take away too much the liberties of the farmers who live far in the interior. If they can get assistance let them have it. Perhaps he believes more in the old people with the experience than in the doctor with his diploma. The Minister is going too far, especially in regard to dentists. Possibly somebody may still be able to extract teeth when this Bill goes through, but if anything happens to the patient, then he will know that he has extracted a tooth. I have been a dentist myself and am still a good dentist. If I have drawn one tooth I have drawn thousands, and not one of the people whose teeth I drew died. I know, however, of many people who died as a result of having a tooth drawn. Why then should just those people who have no certificate, the quack or the emergency help, be prevented from drawing teeth? Nor do I believe that the Bill provides for natives. We must be careful with this kind of legislation and see that we do not create trouble on the countryside. It is impossible in those large areas to get certificated people for whites and coloured, and in this respect provision should he made in the Bill. With regard to what I am now going to say about cancer I shall probably be attacked most. In my constituency there lives a woman by name Aunt Ralie Botha. People come from east and west from the whole of South Africa to be treated by her. My own brother who lives near to me had cancer and all the doctors he consulted gave him up and said that nothing more could be done for him, that the case was hopeless. He went to Aunt Ralie Botha and to-day he is just as fit as possible. That is a case I have full particulars about. I had myself once something wrong with my nose and went to my doctor. I think a great deal of him, and I asked him to look at the painful place. He said it was one of Aunt Ralie Botha’s cancer spots, and he would burn it out. Fortunately it could not be done that day, and then the cancer disappeared of itself. Of course the doctors speak contemptuously of Aunt Ralie Botha. We must not forget that is is very difficult and often impossible for the people outside to come to the towns to be treated by X-ray and to call in specialists. If we go too far the countryside will suffer terribly. If doctors on the countryside have to come a long distance and people cannot pay, the doctors refuse to come. Why if people cannot get the help of doctors should they not make use of the help of others, when they cannot pay. The House has for years hesitated to pass a Bill of this kind, because we all feel that there is something wrong in it, and I warn the Minister that he must be very careful. We must not encroach upon file few rights that we have in the country districts too much. It will be very detrimental along the countryside, and the Bill will be very beneficial to doctors and dentists.

The hon.member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) made the impression on me of not having much confidence in doctors. This has doubtless reminded you (Mr. Speaker) and me, who are well acquainted with Afrikaans literature, of a certain verse by President Reitz, about Oom Thys, the true patriot. After he has explained how devoted Oom Thys was to his Bible and pipe, he makes him say what he does when he is ill. He tells his wife to fetch the household medicine chest and to give him a few of the old remedies, because one cannot trust doctors. I should like to give the hon.member for Middelburg the advice to follow the example of what is done in some rich families in China, where they have a housedoctor, family doctor or body physician who is only paid so long as the man he is attending is well, but just as quickly as he gets ill the doctor’s salary stops until he is quite well again. But this does not mean that the hon. member was not entirely right to point out the difficult position of people on far-away farms, 30 or 40 miles from the nearest doctor, and it need not surprise us at all that people sometimes resort to quacks or to the wonderful remedies that are sometimes used, and that people often impose upon the superstition of these people. It was not long ago that we all read in the paper of the wonderful cases that happened in a certain district. The matter is still before the court, and I do not want to go further into it. But we find good examples of much superstition. But anyhow it does not at all befit ns to ridicule the remedies that are sometimes used and to make fun of the superstition that is sometimes exhibited, and one must never forget that the intention at the moment is good, that it concerns the saving of a child or a father or mother, where no other remedies avail, and where everything must be tried to the very utmost. Someone in a town, who only has to use the telephone and can have a doctor in the bedroom in five minutes, can easily talk, but one who lives miles away from a doctor on a farm finds it difficult to fetch a doctor. To call in a specialist from Johannesburg or Pretoria and to undergo an X-ray examination, which costs £30 or £50, there can be no question about it. The man sometimes does not earn £50 a year, and where is he to get the money from ? There are, therefore, cases where we can well understand people have to resort to other means. The hon. member for Middelburg has, e.g., mentioned the cure of cancer by Miss Botha. I can tell of two people who also went to her, both are dead, but I must say that she told them that she could not heal them because the cancer had already gone too far, and her knowledge and drugs were not able to cure anyone where the sickness was already in such an advanced stage. That was honourable at any rate. I know of many cases of superstition, but one finds the same superstition in the most civilized classes of society, of all people in the world. How often do we not read of cases that come before the court of leading ladies in the highest classes and the most refined circles who go to a fortune teller to hear what will benefit their complaint, either by cards or by a glass sphere, or from the hand or from tea leaves in a cup. Then nothing is said about it, but it is a fact that superstition exists in the most civilized circles. I think, however, that the Minister is quite right to fight quackery and superstition on a large scale, by legal means. Persons who impose upon the superstitions of people who are in trouble ought to be severely punished. Moreover, the qualified doctor ought to be properly protected and everything done to make the studies of doctors cheaper, so that our young South African doctors when they have completed their studies do not have the burden of heavy debts from their European studies, sometimes amounting to thousands of pounds, which they have to pay off. The easier it becomes to complete their studies here, the better our universities are equipped, and the profession is protected by law, the cheaper it will be in far distant parts of our country to call in a doctor. We will all surely acknowledge that our doctors are people of high standards— superior people. I am convinced that in the far-off parts where poor people require the doctor’s assistance and a doctor knows that he will not be paid, he will not stop away on that account. I know from experience that, however far the distance and in the middle of the night, in stormy and rough weather, although they have known that there was no payment to be expected, owing to the poverty of the people, doctors have immediately answered a call and gone to treat the people. Therefore, I think that such a profession ought to be protected by law. Nor can I see that the Bill is so strong. Take the case of the so-called “old woman.” The Minister does not state in his Bill by a stroke of the pen that all unqualified midwives must disappear and no longer practise. These persons are divided into two classes. The first, the certified midwives, who are, of course, in the same position as doctors with a degree. They can practise everywhere. A second class are uncertified midwivee. This class is again sub-divided into two, one consisting of midwives in towns and villages and the other of those who practise outside the towns. The Minister proposes to regard the areas of villages and towns as protected areas, and in the protected areas uncertified midwives may also practise provided they are of good moral character, have practised for three years in a protected area, and have, within two years of the proclamation of the Act, applied for permission to practise and have received a certificate from one or more doctors that they are qualified to do that work. The only point in this connection where I think the Minister can possibly make an amendment is the provision that it is not exactly necessary for a midwife to have practised for three years, in one defined area. As it is, in the Bill she can only get consent fo practise in the area where she has practised for three years. I think that can be altered, and intend moving an amendment in committee, viz., to alter the word “the” into “one.” Another point is that uncertified midwives may only practise outside of a defined area on certain conditions. What I do not like in the Bill is that it depends entirely on the council, and the regulation or bye-laws which are laid down by the Governor-General on the advice of the Medical Council, whether midwives, who are not certified, may practise outside protected areas. That is very indefinite. There is not in the whole Bill a single indication what the regulations and bye-laws will be under which the people may continue their work. I should have preferred the Minister to have laid down here also, just as for midwives in protected areas that they shall have practised for a prescribed period, be of good moral character and that the doctors consider that they are fitted to do the work. I think the provision will be very hard on women who are of great use in our society and in the outside districts are, I think, almost indispensable. With the good intentions the Minister has, I, nevertheless, hope that he will be prepared to grant capable midwives in the outside district, who do their work to the satisfaction of the population, an opportunity of continuing their work.

I am one of those who think that full and ample protection should be given to professional men. The law has very wisely thrown its protecting mantle over the profession to which I have the honour to belong, and I do not see why it should not act similarly in regard to the medical profession. The medical practitioner is at all events an educated man, and he has also to pursue a long and arduous course of training in his profession. In regard to the practitioner of osteopathy, and the chiropractor, there is no doubt that if educated he be now, his predecessors, the founders of these cults, were very ignorant men. I have been deeply interested in, and received a considerable amount of instruction, as well as amusement, in reading a book entitled “The Medical Follies,” the editor of which is Dr. Morris Fishbein, M.D.

“ Fishbone ”?

If a fishbone lodges in your throat, you will not go to a chiropractor to be subjected to the chiropractic thrust, neither will you resort to prayer, under the circumstances—a few may. No, the first impulse will be to have a skilled physician sent for. Dr. Fishbein is one of the most active figures in the American medical world ; he is an editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, with a membership of 90,000, and I think his right to speak on the subject cannot be denied. He informs us that osteopathy was founded by one Andrew Still, who has written his own autobiography, and says that on the 22nd of June, 1874—

Still defines osteopathy—

This definition, or doctrine, will be found to be greatly at variance with the list of drugs enunciated in the British Pharmacopeia.

Does he approve of whisky and soda ?

He is silent on this point. It is the doctor’s thesis that osteopathy, as practised to-day, is an attempt to get into the practice of medicine by the back door. It would appear that, in the U.S.A., before a man can practise osteopathy, he must have qualified in that branch, and it seems to me that the most practical and rational proceeding for us, under the circumstances, to adopt is, if men want to practise osteopathy or chiropractics, is to compel them to pass a qualifying examination, and let their practice be confined to these particular branches only. On enquiry, I am satisfied that if the scope of their activities were confined to these particular branches, it would soon drive them out of business, as the back door would be closed effectually. Just a few words with regard to the other practice, chiropractic. The founder of that cult was B. J. Palmer, and the fountain-head is also in America—at Davenport, Iowa. Dr. Fishbein says that at his trial at Milwaukee, on December 22nd. 1910, he (Palmer) said he had learnt it from his father: at the age of 12 he was in the field as a practitioner in this strange art. Palmer said that his education had been “common-sense” and “horse reasoning.” It shows that this man did not even possess elementary education. As regards the material side—after all, these treatments are not carried on with an altruistic object, and the money idea is paramount—the founder of chiropractic said, at a convention of chiropractors, in Butte, Montana—

He frankly tells us their game is to make money. Advertising concerns have been formed for no other purpose than to enable the practitioners of chiropractic to reach their prospective patients. One such organization in Indiana is frank—

It is very evident from what I have read that these people are trenching upon what should be the peculiar province of the medical man who has studied the anatomy of the human body, has had hospital training, and has experience behind him. I can well conceive of a case such as that of that eminent man in England, Sir H. Barker, who is not a chiropath, nor does he practise osteopathy, but has a peculiar method of his own which is known to himself ; and which he is willing to demonstrate his art to the satisfaction of a board of the Royal College of Physicians. I say that a perusal of this book, which is based on facts, and gives the utterances of the founders of these cults, is sufficient to show that professional men deserve protection because of the status they have attained, and that it is in the interests of the State and of the public: at large that they should receive a full and ample measure of protection.

I do not want to go into the details of the Bill, because that can be done in committee. Let me, however, say that the well-being of a nation depends on the capacity and thoroughness of the doctors, whether in medicine or surgery, and on the sanitation of the country. The leaven of the well-being of the people is the doctors. One can go to any part of the world, and will find that where a country lays itself out to give its medical men the best instruction so that they can qualify themselves as highly as possible to render service to the people, there the welfare of the nation is the greatest. The secret of the progress of Japan in the last 30 years is due to Japan opening its arms to scientific knowledge from western countries, because Japan adopted all the medical and scientific knowledge it could get hold of, and sent its sons and daughters to study. The interests of the Japanese people were looked after in that respect. Scientific research there is based on the German method, and I can therefore say that it rests on a thorough basis. That is the reason why Japan is so progressive with regard to the welfare of its people. We now have two universities in South Africa with faculties in medicine. If my hon. friends are very sorry for the poor man who lives 100 miles from the nearest doctor, then I say the best service they can show to those poor people is not to provide them with quacks, but to get someone who is well trained to go there to earn his living as a doctor.

It will not pay him.

Nowhere in the world as yet has the medical profession refused to help the poor.

Many doctors refuse to go because the people are too poor.

When one hears the story of a doctor refusing to go because the patient is too poor there is another reason for the refusal. As we have the universities giving medical training, it befits us to give our sons who are being trained a chance of practising. It is our duty to give the students the best instruction possible so that when they are qualified they do not need to give place to any other qualified men in the whole world. The better our doctors are equipped for doing their work the greater their services to the country will be. It is a duty we must fulfil to look after the interests of the medical students. We have established the universities in which they can qualify for the profession and now they are rewarded by proper provision not being made for them. That is absurd. Hon. friends who are opposed to the Bill want the universities, but when the medical students have completed their studies then they want to leave the sick people to quacks.

If the doctors are efficient the quacks will get no work.

Just as is the case in other professions it is necessary for us to give protection to the men who have devoted their lives to qualifying for the medical profession. They must be protected against those who are untrained. Seeing that we say that our children must get the best instruction, we must go to work logically and see that when they are qualified they have some protection. It has been mentioned in the House that those who use drugless methods cure people who have been to doctors and who the doctors cannot cure. Let me say that I have cured hundreds of people in my time that other doctors could not cure, and hundreds I failed to cure were cured by other doctors.

How many did you kill?

It is possible that many people who have been cured by medical treatment would have recovered without the help of a doctor, because there are many complaints that heal automatically. It must not be said that doctors are incapable, and that we can get on without them. An hon. member has mentioned a case where he went twice to doctors and was not attended to (I think it was the Minister of Labour), but when he went to a cult doctor he was treated. He asked the question why people should be prevented from going to such doctors I have no objection to his going himself but he is not the only person. A man may take his wife or his child who suffers from white sore throat to the faith healer. That complaint is a danger to the whole of society. If he takes his child there and the child dies then I ask the Minister of Labour what, right the father has to take a child, who has no say in the matter, there ? It is the duty of the country to protect the children, to see that the child or person who cannot judge for himself shall not be taken to those people. Legislation ought to be placed on the statute book prohibiting it. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) said that the chiropractors go through a certain course. In America there are many universities and colleges that are not acknowledged to give sufficient training to the students. Our Medical Council does not recognize their degrees because they are not good enough. The fact that the degrees are recognized in America is not a reason why we should recognize them here, because they are given by a university or by a syndicate is no reason why chiropractors should practise here. Those degrees are not granted solely for university studies. Lectures are indeed given which can be attended, but students can also do the whole course by correspondence. Are we going to put the health of our women and children in the hands of persons who have got their medical qualifications by correspondence ? Are we going to put our universities on an equality with those institutions ? Our ideal must be to have the best possible education for our medical men. Medical science is so far advanced to-day that it is impossible for anyone, however clever he may be, to be au fait with all matters in all branches. Therefore we have eye, ear, throat, bone and skin specialists, and they can treat particularly difficult cases in their departments. Now take the case of the osteopaths, of the bone setters (the bone manipulators). People go and study one of these methods, and then they apply it and juggle with it. Then they want to represent that they can cure all the diseases in creation by this one method. There is a certain method which has come from America and is employed in England and Australia. The practitioners have a kind of box which is closed. In the box there is a machine which works the marvel. Hon. members will not take it amiss if I tell them what is done with those boxes. Inside they consist simply of a set of electric cells. The patient has to put his hand on the box and an assistant is placed in another room. Now the person’s hands are held and the cult doctor goes and feels all over his medium and when he comes to a place he says: Ha here is the pain, and then he tells the patient where the pain is. In most cases the medium is a woman, and influence is brought to bear on the patient not regarding his sickness, but in a pernicious and contemptible way, bringing unsuitable ideas into his mind. When he is finished the cult doctor again draws on his bacteriological knowledge. Some of the patient’s blood is taken and put on a little glass and the glass is then placed under a microscope and the same fellow who rubbed his hands over the woman comes to look at it and says: Your disease is so and so. That is a distortion of bacteriological science. The person possibly knows as much about bacteriology as the man in the moon, but with the machine he misleads the poor people who consult him. I only give the example to show how little the people know. They use one or oilier kind of witch-doctors’ paraphernalia and the public are then asked to believe in it. Some of those methods are not so good as those of the Natal witch-doctors. We heard the other day that 2,500 are registered in Natal, the Minister of Health gave ns the information. If freedom in this respect leads to retrogression of science then our country had better remain without freedom. People speak so lightly here and make a comparison between the cult doctors and our profession, and say that the former cured this or the other person. An hon. member has mentioned something tonight about people who have been cured of cancer. I certainly hope that the House will not put a clause in the Bill to have the cancer curers regarded as licensed practitioners. There is a disease which I shall name which in many cases and in many of its appearances looks like cancer. It is syphilis. Let me mention the enquiry which we instituted in the days of the old Cape Parliament into the cure of cancer by a certain Mrs. van Niekerk. We examined four people who told us that they had been cured of cancer. Eventually it appeared that not one of them had had cancer.

The doctors said so.

There you have it. The hon. member thinks it is sufficient proof of his attitude if he says that it is the doctors. Medical science rests with the doctors and they know whether it is cancer or not, when the part affected is put under the microscope. We got hold of some of the pus of the cancer. It was submitted to impartial doctors without their knowing where it had come from and what the object of the enquiry was, and there was not one case of cancer. There was one case of syphilis, and as I was able to follow the history I will tell the House the circumstances, and it should serve as a warning. That case was regarded as cancer, and Mrs. van Niekerk was called in to treat it. A plaster had to be put on every four hours. The first day the patient suffered pam, the second day more pain, and the third day he did not shut his eyes, and the fourth he was almost dead from the intolerable pain. The pain was the cause of all the neighbours having to come to sit up and assist him and make coffee. Six months later there were six families in the neighbourhood that had syphilis.

What of the cases where the doctors say that it is cancer and that they cannot cure it, but Aunt Ralie cures it ?

I have just mentioned one case. In the second case it was also said to be cancer, and we had the opportunity of examining the doctor who treated the person. In the room we asked the man whether he had been treated by a doctor and what the doctor had treated him for—

He said: No. We asked him why he told people that he had been cured of cancer. He replied: Can I make it known that I had syphilis. That was the thing he shielded behind. It is very easy for a person to pass himself off as having been cured of cancer, yet all the time he might have been a danger to other people. It, therefore, befits us to be careful in this respect. The method and remedies employed by the cancer curers have been known to the medical profession for centuries, but they are not used. Why should we use them if we can do better with the knife ? Let me give an example to take the matter to its logical conclusion. If we had not had 600 medical men in the country during the influenza epidemic in 1918, but cult doctors, osteopaths and chiropractors in their stead, what would the position have been ? Fortunately for humanity, the doctors were trained in a scientific way and had got experience on sound lines so that when the calamity came they were capable of taking action and giving advice. They could investigate the symptoms of the disease and, within a week, a remedy was found by inoculation of a serum. Let me give another example to the opponents of the Bill. During the great world war, there were few cases of typhus in Serbia as the Minister has mentioned. What was the position in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer war ? There was much enteric fever among the British soldiers. During the German West and German East expeditions that was not the case. In Flanders during the great war only 2 per cent, got gastric fever. The figures would not have been believed by anyone twenty or thirty years lago. They would not have believed that a war like that could be waged without a large number of sick and a high death rate There was not only a prevention of enteric fever, but also of tetanus. The mortality figures for this during the great war were less than half per cent. Formerly, they were accustomed if an explosion took place and a piece of rusted steel or bullet caused a wound it caused tetanus. The medical profession saved a large number of people from death during the great world war. When one thinks that the death rate among children to an extent of 60 per cent, was caused by white sore throat, and that it was subsequently reduced to 48 per cent, and, by better methods, to 18 per thousand, then one can see how much progress has taken place in the matter of medical science. To-day the mortality figures among children are 7 per cent, for most countries in the world, as proper inoculation is quickly done. Where one has such examples, are you going to trifle with the health of the people and say that protection must not be given, and that it should be left free to a man to take his child suffering from white sore throat to an ignorant man, while it is possible that the child might be cured of its complaint ? I need not mention all the developments in the matter of medical science. There is a great development through the injection of serum by the inoculation of glands into the body. It is all very technical and the knowledge of it cannot be obtained in one day or in an easy way. It takes years of hard study to become qualified to properly do the work. My hon. friend there says that the young doctor is without experience. Salvation, however, does not lie with the quack. If a training of five years is not enough they must say that the course should be lengthened to six or seven years. It is laid down now much knowledge and how much experience a doctor should acquire during his studies, and when he has completed them he should enjoy full measure of confidence. He must not be undermined by quacks. I also began as a young doctor, and I was but a short time in the village when the people asked each other what I did when a child was sick. Before I had a patient it was said that I had treated a child wrongly. The young doctor gets practice in hospitals during his course. There are also quacks who have not much experience and moreover know little, but children are entrusted to them. I want to emphasize that the welfare of the people will depend on the thoroughness and ability of the doctors in South Africa. It depends on the curriculum and on the work that they do while they are students, and when the doctor is qualified the public ought to trust him. With what confidence, however, can a young doctor go to Middelburg where the local member of Parliament says in this House that he does not possess sufficient knowledge and experience. It is not proper for a member of this House, when a young man goes to study medicine, to charge him when he has completed his studies with being inefficient and to ask: What does the young ass know ? Our members of Parliament should speak on such a matter with more authority, weight and common sense. I hope that when our young sons and daughters go out into the country as doctors they will be trusted, and it is our duty, as members of Parliament, to encourage that confidence in the public. We do not want our young people to enter life and to be condemned in advance and stated to be inefficient. We want our children to have the best training, and when they begin work they should be trusted. Whether it is day or night, when the doctor is called to treat a case of sickness, he has to get out of bed and be ready to undertake the treatment to save the invalid from death and pain. I only wish to say that this is undoubtedly a question which causes strong feeling, but I want hon. members to understand that it is a matter upon which people should speak clearly. There is a disease about which I have spoken clearly, because it is a great danger, and it is necessary for us to look the facts in the face and to introduce legislation to show that we appreciate the danger. I have had the opportunity of saying a few words at a meeting of the medical faculty which was attended by doctors from the Cape Peninsula in connection with this Bill, and their view of the Bill can be summed up in the sentence: This is the best Bill we can put on the statute book.

For doctors.

The Bill is not to protect doctors but the public. If the doctors are properly educated, as I have said, then it is not necessary to give them protection of this kind. It is unnecessary for hon. members to say in the House that the doctors combine and protect each other. Their knowledge is a sufficient weapon to go into the country with. This Bill, I repeat, is in the interest of the public, and because it is in the interests of the public, one will not find a single doctor in the country who is opposed to it. Some people think that it is nice to poke fun at the doctors, but in the end I am convinced that even those hon. members who oppose the Bill would not be without doctors. The doctors say that this is the best Bill for the public that has yet been introduced into the House, and I hope it will be passed.

The hon. member for the Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has made it appear as if the hon. member for Middle-burg (Mr. Heyns) is only here to represent the doctors. We are not here to represent a section of the population, but all sections, and this legislation will do us much harm on the countryside, especially in the far distant districts. The hon. member for Paarl put up a great plea for the doctors. We are not against them, we believe in the knowledge of the doctors ; but to draw a ring and to stipulate in the distant parts where one has no doctors that they may not use other people is going a little too far. The hon. member for Paarl has mentioned that we should give the doctors a chance to establish themselves and make a living in the far-off parts. We try every day to get doctors. They remain for two or three months in the distant parts, and then give up and go away because they can get no practice there. The people are too poor, and they say they must go to the towns. We are speaking from experience. Then I can also assure the hon. member for Paarl that I have more than once called in a doctor for a poor man where the doctor asked whether I would guarantee his fees. That is not what I have heard, but experienced myself. The doctors say, why should I come if I cannot get my fee? Not long ago I asked a doctor to come and treat a poor man, but he asked if I would be surety.

That must have been for your foreman on the farm.

No, it was for a poor man, and while I was travelling far from my home. The doctor has not gone there to this day. The man’s children were seriously ill, and he called in a quack, and it appeared later that the children had measles, and the doctor was no longer required, but at the time his assistance was required he refused to come. We are speaking for the people. We are not opposed to doctors, we do not wish to be without them, but must not, in the remote parts where no doctor’s assistance can be got, the quack, with his long experience, have an opportunity of doing his work ? The hon. member for Paarl spoke about cancer. I can give him the assurance that in my constituency there is an old person who went all round, and was stated by the doctors to be suffering from cancer. He was 78 years’ old, and the doctors stated that he had virulent cancer. He had a spot on his head, and the doctors said that it should be operated on. Then the old man said: I am now 78, and will not have an operation. He then went to the district of Middelburg to Aunt Botha, and she pulled out the disease. Some long white stuff came out ; I saw it myself, and the man is alive to-day, and quite well. He is now 82 years’ old, and four doctors stated that he had cancer. I am speaking here on behalf of those farmers in far-off parts. How did things go during the influenza epidemic? Various doctors stated that I myself had influenza and could not cure me. I followed farmers’ remedies, and used ordinary raw linseed oil and Little’s Dip, and I am still here to-day. Thereafter I treated all my natives with Little’s Dip. and they all got well ; not one of them died, not even a child. And to-day they use raw linseed oil in the hospitals, which formerly they never did. This is the remedy the old yoortrekkers used when they left the Cape.

It has been known for two thousand years.

But you never used it. That is the mistake. Doctors are always ready to operate, and our farmers are very much afraid of the knife. Why does not the hon. member follow Aunt Botha's advice, and pull out the disease in the same manner as she does? There is still another point. Our farmers do not go to a quack before they have consulted the doctors. If the doctors can do nothing for them, then they go to Aunt Botha, and are not these people to have the right to try and become well? Before they consult the doctors, they do not go to the so-called quack. We do not rush to them as soon as a child gets sick. We are not against the doctors. We have the greatest respect for them, and want them to be properly trained, but if they Can do nothing, then we go to Aunt Botha and others. The hon. member for Paarl is in a town, and can easily talk, but what of the distant parts of the country ? There you have the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) as a living example. I know he has drawn thousands of teeth, and no one has ever died. There is someone in my district who daily draws six or seven teeth without charging anything. The rich people go to the doctor, where they are injected and deadened with gas to save the pain. Not one of the people who have been treated by the “quacks” has as yet died in consequence, but I know of three cases where persons remained seated in the doctor’s chair and never recovered consciousness. In one of those cases, the dentist said that it had affected the heart, in the second that there had been an overdose of chloroform, and in the third the cause of death was unknown. I do not say that dentists kill people, but it happens in cases where, to avoid much pain, too much chloroform is given, that the people collapse. When people cannot get a doctor, why should they not have the opportunity to be treated by a “quack ”? I hope the Minister will accept an amendment in committee to alter this.

I think the intentions of the Minister are particularly good, viz., to protect the public against the quacks or other people who have no other object than to take money out of the pockets of our people. There are, e.g., the hawkers of spectacles. I think it is a good thing for the public to be protected against them, but the people on the countryside live in particularly unfavourable conditions as regards medical assistance. The problem at present occupying the Minister is a very difficult one, and it seems they are having trouble in the other Dominions with the same subject. If I understood the speech of the Minister correctly, then the scheme he suggested was to give the existing quacks an opportunity of continuing their work, or rather to give them recognition in the form of a doctor’s certificate; the quack, under this Bill, will work in conjunction with a qualified doctor, and can continue his work. But then I want to ask the Minister how that squares with the great respect the qualified doctor claims and must have if the doctor is going to give his recognition, and to be dragged in the mud by quacks ?

That is not the intention.

Then all is well. I understand that that occurs in other countries. The danger of this Bill, in my opinion, is that if a man or woman has practised with success or apparent success as an unqualified doctor, becomes the partner of a qualified doctor, he will go on with his work. He simply says to his partner. “I am practising under your name.” The Minister shakes his head. I am glad that that is not the intention of the Minister. There are people who have been successful. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) is a living example in our midst. Then there is Mrs Landsberg, e.g., in Krugersdorp, who is well known for her methods of curing cancer. A motion was made in the provincial council to give her an opportunity to continue applying her cure. It will perhaps be asked where the proof is that she has cured cases of cancer, and it is, of course, difficult to prove.

The doctors say that they were cases of cancer.

I know of a case where a doctor examined a patient under the microscope and came to the conclusion that he had cancer, and another doctor did the same and came to the opposite conclusion. If we then cannot trust the doctors and the microscopes, I ask why we should prevent such a person from consulting Mrs. Landsberg. Then I want to say something about homeopathic doctors. In the Transvaal particularly, a class of homeopathic doctors has developed, mostly ex-German missionaries. They came into the country as missionaries, and subsequently gave up their efforts to save black souls in consequence of the success they had in saving the bodies of white people. I know of several of these cases and everyone knows of instances where the doctors succeeded, especially with women and children. Must all these people, who have succeeded in curing people, be prohibited from continuing their work ? I know the allopaths mock at it and say: “How can such a small piece of sugar, or such a little drop affect anything,” but I know of cases where the result was very favourable. I have gone into the question a little as to how the law stands in this regard in other dominions where the circumstances are more or less the same as with us. I find that in Canada homeopaths are admitted to practice under the Act of 1911. In New Zealand penalties are provided under the Act of 1912 for persons who use the name or title of doctor without being qualified. But I find nothing in the Act forbidding anyone to give medical aid if he is not qualified. Only the improper use of the name “doctor” is punishable, not the giving of medicine. They, therefore, do not go so far as the Minister wants to go. In Tasmania an Act was passed in 1918 providing that only registered medical men should be entitled to recover payment of fees through the courts. The unregistered medical man can apparently not sue for his fees, but it is not illegal in Tasmania for an unqualified man to ask for money. A similar position, I understand, exists under the Act passed in New Zealand in 1914. It seems to me, from the facts I have mentioned to be clear, that the other dominions also find it difficult to draw the line. The consequence of that is simply the fact that curative knowledge, medical science, is not an exact science. Medical science is still in its beginnings. In ordinary diseases the doctor can act, but in extraordinary cases it is still difficult for them. Now I ask whether, when we have experienced a certain historical development, we can throw that experience away. It would not be wise. How many women are there not in the Transvaal who successfully render medical assistance? There is also a reason for it, because in the old days the people trekked about so that they had not the opportunity to be treated by trained doctors. Consequently, certain persons —preferably women, because they have always to bear the burden, and it was the same in the old days—commenced to make discoveries in the matter of cures, and these were handed down from parent to child. Then it seems to me that the medical advisers, whom the Minister has consulted about this Bill, did not have adequate knowledge. I do not mean inadequate knowledge of their job, but of our rural conditions. It seems to me as if they do not know the actual requirements of our people, and still less the character of our national existence. I fear the Minister has been advised along lines which I cannot appreciate. As far as I can see, the best solution regarding the Bill is as follows: Let the Minister, as far as he can, provide the people outside with first-class medical assistance at prices which they can pay. In the end, no sensible person will seek professional advice from any other than a medical man if the medical men can prove that they are so much better than the quacks. If we want the people in the country not to go to quacks for help, it is necessary for the Minister of Public Health to see that medical help is at the disposal of every man in South Africa at fees he call pay. The rich man can pay for medical help, but the poor man is often ruined by the high fees, and in cases of need he ought to get it gratis. Any Afrikander, any citizen of the country, is surely worth having his health properly looked after. I appeal to the Minister, and I know it will not be in vain.

Then a land tax will be necessary.

No, that will not be necessary at all. Let us try to get the schedule of fees paid to the doctors placed on a better looting. If the doctors do not wish to do their part in this respect, then the Government can go to the length of providing that the doctors may not charge more than a definite sum. The circumstances of the country are such that it is for the Government to take action. Certain parts are very unhealthy, as, e.g., the malaria zone. I am glad that the Minister is commencing to attack the question of malaria, because it does not kill grown-up people, but it makes it impossible for children to learn in the schools and to become strong people mentally and physically as their forefathers were. If an improvement in this condition can be made by legislation such as this, then I will assist with all my power. The basis of the legislation should, however, be that the first duty of the Government is to see that the people in the back country get good medical assistance at fees they are able to pay.

I am not a follower of any of the particular cults which have been referred to in this debate, and I have a very deep respect for the noble profession of medicine, but the fact is that the drugless healer has often succeeded where the medical man has failed. Many cases have come to my notice where the drugless healer has either effected a cure or given very great relief. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander).

I want to say at once that I have the greatest respect for the scientific knowledge and experience of the doctors, especially if they have been long in practice and are worth something to humanity, but unfortunately, especially since the war, we have had quite a number of doctors whose object is not to cure people but to make as much money as possible. In my constituency I can mention the case of an old man who sat in the old Cape Parliament and knew all the Cape Town doctors. He was sick and came to the doctors here and one of the best known of them told him that he had appendicitis and that if he was not operated on within three days he would die. The old man said: No, I am now so old I will not undergo an operation, I would rather die. But he went to a quack, well-known to us, Mr. Burn, who treated him with sweet oil and cured him. Doctors say that one can do without the appendix. The German doctors on the other hand say that it is necessary, and that the patients who have it removed do not live longer than ten years. I do not know of anyone who has lived longer than ten years after that operation, and the doctors at the Cape have not told me of any such cases. The doctors are very keen on operations because they cost £50 or £100. That is all there is in it. When a woman cuts up sheep everyday she of course becomes an adept with the knife and if a doctor is always operating he becomes adept. But sometimes they make mistakes. If the doctors are to be protected so much then none of them should drink a glass of whisky or other strong drink. I know of cases where the doctor—I will not say was drunk—but so nervous that as soon as he saw blood he fainted. Our doctors have not even the knowledge of the Egyptian women as regards balsam and cannot like those women embalm corpses. Similarly they know little as yet about many other diseases. Why should people then be prevented of going to Mrs. Landsberg and others if they have cancer and the doctor gives them up. The people do not go directly to her, but in almost every case only after a doctor has failed, and many of them are cured. I know that for the first few days there is pain, but that stops quickly and the plaster which has drawn out the disease also heals the wound. What of the people who live 30 to 40 miles from the nearest doctor? I do not know whether any hon. members have had toothache and had to go 60 miles to have the tooth drawn. Unfortunately toothache is of such a nature that the pain disappears when one gets to the dentist, and then some people do not have the tooth drawn. The ring fence round the medical profession must stop. If the doctors are clever enough the ring fence is unnecessary. I know doctors I believe in, but others whom I do not. If a man believes in a doctor he will support him. At Van RhynsDorp we have a doctor who cannot see, but he is more capable than many others who have their sight and that is because he has a human outlook. He is not a doctor who wants to make money, but to cure people. In the House we used to have a member (the late Dr. Raubenheimer of Oudtshoorn) in whom people had great confidence and his help was always first called in. If doctors have human sympathy they will not have difficulty in getting patients, because me patients will search for them. In the far-off places people have not got the assistance of doctors. In the villages the poor mail can get a doctor for a fee of 5s. but if a man is 50 miles away it is a different matter, One cannot take it amiss of the doctor because he has to keep a motor car and pay for the petrol and when he is called in it is natural for him to ask whether the patient can pay. One cannot object to this nor can you do so in the case of a man who seeks medical help through persons who have not been trained as a doctor. The poor man must surely live just as the rich. If the Bill is passed the Government must see to it that there are doctors who give free medical advice The villages are very well off because there one doctor falls over the other. Here in Cape Town, e.g., you can select your doctor. Take a little village like Garies. In the city you can go to the doctor you want to treat you, but in the small villages you have no choice, whether you have confidence in the doctor or not you have to go to him and if you go to anyone else it is punishable. I hope that the Minister will not be too much wedded to the clauses when we are in committee. We must see to it that the interests of the countryside are taken into account. The countryside rubbed along with the old remedies. We see that the doctors are now commencing to make a practical study of the plants growing in this country to see what plants are useful for curing this or the other disease. All these years the plants have been glowing here and now they are commencing to study them, and it will probably take five years to see whether the noli me tangere plant is useful or not. There are, however, some people in the country who know well what plants are useful for diseases. Herbs are not poison. If they do no good they at any rate do no harm. The doctors always use poison in their medicines. That is why they are called allopaths, because they always use poison. In many cases the body is not strong enough to get rid of the poison but if the constitution has been much weakened the poison cannot be thrown off. It is surely a fact that humane doctors mean more to the people than those who are possibly much more clever but not so humane. I have seen cases where there were two doctors and the clever one had to leave the humane one retaining the practice. That happens in nine cases out of ten. I am certain that the countryside will be injured by the Bill. Our doctors will be only to pleased to drag quacks before the magistrate. They will, as it were, squeeze out the quacks to be rid of them in order to make as much money as possible. What then of the poor man who cannot pay the doctor ? But we shall yet see the day when it will be necessary to fix the tariffs for doctors’ charges. I wish that would happen now so that the tariff may be laid down for the rich and the poor man. I do not blame the doctors so much for not coming a long distance to treat the people who cannot pay. They have expenses. But if the poor man with his sick wife or child has to travel thirty miles to get to the doctor then the child will die on the way, or if it arrives alive its condition will he hopeless. We must protect these people when they are unable to get other assistance.

I am sorry that I must take up the time of the House, especially as I am anxious for the Bill to be passed this year, although certain amendments will have to be made in committee. I have here the report of the royal commission on public health in England, and about 35 per cent, of the poverty of the lower classes in England is attributed to lack of medical attention. It made me ask myself whether we have not here a cause of which we have never thought for the existence of the poor whites in South Africa. Lack of medical attention can result in the health of people being undermined, and consequently they are not able to do their work properly, so that they sink to the class of poor whites. Is that not one of the causes of their losing everything? Apart from the question of poor whites, I believe that the annual loss to our people in consequence of bad medical attention runs into thousands and thousands of pounds, because the physical powers of the country are injuriously affected by the lack of medical attention. I am glad that this Bill is going to make a slight alteration in the conditions prevailing for a long time on the countryside, because the farmers are relegated to all kinds of touts. I have here a letter which I hesitate to read. It describes the conditions still prevailing to-day on the countryside. How the people are a prey to touts and quacks. In one of the most prosperous districts in the Free State (it is not in my constituency) there recently was a spectacle tout, and within a short time he sold a tremendous number of spectacles. The writer states how the man went to work. He came to a farm, found out that the owner was sick, and asked him what was the matter. The disease in this case was piles. The tout then said that he was himself an expert, and had the necessary instruments. He said that if he could make an examination, he would be able to prescribe a remedy. The tout produces an electric torch —that is all—and then tells him how one part of the body influences the other, and that all he requires is a pair of spectacles, and that that would cure his piles. That is the position to-day. The result will be that in a few years the man will have another complaint, and that is that he will be suffering from his eyes. If the people suffer from complaints, then they are superstitious, and will adopt any remedy. In the Free State, it is the case that if a doctor only succeeds in getting to Basutoland, then the people run after him from the Free State when they hear that he is a Basutoland doctor. If he had practised in the Free State, probably not a single man woud have gone to him. But because he is in Basutoland the people think that he possesses occult powers, and they consequently Hock over the border to him. My hon.friends on the Basutoland border know how these people suffer from superstition and have the remedies of quacks and touts. I do not think that we are benefiting the people if we allow this quackery to increase. There is something, I think, in the arguments with regard to the countryside, and I wonder if we are not trying to create a perfect condition at once in taking measures regarding the countryside which are only possible in the towns. It is undoubtedly a very difficult question in South Africa how to provide medical attention on the countryside, and especially to the poor people. I think, further, that a great part of the medical profession would be in favour of having a reasonable tariff for medical attention. I think attempts have already been made in that direction. In the Free State we formerly had something of the sort, but it was never generally applied. A large part of the people feel that something should be done in that direction, especially now, owing to the strong competition amongst the doctors ; some make full use of the opportunity when they catch a good fish or can milk a good cow. That must be prevented in some way or other. I do not see how we shall succeed in getting our people to always consult qualified doctors. On the one hand, there is the necessitous state of the people regarding money ; on the other, the lack of medical help in various parts. Take the case of qualified midwives. They ask at least five guineas a week. There are others who have no diploma, but are very competent, and prepared to do the work for £1 or £1 10s. What of the people who cannot pay the five guineas ? Proper provision should be made for the poor people, otherwise I cannot see how this Bill can be applied in detail. I know the Government are considering what can be done as to supplying medical attention to the poor people, but as that has not yet been done, some parts of the Bill will have to be amended in committee.

I wish to deal briefly with the points that were raised by my hon. friend, the member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) in connection with the witch-doctors. It surprised me very much to hear the Minister making statements such as he did in this House that there were three or four thousand witch-doctors practising in Natal. The member for Klip River has shown that there is legislation in Natal making provision for these “witchdoctors,” as the Minister calls them, really herbalists, to carry on that profession, and I may say that exactly the same profession is carried on to-day amongst the natives in the Transkei. We have a million natives there, and only about 30 European doctors, and I think the Minister would be the first to admit that sufficient provision is not made for the medical needs of the natives there, and although it is a criminal offence in this province for herbalists to carry on their profession, that practice has existed now for the last 40 or 50 years, and I do not remember ever hearing of a prosecution against a herbalist. In every district there are a large number of these natives who carry on this practice. I wish to tell the Minister that there is a very wide distinction between a witch-doctor and a herbalist. In the Transkei, if the Minister had made the accusation that he did in this House against this body of men, against any individual practitioner as a herbalist, he would have been liable to a criminal penalty. The mere fact of accusing a man of carrying on business as a witch-doctor in the Transkei is a crime, and punishable with imprisonment. The Transkei General Council, a body that carries a considerable amount of weight in that part of the country, has made application on many occasions for these native herbalists to be registered under similar conditions to those that exist in Natal. The natives themselves have no time for these witch-doctors. I had an experience some years back in which one of these gentlemen from Natal came down, and was practising in my district as a witch-doctor. He was prosecuted, and offered me a fee of £50 if I would get the Cape Government to give him the same power as the Natal Government had given him. Wherever we have native tribes, I think we are bound to have some of this witch-doctoring. The point is this, we must admit that there is no provision for the natives to obtain medical assistance under present circumstances. I do think that the Government, before interfering with the methods of the natives, ought to try and make some provision, at any rate, for the medical teaching of these natives. I see a Commission has been sitting recently dealing with this matter. Wherever the institution is placed, it is going to be very expensive for the natives to train their doctors. It will be very many years before a medical service exists among the natives. I think the Government might consider means of giving the natives some method of obtaining the ordinary medical knowledge that many men have who are not qualified Give them a certificate and allow them to carry on medical work among the natives. It is only after you have made such provision that you can bring a law of this kind into operation In many of these cases, these natives live 40 to 60 miles away from the villages, and when they are ill it is impossible for them to get to the doctors, and they will go to their own doctors irrespective of any law on the statute book. I think we have had enough legislation dealing with the natives already in this House during the last two sessions. We have, to a large extent, aroused the feelings of the educated section. Legislation of this sort is going to get among the uneducated natives. These her balists would be up against this as well. They will say the object is to enrich the white doctors. I know these herbalists are men of considerable experience. I do feel that before this House brings into force legislation of this kind, before we have utterances from a responsible Minister like the Minister of Public Health to the effect that every herbalist is a witch-doctor, we should be very careful. I feel that at this stage legislation of this sort is premature. I hope the Minister, instead of bringing in prohibitive legislation of this sort, will try and bring about some system of medical education for natives.

I shall say nothing against the doctors, and I quite agree that they should be protected as much as possible, that our young men who spend thousands of pounds in qualifying should be protected, and it is the Minister’s duty to protect the public as much as possible. I think, however, as I am speaking on the subject that it is necessary now to introduce a Bill to regulate the fees of the doctors.

Very nice.

I am glad to see that the hon. member for Paarl agrees with me about that. There are doctors who are quite reasonable, and there are many doctors who, from humanity, treat our poor people for nothing, but there are also, unfortunately, many doctors who do not love their fellow men so much, and are only out to make money. They just try to get as much as possible out of our poor people. That often happens, and the time has come for the public to be protected. I do not want to draw a ring fence round the profession, but would like to see our people protected in a scientific manner. In my constituency, e.g., there is a dentist who has made a study of his work, but does not, I think, possess a diploma. The man is very competent and has been practising for fourteen or fifteen years. People come from East London, where there are many dentists, to him for treatment. He works day and night, and has never had a single conviction against him. This proves that his work gives satisfaction, and I hope the Minister will accept an amendment in committee to the effect that people who have been in practice for twelve or fifteen years and never been convicted will retain the right to practise. Now it may be said that the man has been practising illegally all these years, but why should he be prevented from continuing. The police have tried to get a conviction against him, but have not succeeded. I do not think there are more than five or six of these kind of people in the Union, and I think they ought to be protected. The man has shown that he can do his work well.

I support the Bill because, as the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has said, this is a matter, viz., the public health, on which the life and welfare of the people depends. There are members who are pleading very hard for the quack, but my experience of them is that the large majority were never a success. To-day a great deal is done for the education of children. Many sacrifices are made to train the youth as doctors, such an education costs thousands of pounds, and it is not right where the son and his parents have made such sacrifices to have the work taken out of their hands by quacks or semi-doctors who have had no, or practically no, education. The quack may be good, but he is not the right man. He has not had the necessary training and the people’s health suffers. We have seen several times that it costs the life of a man when we have not got proper doctors. The hon. member for Paarl spoke about witch doctors in Natal, but does he know that we have them in the Transvaal as well? Does he know that white people flock in thousands to the witch doctors ? A little while back there was such a witch doctor in Pretoria. He treated a good many women, and as I understand, committed many scandalous acts. He was, however, found out and got ten years’ imprisonment. It then appeared that the man had had 300 women under his care. That is shameful, and I say such a man deserves death. That is not the only case. I know of others. These people must be stopped before they do more harm and, therefore, I support the Bill. Then I want to say something about chemists. Just like a doctor, the chemist has to have a very good training because he has to dispense the medicines, and sometimes he prescribes them. If he is not competent he may easily make up the wrong medicines and even poison and the consequences cannot be foreseen. It is, therefore, rightly demanded of the apothecary to have a good training, but he is not always assured of proper employment because what happens? In some of the towns the doctors have their own chemist shops and dispense the medicines to the detriment of the chemist. This is, however, a matter which the doctors and chemists can settle between themselves, but then there ought to be a board on which the doctors and chemists are represented, so that they can co-operate. I am in favour of the people settling these matters themselves, but then the Bill must give them power. In connection with the native doctors, I think we should give the people a chance. He is incompetent, but the native believes in his own doctor and will not go to the white doctor. But this is another matter which can be settled by the board of doctors and chemists as suggested by me.

I shall be neglecting my duty if I do not say a few words about the Bill seeing I have received letters and telegrams from my electors and also from Kimberley. The drugless healers have also telegraphed to me in connection with the matter. As for those people, they have obtained a diploma in America. If I understand the Bill, I think Clause 32 provides that they shall not get into trouble under Clause 34. As I do not wish to say anything more about the matter, I want to mention another case which came before me in my constituency. It is one of the Christian Scientists. We find some of our friends connected with that religion, and because one does not wish to hinder such people in their religion, I hope that they will be excluded from the operation of Clause 34. I hope the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) will take up the matter, and will again move in committee the amendment which he proposed in the 1924 select committee, to make provision for that case. The Minister will know what the amendment is, that nothing in Clause 34 shall apply 4o Christian Scientists. I want to mention another point. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has spoken a great deal about the facility of getting medical assistance if one will take a little trouble to ask for a doctor in the far-off parts, and that doctors have never yet refused to go into the country to meet the people. I can assure him that in the former portion of my division (it now belongs to the constituency of Hope Town) the people are 60 miles from the nearest doctor. A doctor came and settled there (a lady doctor), but she could not make a living and left. Now I want to know whether the people are to be compelled in the future in case of sickness to go to a doctor seeing they can get the assistance of persons who understand the use of herbs, or should these people be shut off from such help? It will be a parlous state in which those people will find themselves.

On the motion of Mr. Close, debate adjourned ; to be resumed to-morrow.