I want to give the information which I promised on a previous occasion. The first is the question of the officer who inspected the Belgian rails. I have now received information from the High Commissioner to the effect that it was Mr. T. A. Stewart Dyer, a private inspecting engineer London, employed by the High Commissioner, assisted by Mr. van Clempotl. The other point is the question raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow), as to how we propose distributing the additional men who are to be employed in the workshops on double shifts. The chief mechanical engineer proposes to distribute them as follows: at Uitenhage 124; at Bloemfontein 12; at Pretoria 112; at Durban 121; and at Salt River 52.

I think the Minister cannot discuss this now on this clause.

I only wanted to give the information.

If the Minister gives the information I will have to allow the whole committee to go on.

Can the Minister tell us why a private individual was asked to inspect these rails?

I have ruled the Minister out of order on this particular question. The Minister can bring this up on the third reading.

Part of the vote is in payment of these rails.

The hon. member knows he can only discuss the details of the clause.

I want to ask if the Minister is justified in expending this amount seeing that his own official did not pass these rails.

I cannot allow that; it is for the future.

Surely we are now voting this money, and I submit the Minister is quite in order in giving this information to the House. If any principle is involved in this clause the principle should be discussed in committee. In this case we are voting money.

The hon. member can discuss the reduction of the amount if he likes.

Can I ask the Minister a question? Why were these rails not passed by the official in the High Commissioner’s office appointed by the Railway Administration?

I want to draw the attention of the committee to Rule 168 [rule read.] The Minister was going on to discuss a question of principle and I ruled that he could not do so. That is the ruling which is now given from the Chair.

We are asked to vote a sum of £9,000,000, which includes expenditure on these very rails, and before we agree to it are we not entitled to know in what way the liability has been incurred?

This is for the future, this £9,000,000.

If the Minister told us that the whole of the money for the rails had been spent I could understand it, but this is money for the future, for an obligation which has been incurred.

May I put it to you that part of this money will be devoted for paying the staff which the Railway Administration keeps up on the staff of the High Commissioner in London, and we want to know why they did not inspect these rails and who did inspect them.

On the second reading the Minister entertained us for several hours on various subjects, but he glossed over certain items very carefully in connection with the Visser contract. I would like the Minister to tell us something with regard to two of the clauses in this document. One was that Dr. Visser should give a guarantee—

The hon. member can bring that up on the third reading; he cannot bring it up now.

I gather that we are voting this £9,000,000 for the services of the railways and harbours from the 1st April of the ensuing year, that is, the Minister is taking the vote on account instead of taking the whole of the vote on the Estimates, when all the details would be put before us. Under these circumstances it is not the privilege of any hon. member of this committee to ask any question he considers necessary in connection any item that may be covered by this £9,000,000.

The hon. member is quite correct; I never stopped questions being asked.

Any question arising under the administration of the Minister is a matter of detail.

The hon. member may discuss details of the clause, but he cannot go into a second or third reading debate.

Practically the whole clause incorporates acts of administration on the part of the Minister. Is it not competent for this committee to discuss points of administration arising from this vote? I would like your ruling on that.

I should like to ask the Minister a question regarding the pay of railwaymen. I have received a letter in which the matter is not very clear. It is said that the labourers on the new line in Rustenburg are not all receiving the same pay. A boy of 17 gets 3s. a day; 18 years 3s. 6d.; 20 years 4s. a day, and 21 years 5s. a day. I cannot understand why if young fellows are employed there should be such a difference in the pay. A 17 year-old boy can do just as much as one of 20 years. I want to know the reason of the distinction.

On a point of order, may I say that the principle of the Bill as I take it is the giving of an amount on account before the financial year begins to enable the Government to carry on. We are dealing with one of the details, and that is how part of the money vote here is to be expended. Another point upon which I would like your ruling is whether I should not be in order in moving a reduction of the £9,000,000).

The hon. member can certainly move a reduction if he likes.

I move an amendment—

I want to bring up a question on the point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) a few days ago, when he referred to certain cultured South American people as “dagoes.”

The hon. member cannot bring that up—it has nothing whatever to do with the debate.

I want to ask the Minister a question about the persons who passed those rails, and why a private person can be employed. Who were the persons who passed these rails?

The reply is: Mr. T. A. Stewart Dyer, a private inspecting engineer, London, was employed by the High Commissioner, assisted by Mr. van Clempotl. I understand that Mr. Stewart Dyer is an engineer who has been employed by the High Commissioner when his own staff has not been available. Hon. members have referred to Mr. Elliott who might have done the inspection. I have no information on that point, except that I assume that Mr. Elliott was otherwise engaged, and that the High Commissioner’s office engaged this engineer to do the work. In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) I may say that no doubt he was paid a fee.

*I want to inform the hon. member for Wit-Watersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) that on entering the service a boy of 16 years gets 3s. 6d. a day. This is increased by 6d. a year up to 5s. We cannot of course expect the same work from a boy of 16 years as from a grown-up man of 21. Therefore we have a graduated scale rising from 3s. 6d. to 5s.

I am much obliged to the Minister for spelling the name of that gentleman. Could he inform the Committee whether the inspector of that peculiar name is Belgian or English. I understand they are Belgian rails.

I am afraid I cannot give the information. My information is that the officer responsible is Mr. Dyer, assisted by this gentleman; but unfortunately we have no further information.

The Minister must know that in the matter of inspection of material that costs a great deal of money, you should see you have a perfect assurance of the standing and ability of the person who examines rails or engines or anything of that character. It is extraordinary that the High Commissioner’s office should employ this Belgian instead of this English engineer. What steps has the Minister taken to see that this (Belgian) gentleman is not employed again by the High Commissioner’s office in London?

Do I understand correctly that there is an officer attached to the High Commissioner’s office who is a qualified engineer and competent to look after all these things, to examine them and pass what is necessary?

Yes.

The matter cannot be allowed to rest there. I hope the Minister will undertake to have the fullest inquiry made how it was that Mr. Elliott was not able to go there, and whether he was asked to go there, and an inquiry into the qualifications of the two people who were asked. Is it the usual thing for a purely private man to be employed?

I am prepared to go further into the matter, and give the House the further information at a later stage.

On the second reading I raised the matter of our mail contract, to which the Minister rather curtly replied. I pointed out that the very existence of the fruit industry depends on regular weekly sailings of steamships. I asked him whether he would take steps immediately to enter into a mail contract which would provide for the lifting of all our fruit—

The hon. member is now raising a question raised on the second reading debate. He cannot do that.

I shall put it in the form of a question. Is the Minister satisfied with the present mail contract? Is he going to leave it there, or is he going to enter into a contract which will provide for the lifting of all our perishable products. Will the Minister go into the matter of the general conveyance of fruit, because many of our trucks are to-day fixed up in a most primitive way. I do not say these trucks have been fitted up during the present Minister’s administration. Our fruit trucks ought all to have a flat bottom, to pack the fruit boxes onto, but instead they have slats across them three-quarters of an inch high, and about 18 inches apart. You cannot put fruit down without the slats injuring it.

I do not want to rule the, hon. member out of order, but he is not asking a question; he is now discussing the whole question of policy.

I thought I had dealt very fully with all these matters. In my reply I indicated to the hon. member that the mail contract is in existence at the present time, and unless notice is given by the Government or the Union-Castle Company, that contract remains in existence. But in regard to the renewal of the contract I said that the Government was in negotiation with the company. Surely the hon. member does not expect me to disclose what these negotiations are?

No.

When these negotiations are brought to fruition, the interests of the country and people will be carefully kept in view.

Are you dealing with the matter of rates?

Absolutely. As to the conveyance of fruit, I dealt fully with that in my reply, and said that if any instances of complaints were brought to my notice, they would be investigated at once. If the hon. member has any complaints I shall be glad if he will bring them to my notice, and I shall have the necessary action taken.

Will the Minister inquire into the suitability of the trucks which are used for the conveyance of fruit?

I will certainly do that.

I notice on page 3 of the Estimates there is a lump sum of £3,500 for the Perishable Products Control Export Board. How is this amount apportioned among the members of the Board?

Unfortunately I have not, the allocation, but I am prepared to give it when the third reading is being dealt with. The chairman receives a salary of £1,800, but I do not remember the other salaries. The chairman is a full-time officer.

Does he work all the year round?

Undoubtedly.

Will the Minister give us an undertaking that in the expenditure of the money we are now voting he will give instructions that the staff handling the fruit traffic are not to stand on the boxes, and will he see that provision is made for the expenditure of enough money to clean the cattle trucks before they are used for the conveyance of export fruit? This morning I received further corroboration of my statement—

The hon. member is now continuing the second reading debate.

I will consider the point mentioned by the hon. member.

I move—

objected.

In speaking for a few minutes on this Bill I intend to follow the example of the Minister and not delve into figures that can more reasonably be dealt with when the Minister brings in his budget. I want to refer to one or two special matters, and with regard to figures, I shall only refer to the two matters brought up by the Minister himself in his brief speech. He said his estimated expenditure for 1927-’28 was £27,438,000 in round figures, and that his estimated expenditure for 1926-’27, including his additional estimates, came to £27,300,000. That means an increase of £138,000, but as £100,000 was under the Public Debt Fund it meant there was only an increase of £38,000. The Minister did not give us exactly a fair comparison, because to bring that figure out it would mean no supplementary estimates and no additional estimates at the end of the year. We shall be lucky indeed if we get neither one or the other. In 1925-’26 the supplementary estimates amounted to £268,000 and this year we had additional estimates of some £350,000 and the year before £270,000. The point about it is this, that in previous budgets we have looked upon the expenditure as excessive. We see, added to the personnel of the establishment 1,141 persons in the new estimates. That is not a very hopeful sign for getting a decrease of expenditure. The other thing was the Minister intimated the estimated surplus at £600,000 for the year and said we could look upon the amount as likely to be considerably exceeded, a statement which was received with loud applause from the other side of the House. From one point of view it is satisfactory but from another point of view it is not satisfactory. One must not look upon the question of having a surplus of revenue as being the sole test of the ability of the Minister. The test of ability in a Minister of Finance is that he should correctly estimate his expenditure, keeping it as low as possible, consistent with good economy, and impose taxation in regard to that amount and no more. When we hear of a surplus of £600,000 it means that too much taxation has been put on the country. It also means the Minister was woefully out in his estimate. Last year he was £900,000 out and this year he is £350,000 out in the estimates of expenditure, and in revenue at least £650,000. It means nearly £1,000,000 of errors in estimating for the finances of the country. The country is therefore being overtaxed unnecessarily. I mention that now because it is the only time it can be of any avail. People say don’t cry out before you are hurt, but my difficulty is why cry out after you are hurt? Perhaps it is not too late even now to urge upon the Minister to take into consideration the question whether or not he can see his way to reduce taxation. I look upon it as a dangerous thing for the Minister to have a big surplus like this, especially in view of the fact that he has a Labour wing to his Government and we know their record with regard to expenditure. The Labour record seems to bear out the remark, “The only money we really have got is what we spend.” I think the Government is suffering from appendicitis and there—the Labour members—is the appendix. There will be no healthy finance in this country until that appendix is removed either by absorbtion or by elimination through a general election. The worst part of it is that these three Labour Ministers opposite are entirely irresponsible. They have lost nearly the whole of the backing they had. If we take the late election the hon. members opposite deliberately worked and contested it not on the basis of Provincial Council politics, but on Union politics. In the Cape Province out of 56 constituencies they have one seat, and in Natal with 25 constituencies, also one.

That is because you prostituted the flag.

In the Free State they have one, and in the Transvaal eight. Here we have those democrats who believe that it is only by having the backing of the people you can rule, but it makes no difference to them. There they sit clinging to office with scarcely any backing whatever. The hon. Minister of Defence faced with a position like that, sits there still smiling and it makes no difference to him. I would like to deal with the Minister of Defence for a moment—the disowned by the people. This hon. gentleman poses in this House as being the real exponent of true British feeling in the House. That might not matter very much here, because we know him and we know what the position is, but there is a danger that his loud speaking may carry conviction in quarters where it may be dangerous. I refer more particularly to the Prime Minister, who might be influenced by the position that this hon. gentleman arrogates to himself in regard to certain other legislation fraught with danger to the goodwill and peace of this country. In my belief the Minister of Defence is no more to be taken as an exponent of true British feeling in this country than I think the hon. and rev. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is to be taken as a true exponent of Dutch feeling. I know the Eastern Province, at any rate; I have lived there for over sixty years and I know the people of the Eastern Province, not the capitalists that the hon. gentleman is always railing at, but ordinary people going about their ordinary avocations and people that are as true to South Africa in word and in deed as any man in any part of this Union—among those people, there is not one man in twenty, there is not one woman in twenty, taking it at a very low estimate, who would accept the Minister of Defence as an exponent of true British feeling.

Why should it be “British” feeling?

“English-speaking South Africans” is four words, whereas “British” is one word, hence I used the term “British.” Perhaps the Minister of Finance will understand that it really means the same thing, but instead of using four words I am using one. If the Minister will allow me, I will use the word “British” as a short term in what I have to say. The Minister of Defence has no defensible right to speak on behalf of British South Africans. These people—I am speaking the part of the country that I know well—would disown him; they would look upon the Minister—well, I would not like to tell him one of the worst things they say of him, but the kindest thing they say of him is that he has a kink. I come to the conclusion that, in my opinion, at any rate, there will be no financial help, no exercise of that economy that no country is rich enough to do without unless we have a break of the Pact and a breaking away from the Labour section. Now as regards this question of the Minister of Defence presuming to speak here on behalf of the British section of the people of South Africa, I would say this, that the Minister is at the present time—

I did not say I spoke for them, but I said I hold as good British traditions as your side, and better.

I understood the Minister to say that he was putting forth the true British South-African view.

Order! I cannot allow a discussion as to what took place in a previous debate. The hon. member may proceed, but he must not refer to the previous debate.

It is not only in this House but outside that these things have been said, and I would say in relation to the Minister of Defence, who is at the present time busily engaged upon an iron and steel industry, that that is not the metal that he understands best. The metal that he understands is brass. I Would like to say a word to the Minister of Labour. I always read with interest what the Minister of Labour says and writes, because I think he is in earnest and he takes things seriously. He takes himself seriously. I have seen articles and speeches by the Minister of Labour telling us of the great content that there is in this country since the Pact came into office.

So there is.

Let us examine into this content for a minute. Let us take it in this House, in his own party, the Labour party. There is the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay)—a fine figure of a contented man. Take the hon. member just in front of him, the member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), there is another contented man. Then there is the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), we know how deeply content he is with everything that is going on in the Labour party. But to crown all, let us take the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). He gives it to us not only in speeches, but in letters also, his deep content with everything that is going on. Let us take the Labour party outside the House and see this great content.

Why should you worry about it?

We see in the papers constantly what is going on in the Labour party, and I came across a quotation quite lately in a paper which I understand has some connection with Labour—“The Workers’ Herald.”

That is not a Labour paper.

It is not a S.A.P. paper and it is not a Nationalist paper.

The Chamber of Mines. It is one of your own propaganda.

It certainly seems to know a great deal about the Labour party. I will give one short quotation—

A Chamber of Mines paper.

It doesn’t matter whose paper it is; it is true.

We may inquire a little further into this content. Let us take the civil service. Is there great content in the civil service? It did not sound like it when we had a motion the other day. Let us take the railways. I do not know whether the Labour members ever read a paper issued by “Nurahs.” I do not see any deep content there. We will take the industrial world, I do not see any very deep content there. The Minister will remember all the deputations that he had in regard to the Wage Bill. In the mining world I think there is a commission sitting now.

Port Elizabeth is doing all right at any rate.

Then let us take the mercantile world, the mercantile world is struggling along with the customs officers with that horribly complicated tariff. I can assure you that there is not much content in the mercantile, world. I do not see any very deep content even in the realms of agriculture. So I come to the conclusion that this deep content that the Minister of Labour gets so eloquent about must be largely in his fertile brain. I admit he has a fertile brain, though it may be a little shallow.

We have not shot anybody lately.

I do not intend to go into any lengthy consideration of financial matters at the present stage, but before sitting down, in case I have not made myself quite clear, I would like to recapitulate that we are being over taxed, and I hope that in any surplus that the Minister may have he will see his way to reduce taxation. I do not think there can be any financial help for this country so long as you have that appendix joined on to the Government. On their record, I can see no financial help to the country under those conditions. The claim of the Minister of Defence as an exponent of true British feeling in this country is a claim that is absolutely without warrant and will only be acted on by the Prime Minister to the great danger of this country.

In about three months’ time the present Government will celebrate the third anniversary of its advent to power and I think we are now able to do a little stocktaking as to the financial results that have flowed from their accession to power. I have been looking up some of the speeches that the Minister of Finance and his late lamented leader, Mr. Fichardt, used to make on the financial position of this country and the alleged financial misdeeds that used to be laid at the door of the late Government. Vituperation almost reached to the stage of frenzy towards the last two or three years of the S.A.P. Government’s regime when Mr. Fichardt got up to address the House on the question of the country’s finances. Especially did he denounce the extravagance of Mr. Burton. He said—

I do not think I need quote the actual speeches because they are familiar to every member of this House, who was in the last Parliament. I have been looking up to see what the figures Were when this Government took office, and when the South African party went out of office. The last Estimates presented by Mr. Burton were presented in January, 1924, and with some additions were taken over by the present Minister of Finance. They totalled at the end of this period of alleged financial extravagance, of which we were told, £23,974,000 and the estimates just filed by the Minister now for the present year, that is, three years later, total £27,437,907; that is to say, in round figures, an increase in three years of 3½ million pounds. I am free to admit that one cannot simply take the two sets of figures; you must ask yourself how this increase has been arrived at, and what are its constituent features. I want to give the Minister credit for certain increases that were either unavoidable or the result of the deliberate action of this House. There is the increase, for instance, of £1,000,000 in the provincial subsidy. That had the approval of this House.

I am glad to hear the House approved of it. It is news to me.

That increase was due to the death-bed repentance of the Minister in his adoption of the Baxter report. “There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. ...” We were glad to see the Minister after, with his party, attacking the report, adopting it. That is why I eliminate from the criticisms I have to make this increase. So also do I eliminate the increase of £600,000 in the amount paid for interest and redemption. So long as we continue to borrow, so long will the annual bill for interest go up. So we take from the 3½ millions increase a sum of £1,600.000. That leaves an increase of £1,900,000, some of the items of which I want to examine this afternoon in the light of the Government’s platform pledges of economy. Let me give some of the items of new expenditure which go to account for this increase. In the forefront I put the Labour Department, which is now costing this country, according to the Estimates for the present year, £279,952.

Much less than it cost before we came to office.

If the Minister can prove that he will be a financial wizard. There was no Department of Labour until the present Government came into power.

It came under mines and industries

I have looked up the items and they come to something less than £50,000. I am dealing with the cost of administering the department, clerks and officials and people of that sort, with the Minister himself at the head, getting £2,500 a year. If the Minister of Labour can prove that his department has resulted in economy, then I say he ought to go down to the Tivoli and give a turn in conjuring, because no one else in this House believes it has resulted in economy. The next two items I have to mention are these—higher education this year is down for £742,923, child welfare £215,214, a total of £958,137 for these two votes. These same two votes in 1923-’24 totalled £529,110, so that in three years, for higher education and child welfare, the expenditure has increased by £429,000, under the regime of the present Government. Side by side with this increase there has been an increase of £1,000,000 for the provincial subsidy spent mainly on education. So one can say that in three years our expenditure on education has gone up 1½ millions. I object to extravagance in education, as I always have objected. The next item is pensions. When we left office, pensions expenditure, according to the last Burton estimates, was £1,857,000. and to-day it is £2,319,000, an increase of £462,000. This is all new expenditure. In agriculture I see they have a new Department of Agricultural Economics, but they have no idea of the meaning of the word “economy,” because I see that that department is costing £25,489, according to this year’s Estimates. The Board of Trade and Industries—as to the value of which different opinions may be held—is costing, with its personnel, secretariat and other expenditure, £14,400. Then there are the trades commissioners. The trade commissioner in London costs just under £6,000; the commissioner of commerce on the Continent costs £8,600; the commissioner in America £6,600, and in Kenya £3,300, so we are spending very nearly £25,000 a year on trade commissioners. A great deal of that is increased expenditure. In 1923-’24 our Assize Department used’to cost us £11.000. Today it costs £21,000. An entirely new item is the Government attorney, who now costs something like £6,000. Also new is the Irrigation Commission, which costs £7,550, and the Wage Board—a particular pet of the Minister of Labour—costs £7,500 a year. Printing and stationery—of all forms of expenditure the one which is the most useless—has gone up £37,000 in three years. If hon. members are interested, and care to turn up the Auditor-General’s report, on page 22, they will see a list extending to half a page of boards, councils, commissions and so forth, for which the public is paying. There are 35 of them altogether, and their total annual cost is £55,000. I expect the Minister will tell me that a large number of these boards were in existence under the old regime, but still I should have thought that a Ministry with that passion for economy which it professed on every possible occasion to have would have seen what it could do towards cutting down their number, and setting its face against the growth of new boards. The trouble is that the minute you create any sort of office, the new official wants an office, possibly a motor-car, and so on. Up goes expenditure on clerks, typists and office boys. I have given some of the heads of the increased expenditure. I submit I have given enough to show that whatever cry of economy and retrenchment they came into office upon, they have signally failed to carry out. They have put up expenditure 3½ millions in three years. I invite the Minister to tell the country how he really is economizing. I want to give one further instance to show how this putting up of expenditure goes on. I had occasion to refer to the Minister’s handling of the question of republican pensions, much to his annoyance apparently. Our criticism was that he had placed a Bill before Parliament which landed this country in a liability, actual or potential, of something like half a million, without having himself any real idea of what the cost was to be, or giving the House any idea. I want to give another instance. I want to say quite plainly that in dealing with this, I am not dealing with the merits of the pensions themselves. The point I want to deal with is the question of the oud-stryders. We have an Exchequer and Audit Act, which gives the Governor-General power, by special warrant, to spend money which has not been voted by Parliament. It is a power which is intended to be exercised very sparingly, and only under extraordinary circumstances. We say—

Towards the end of 1925 there was a Pensions Commission, of which the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was a member, and which, I understand, made certain recommendations to the Minister of Finance to deal sympathetically with the case of the oud-stryders. That is to say, persons who fought on the republican side in the Boer war and were in necessitous circumstances. I venture to say that, had the matter been brought before Parliament in the ordinary and proper way by the Minister, that report would have received the utmost sympathy on this side, but the Minister, without consulting Parliament, or bringing the matter before Parliament, goes and applies for a Governor-General’s warrant, obtains it, and commits the country to expenditure in connection with the oud-stryders. I have the special warrant before me. The reason for issuing the warrant is given in it—that a large number of applications have been received from oud-stryders and their dependants. The proposal is to pay an oud-stryder only, or his widow, 30s. per month, and oud-stryder and his wife 45s. per month, and for each child, 17 years or under, 7s. 6d. per month. The oud-stryders must not be less than 70, and the wives not less than 65 years of age. Nothing is said about urgency. There you have the Minister purporting to give reasons for the urgency of the matter, and laying down the basis on which these people are to be paid. The date of that warrant is the 2nd January, 1926, and Parliament met on the 22nd of January. Twenty days before Parliament meets this country is committed to a policy of giving oud-stryders relief on a definite basis. Was Parliament ever consulted, was a Bill ever brought before Parliament for the amounts to be paid to these people, or their ages ever discussed? There are members who think the amount inadequate, and the age limit too high—what chance did they get? I say it is quite possible that many hon. members on both sides may have thought the amount too much or too little, or the age limit too high or too low, but, taking advantage of a clause in the Exchequer and Audit Act, the Minister obtained this special warrant. The matter did not stop there, and in 1926-’27 an amount of £60,000 was spent on this, and this year the estimate is £90,000. I would not criticize if this expenditure had been brought properly before the House. These amounts seem to be small, but what I object to is the manner in which this was brought about. Parliamentary control of finance will become an absolute mockery if a Minister, under a plea of urgency, can obtain a special warrant like this. In this case the country woke up one day and found itself committed to a policy in this direction. Where is the urgency? These people have been compelled to wait since 1902. Could they not have waited another 20 days? This is another instance of how this Government, which has come into power on a cry of efficiency and economy, and when it was in opposition it was so keen on the rights of members and the privileges of Parliament—this Government is doing things which far transcend the things of which it accused the past Government. On the very day I prepared my notes and took these figures out of the Estimates, I noticed in the “Cape Argus” a report of the state of affairs in the backveld of the country. The lot of the underdog is dealt with from Graaff-Reinet by a writer who has dealt with the conditions on the platteland, and this is what he says—

And yet this Government, which got in as the friend of the poor man and on the vote of the poor man, has this record. It has increased the salaries of hon. members from £500 to £700, increased the number of Ministers, increased the expenditure in the manner I have indicated, pays the chairman of the fruit board a salary of £1,800 per annum, and the chairman of the wage board a salary of £2,250 per annum, and side by side with this you have this condition of affairs on the platteland; and I say the day of reckoning is coming. They asked to be put into office that South Africa should be a better country for the poor man. They have made it a better country for themselves.

I would like to say a few words with regard to this country’s agricultural position. We have been devoting so much time to industries lately, that it seems to me we are neglecting agriculture. We are getting more and more bound in the toils of labour legislation. We have advanced a considerable way at present, and I am wondering how much further we intend going. Are we going as far as England has gone, where labour, led by a few agitators, can hold up and stifle the whole life of the country; or are we going as far along the road as Moscow? I shall have to quote certain figures, and I am sorry that the Minister of the Interior is not here, because it is a very disgraceful thing that our statistics in this country are so behindhand. I mentioned the Year Book a few days ago, and the fact that 1924 is the date of the last Year Book that we have on our library shelves. There we have the Australian Year Book for 1926 and the New Zealand one for the same year, and every other dominion is up-to-date with its statistics. I am compelled to take the 1923-’24 figures, because later ones are not available. The total production is divided into three sections, agricultural, mining and industries; agriculture heads the list with £81,000,000, minerals and mines come next with £54,000,000, and industries £41,000,000. Let me now analyze what agriculture is getting out of this enormous production. To-day’s prosperity depends very largely on the £81,000,000 which the agricultural workers, the farmers of this country, are producing and selling, very largely in the overseas market. The money is distributed right throughout South Africa. The total taxed income of the Union is £66,000,000; of this employment and professions claim £33,000,000, trades and manufactures £15,000,000, mines and sundry investments £16,000,000, while agriculture claims £1,600,000. To-day the trend is to develop industry at the expense of agriculture. I want the House to realize what labour is getting out of the position to-day. For purposes of comparison one has taken the building trade which claims to be the largest employer of labour of any of the subsidiary industries, if I may call it so. These figures are all official, and any hon. member can verify them. The average wages of a first-class artizan are 135s. per week. There is only one country that pays higher wages, and that is America. In one or two centres in America and Canada the wages are higher. Australia pays 105s. a week, and Great Britain 69s. a week for the same service. In this country wages are going up still, the labour screw being turned faster and faster. In other countries, however, wages are coming down; in Australia they are now down to 99s. a week, against 105s. in 1923-’24. The index figures of production per head of labour employed are: Canada, £1,206; New Zealand, £1,003; Australia, £810; and South Africa, £433 only. What a contrast.

That is the building industry.

The average for all production of all industrial labour. This simply means that we are paying an A.l wage for a C.3 labour supply. Yet labour is not satisfied, but is perpetually applying pressure to put wages up, and the effect is to increase cost of production. I want to compare this with the agricultural industry. In 1910 the average weekly wage in the building trade was 97s.; to-day it is 135s., as I have shown. Has the value of farm products gone up in a similar ratio? Not a bit of it. To-day’s scale of values is on a par, or slightly lower, than that obtaining in 1910, the only product showing any material increase being wool. This is the result of allowing labour such a large voice in the counsels of this country. I would not mind at all if this increased industrial prosperity was reflected all round, but it is not, it having a very serious effect on agriculture. With this artificial standard of wages, the man on the land gets the idea that he has only to come into the towns to obtain the wages that labour demands, and the result is that there is an ever-increasing drift from the land to the towns. That is a very vital aspect of the industrial position.

Tell me any other country where the same condition does not apply. Is it not a problem in England and America and Australia?

Not to the same extent as here. Why does not the Minister put his foot down and say he is going to stop it?

You have tried it and not succeeded.

You want to pay 1s. 6d. a day.

I should be sorry to engage the hon. member at 1s. per day. Yet these industries of ours only utilize £18,000,000 worth of South African products against £23,000,000 worth of imported raw material, which is worked up by practically the poorest labour in the world, paid the highest wages. These industries are able to exist only by reason of high protective duties. The worst feature is that almost the whole of the production of our industries is dependent on the £40.000,000 produced by the gold mining industry, which, in itself, is a vanishing one. I ask the Minister where these products are to be sold when the gold mines peter out? Our last position will be worse than our first. The only sound policy is production. Artificial standards of wages will not bring prosperity, but production will give bona fide employment. I am sorry the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) is not in his seat. I suppose he is having a caucus meeting to see what else he can get out of the Government. Recently he put his arms round the neck of the Minister of Railways, and congratulated the Government on the wonderful prosperity it had brought about. He stated that when the present Minister came into office there were 13,000 men on relief works, but to-day there were only 2,000. The exact figures, however, are: June, 1922. 6,890; June, 1923, 4.603; June, 1924, 7,203; and to-day, 2,600. Such inaccurate statements may go down when made at the lower end of Adderley Street, but the hon. member should not make them in this House. The position as regards relief works is gradually improving, but it never was as bad as was indicated by the hon. member. We were told the other day that the average income of our farmers was £100 a year, but it has been computed by other gentlemen that the average is £180 a year, and I should say that was quite a fair average, especially as the Economic Commission puts it at £164. Builders, the masters and men, have entered into an agreement which has been confirmed by the Minister of Labour, and have fixed wages at up to 3s. 4d. an hour; that is very nearly £400 a year. Yet it is the men on the land who are bearing the heat and burden of the day and risking the failure of crops by drought, locusts and other plagues. At the same time, we farmers are allowing the Minister of Labour to determine the wages of workmen at three times what the farmer himself is getting. Take the slaughter men of Johannesburg. I would not take slaughtering as am aristocratic trade, and I cannot imagine even the Labour members of this House adopting it. A first-class slaughter man is to be paid £7 a week, in addition to which he is to receive 10s. worth of meat weekly or its equivalent, and a statutory number of holidays.

That is done under the legislation your Government passed.

But it depends entirely on the Minister’s discretion whether he approves of it.

You passed it, and we have to administer it.

There are different kinds of administration. The Minister of Finance is an attorney, and no doubt he has made up many farmers’ income tax papers. I defy him to tell the House that the average income of a farmer is £400 a year.

Who buys the farmers’ products?

When you get home at hon. members on the cross benches, you always have them squealing?

Are you in favour of low wages?

As to this wage of 1s. an hour for unskilled labour, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet knows that meetings of farmers have been held on this subject, and they have asked him to speak for them, but he has never raised his voice to convey to the House the opinion of the men he represents. These men have raised their voices against this, and they realize that out of the country’s income of £66,000,000 they were only getting 1½ millions, and that it is getting harder to make any income at all. I am sorry the farmers on the other side of the House are not honest enough to get up and give the opinions of those they represent. Events are marching very rapidly, the Labour screw is being turned even faster and I want the House to realize the last determination of the Minister of Labour. The building trade has met together and has fixed a scale of wages at varying rates from 3s. 4d. down to 2s. 9d. per hour, and it lies entirely within the discretion of the Minister of Labour to say where these wages shall be applicable. I will read the circular—

It will be noticed this applies to the farmer.

Then why do I exclude them?

What kind of building does the hon. member expect that only costs £400?

It would be a poor sort of wool shed for that.

Rule 1 says—

If the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) would give us his honest opinion, he would condemn this circular in the same terms as I and other farmers do.

Your own supporters do not condemn it.

That is utter rot. I am glad the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) is here, because he ought to know that if any man puts up a building worth £400 or more in his constituency, he must pay 3s. 4d. an hour for the labour. Take the names included in the schedule: Witbank, Heidelberg, Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, Lindley; they all have to pay the same, and they have to comply with the various restrictions and regulations labour has drawn up.

Would you rather have strikes or labour by agreement? You cannot have it both ways.

I will deal with that later. The Minister has included the greater part of the Karoo—

some of the poorest country, and yet it is country which has to bear this enormous charge which labour has put upon it. Then we come to Albany, King Williamstown, the magisterial areas of Queenstown, Cathcart, Molteno, and even Uitenhage, Lydenburg and Ladybrand— even the young Turks cannot escape—and I think the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) will have a better excuse for the formation of this new party which we hear talked about in the lobbies, in this circular, than he will have for any other reason. In addition to that, 44 hours constitute a week’s work. We farmers who are up with the sun and work until it goes down are going to have a gentleman on the farm strolling round watching us work, and we are going to pay him 3s. 4d. per hour, or three to four times what we are making ourselves. Overtime has to be paid at various rates, time and a quarter, time and a half, and in certain conditions double time. Whilst we are working all day, and Sundays as well, the labourer is going to get 6s. 8d. an hour. There are many restrictions, and I hope the country is noting it, because I shall be sorry if my hon. friends go back home and get run in for not providing a motor-car for the builder to travel home in, according to the regulations. There are all sorts of other restrictions and regulations. I should like to see a “Hansard” containing the acquiescence of the hon. members to this circular, and I would like to read it in their constituencies. I think they will be careful never to support such a circular.

There is more building going on than ever before in South Africa.

In the country districts?

All over.

You are bleeding the country to build in the town, and you are enticing the men away from the country to the town. The worst feature of it is that you have in the country district a large population, which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) rightly describes as handymen, who are doing the building, carpentering and plastering, and they are getting from 10s. to 12s. a day for it, and they are satisfied with it. It is not affluence, but it is a living wage. You are going to drive these men from their employment. You must either pay them 3s. 4d. an hour, or not go on with the building at all. You are taking a step which is going to increase unemployment, and you are stifling development. The farmer’s only hope to-day is to get better results from his land, a greater amount of wool from his sheep, and more crops from the ground, and to get it he requires better buildings, and you are going to check building and progressive farming as nothing else would check it, and it is bound to have a big effect in the way of retrogression in progress in the country.

Read the exemption clause.

I have read it out. The point about under £400 value?

No, not that one.

Well, you will have an opportunity of dealing with it later. There is another little straw showing how the wind is blowing. The Minister of Agriculture values the expert advice of his advisory board at 17s. 6d. a day, but the Minister of Labour values members of the labour advisory council at three guineas a day. That is the estimate of the Labour party, and it epitomizes the opinion of that party to-day. I want the farmer to realize what it means to allow labour to dominate the country. Here is a little extract from a speech by Sir Walter Gilbey, a wealthy man, a man interested in the breeding of horses. The report says—

Why?

Because of labour conditions.

But he made his money out of gin.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) introduced a Bill in this House calling for the control of food prices, not the raising of prices of what the farmers grow—he elaborated State milling—and he advocated high wages and cheap food. It seems extraordinary to me that my farmer friends on the other side can be gulled by the statement from Labour that the development of industries with a bigger home market means prosperity to the farmer. You have in England at the present time one of the biggest home markets, and what is the position of the farmer there? It is a very poor one. Compare the pre-war value of raw materials like iron and coal with the present value, and you will find that it has not varied very much, but what did the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) pay for a plough pre-war. and what is he paying to-day? Before the war he paid £12 10s., and now he is paying £25 for the same plough. It is not due to a rise in the price of the raw material, but the extra £12 10s. has been pinched by his friends on his right. Let us take the position in America. The Australian Government sent over a commission to inquire as to the position of America industrially, and that commission gives a very glowing account of the industrial position there. It is said that in the past six years a substantial fall in the price yield has been accompanied by a substantial rise in money wages. It goes on to speak of the enormous prosperity of the worker in America. There is no doubt that America is in a wonderful position to-day industrially. I want my friends opposite to realize what the farming position is in America to-day. Mr. H. C. Hoover, in the annual report of the Department of Commerce, says that the material condition of the people in the United States rose last year to an unparalleled level, and that the country had attained to the highest standard of living in history. It is a paradise for labour. But the only unsatisfactory aspect of the report is where it is pointed out what low prices the farmers are obtaining for then produce. They have the biggest home market in the world, and yet the farmers get deplorably low prices for their produce. Again, Labour domination.

Their land is too dear.

That may be. My hon. friends on the cross benches, when they talk about unemployment and white labour are always quoting the conditions in Australia. If hon. members opposite will study the Australian Year Book, they will find an ever-increasing drift from the land to the towns, because of the excessive cost of production on the land, due to the various minimum wage Acts and regulations which are being placed on the farmer by Labour in Australia.

Is that the only reason?

That is the reason given by the Australian Year Book, 1926. We are told that there is practically no unemployment in Australia. The position is that of all members of the unions—10 per cent. are unemployed. In New Zealand, a country run by farmers, only 5 per cent. are unemployed. [Time limit.]

I must say that I am much astonished at the silence of hon. members on the Government benches. Are they so well satisfied?

Yes.

The other day we challenged hon. members to say whether they agreed with the stipulation by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in Government contracts that natives should be paid 1s. an hour. Uncivilized labour was to be paid 1s. an hour. I thought that they would take the opportunity this afternoon to also protest against it. I am certain that if they are satisfied, their constituents are not. I expected the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) would take the opportunity. Perhaps that is the reason why he recommends young people to go to Australia instead of remaining here, because our country is no longer any good. I want this afternoon to confine myself principally to the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924.

1923.

Well, 1923 then. And I want to point out how it is being administered by the Minister of Labour. The Minister is unfortunately not in the House at present. It has probably become too hot for him.

He has gone to work.

To prepare the regulations. I should like to point out how severely the regulations react on the countryside. There the position is quite different to that in the big towns. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) asked the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) if he is so very uneasy about it. If the regulations were applied on his farm as they are applied in the Tarkastad district of my constituency, then the hon. member would also feel uneasy. If a house costing £5,000 is built in a large town, then they can always get the money back for it, but if it happens on the countryside then there is never a chance of getting the money back. We therefore see that the conditions in town and country differ very much. I do not say that the prices paid in the large towns are excessively high, but if they are applied on the countryside they press hardly. In the first place, we do not have skilled workmen. On the countryside there are usually no people who have had training like the persons in the large towns, and all this makes conditions on the countryside impossible. The result, accordingly, is that many people have stopped the work on which they were engaged. I am speaking from experience. In my constituency it has happened that people were thrown out of work because the payment was too high, and people could not afford it. The Minister said that the Act was made by the former Government. This shows how a well-meant Act can be abused by a Minister like this.

The Minister must approve what has been agreed to by the people.

Not necessarily. The Minister may approve, hut it does not say that he must. The Act is not a bad one, the Minister is not compelled to approve; he may do it. That is the difference. Now the Minister said that farmers are excluded by the provision that buildings in respect of which materials of less than £400 value are used are excluded from the regulations.

There is another exception.

Which one?

The local committee regulates the matter.

The hon. member says the local committee regulates it. In the case of districts like Sterkstroom and Tarkastad it is regulated by the Queenstown local committee. We are not represented on the committee.

That is your misfortune.

What are we to resort to then? The countryside did not ask for the regulations. The position at Tarkastad, e.g., is not like that in East London and Port Elizabeth, and therefore I feel that the Act presses very severely, especially on the farming population. The Minister says that he has excluded houses under £400. Where does the Minister find authority to say so? I do not see that he can do so according to the Act. The Act merely says in Section 1—

It is, I think, quite plain what the intention of the Act was. The intention was to exclude the farmers, and the Minister is now confusing the matter to hon. members opposite by saying that houses under £400 are excluded. I can assure the House that the Act operates hardly on the countryside. We have not got trained workmen, and anyone who takes up a hamme or handles a trowel comes under the regulations, and has to be paid 2s. 9d. per hour, in some parts even 3s. 4d. per hour. The building of houses is being stopped. People cannot continue. I ask the Minister of Finance to use his influence in having the Act repealed It was clear when the Bill was drawn that the intention was to exclude the countryside. The Minister of Labour says that when only two persons are employed they are excluded, but what can one do with two workmen?

Not much with two natives.

my hon. friend is better at writing letters. Perhaps my hon. friend uses natives.

You employ them.

Now another thing. I understand the Act. It is clear. If the hon. member went among the farmers a little, he would see what was going on and what the position was.

Name one farm where the work has been stopped.

At Tarkastad

Mention a name.

Let the hon. member come to that town and see. The regulations are absolutely ridiculous. They say, e.g., that the employer must give the workmen tea twice a day. It must be tea, coffee is not mentioned in the regulation. If he gives coffee, he is acting contrary to the law. Then it states that a “boy” must bring the tea. In the Afrikaans version the word is “native.” Therefore, if a white man is used for the purpose, it is illegal. There is another matter of great importance in connection with the Land Bank Act which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. The Act in question was altered some years ago, so that a loan is registered against the title deeds of the succeeding owner. It happens, however, that the Deeds Office refuses to pass transfer of such a farm. There was a case in my constituency where a man had obtained money from the Government under the settlement scheme, and he sold a part of his farm with the approval of the Lands Department. It took months, however, before he could obtain the title deeds. The difficulty was that the Deeds Office would not allow the transfer to go through before the loan of about £60 for wire had been paid off. I hope the Minister will alter this, because in this instance the man had to borrow money from the bank to pay the debt. The Minister made the promise that arsenic pentoxide intended for the eradication of prickly pear would come in free from import duty, and I hope he will see his way to give this retroactive force. The eradication of prickly pear causes heavy expense to the farmers, and the import duty of 20 per cent. presses heavily on them and increases the expense. Many farmers would prefer to have supply depots established in the country. Arsenic pentoxide is used most successfully, and the granting of my request will be of great value in my constituency. Another matter of great importance is the erosion of ground Mention was made in a former debate of the severe drought by which a large part of the country is being tried, but it is certain that we have not yet got to the root of the evil. The erosion of ground is one of the chief causes of the difficulty, because I do not believe that the rainfall is less than it was 30 or 40 years ago. To-day, however, the water runs away more easily to the sea. I would recommend the Government to circulate a summary of the Drought Commission report among the farmers, so that they can see what influence the washaways of ground have upon the matter of water conservation. The Drough Commission made recommendations against the trampling down of the veld, and the Minister of Agriculture will render a great service if he brings it more closely to the notice of the farmers, so that they will be warned against the danger. The poll tax on natives is another matter the farmers in my constituency object to and I hope the Minister of Finance will see his way to abolish it, especially in the Eastern Province. I do not believe the poll tax brings in very much, because the large majority cl the natives have not yet paid.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has pried into the question of the oud-stryders. I have no objection to his prying into anything this Government does, particularly the oud-stryders, but what I would like the hon. member to do is to inform the House correctly. He stated, when dealing with the Governor-General’s warrant, that a question had arisen which had never been before Parliament before, that Parliament had not authorized it, and that it was a departure from principle. Is it not a fact that this question was raised when the Government warrant was issued on the 9th December, 1925, for £5,000, and that this warrant was covered by the additional supply vote of 1925-’26? Why did the hon. member not raise the question then on a matter of principle Why does he say this is something entirely new now? This £30,000 was simply an extension of the amount which was necessitated. I wonder whether the hon. member knows the conditions of the country and on what the money had to be spent? People and children were in very necessitous circumstances, were indigent and starving. Is the hon. member prepared to say that these people ought to have gone on starving? Another question he raised was that of pensions, and that the Auditor-General had drawn attention to the large increase. If he had told the House truly he would have told it that the amount the Government was committed to was £2,082,000; railways, £728,000; and teachers’ salaries, £183,000; or a total of £3,000,000 per annum. That is the amount to which the Government is committed—not the total amount of pensions. Who is responsible for this tremendous pension list? The high-water mark of which list was reached in 1919, when this Government was not in power and that is from the Auditor-General’s report. Let the hon. member come to the House with an honest proposal; for instance, with one to reduce these pensions, by 25 per cent. all round. That would be something for the Government to go upon. A little bit more honesty from the other side would help us more, and we would get further. Another question to which the hon. member drew attention was these numerous boards. He even mentioned one board in which he is very much interested—the Asylums Board. I do not want to suggest anything to the hon. member, but I do suggest, when he brings up these old boards and rakes them up as if they were something new, as far as this Government is concerned, he goes outside of his functions as future Minister of Finance of the other side. We shall have ample opportunities of discussing the diamond question when the Consolidated Precious Stones Bill comes before the House. But I would warn the Government not to be carried away with the boosting in the press regarding the terrible danger facing the country owing to the increased production of diamonds. One fact looms up very largely, and that is that the price of diamonds is higher to-day than it has ever been. The principal danger is that there are eighty diamond buyers on the alluvial fields, and sixty of them are buying for outside people, and, as far as I can see, the Diamond Syndicate has burst. I ask the Government to remember that there are a large number of diggers who are living on the diamond fields, and who will be thrown on their hands if the alluvial diggings are closed.

I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in a discussion of the diamond question. I find no fault with his suggestion that the Government should consider all sides of the question. I wish to refer to a subject on which I think we should have had some information from the Government before now, and that is the result of the Imperial Conference. We have heard nothing about that from the Prime Minister or other members of the Government since a few days after the Prime Minister returned. The Ministers who represented other dominions at the conference have made full statements to their various Parliaments—they have certainly done so in the case of Ireland and Canada. The subject is one which does require an account from the Prime Minister and, perhaps, the Minister of Finance, who went to England with him, and it will be of great interest to hear from them some account of the proceedings, and of what they think has been attained, and some indication as to the extent to which they intend to go to give practical effect to the recommendations made by the conference. This information is all the more due because there is very little doubt that when the representatives of the different dominions went to the conference most of them expected that the main things to be discussed would be questions of economics. Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, laid great stress on the opening day of the conference on the importance of what he called the economic trade development, and said that it was time the conference got down to practical business. There has been a good deal of criticism of this conference on the ground that the greater part of its time was devoted to settling the question of the status of the different dominions. The exact wording of the report, as regards the position of the dominions, says—

Most of us thought that this was already the position, and was fully recognized both in England and the dominions. We knew, however, that when the Prime Minister spoke on the subject last session he was not satisfied on that point. I am not sorry that that question was raised and some finality has been reached upon it, for there is no doubt whatever that the economic side of the question can be much better dealt with, and much more solid results can be obtained when all the members of the British commonwealth of nations are agreed and satisfied as to what the particular status of the dominions is. So long as there was any uncertainty on that point, there would be very little common action in regard to giving effect to inter-imperial trade relations and mutual cooperation for defence and other purposes. I am not going to say that I regret that all this time was spent on the question of status, for it was worth that if it satisfied the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and if it satisfied, as it did, the Ministers representing the Irish Free State. Now we may get down to practical business. I admit that the Prime Minister of Canada seems to have taken the same view as that to which our Prime Minister gave expression. He said it was one of those great charters which has stood in one form or another for our freedom. We must all see that that great charter was already in existence, and my view is very well expressed by the Irish Minister for External Affairs, who, in the Irish Assembly, said that the new system gives exact expression to existing realities. We were satisfied with the existing realities, but the Prime Minister was not satisfied. It is quite true that there were certain antiquated legal forms in existence, and most of these questions have been referred to a committee on which the dominions are represented. These legal forms have come down from a period in which the independent status of the dominions was not recognized to anything like the same extent that it is now. It is quite plain that all these questions were, in reality, questions of form, and now that they are in a fair way of being settled, and the necessary alterations in legislation and notification to the League of Nations and foreign nations are being made, all these difficulties will be removed. I have nothing but admiration for the speeches which the Prime Minister made in England. I have told my constituents that I cannot see a single word to object to in any speech he made there, and I am very glad we are all agreed on this point. Of course, it is quite easy to pick holes in the situation which exists. Nothing could be easier. It is easy to say we have now half a dozen independent countries, and the King has to act on the advice of the Ministers of these independent countries. It might happen there was a great difference of opinion between the Ministers, and, consequently, a great difference in the advice given by such Ministers. It is a difficulty which might arise. Although the status of the different members of the British commonwealth has been accurately defined, there could be cases, de facto, because of the superior weight of metal, if one can use the phrase, where one member of the commonwealth, stronger in men and in finance, would naturally take the lead, in certain aspects of the policy of the whole. There is no doubt the position which has now been recognized does, to some extent, increase the responsibility, and also the influence of his Majesty the King. A great deal more is to be left to his personal judgment and authority. I do not find any fault with that myself. There is no reason why the whole machine should not work properly. The whole thing rests upon mutual goodwill and the existence of a general desire to co-operate. That has been the position for many years past. Any dominion which had no wish to co-operate could make agreements between England and Other dominions impossible. We have the Prime Minister’s assurance made publicly that it is the desire of himself and his colleagues to cooperate in the fullest sense, and I, for one, accept the assurance, and am glad that it has been made. It seems to me it is not merely a question of sentiment, although with some of us sentiment weighs to a greater extent than with others, but it is a question of mutual advantage. If, in belonging to the British commonwealth of nations, we belong to an organization which has most influence in preserving the peace of the world, then without that we could not have peace or prosperity. We have only to compare the position of this dominion with that of an independent state. There is no question our influence is infinitely greater under those conditions than that of any independent state. In order to make a success of the arrangement, there must be practical machinery, because it is obvious that this cannot possibly work unless there is the fullest co-operation, the fullest desire to co-operate, and, at the same time, some practical machinery to give effect to that co-operation. The first thing, I think, is that each dominion must see that it is represented by a man of the highest possible status to be found, in London. I do not want to criticize our representative in London, but, at the time he was appointed, this question had not come to the front, and when his time expires, I take it the Government, whichever Government is in power, will see they have a representative with the fullest qualifications for the purpose. It follows that as the Governor-General is no longer bound to report or expected to report to the British Government, obviously there should be a distinct and separate representative of the British Government in each dominion. I do not know the views of the Prime Minister on that subject. It would be interesting to hear his views on the best methods of creating this machinery. Also, it is obvious, where you have a number of Governments, able to contract obligations with foreign powers, in consultation with other interests, that if there is not the closest co-operation and care exercised, a situation might be found to arise which will create big difficulties. With regard to treaties and questions relating to foreign policy, these must be the subject of previous consultation, and for that purpose, the dominions should be as well represented as possible in London, and the British Government should be fully represented in each of the dominions. It was admitted before that if any dominion chooses, it can send a representative to any foreign country or other dominion. Canada and Ireland have got their representatives at Washington. The Canadians are in contact with the United States of America concerning every question of trade interest from day to day, and Ireland has an extraordinarily large number of people born in Ireland, living in the United States of America, but while it is obvious that we can have representatives of the Union in foreign capitals, in many cases, I think it would be waste of money. I saw the other day the High Commissioner in London was interviewed on the subject, and he made a statement that the matter would be carefully considered by the Government, and it was possible that appointments of this kind would be made. I have no idea whether this interview was given on instructions from here, and that is a subject upon which we should like information. Then there is the important question of defence. I see the conference reaffirmed the resolutions of the conference of 1923, and one of the resolutions of the conference of 1923 was that each dominion, as far as possible, should look after its own local defences. I do not know that we are doing very much here. We are doing something, no doubt. We have received great assistance from the British Government in the way of material after the war, but I think something more should be done, and if our finances are going to be in as favourable a position as members say, then the question that there is no money will not be such an absolute, stone-wall obstacle as in the past. I was glad the Minister of Finance in London said there would be full co-operation with Great Britain on aerial matters. It will be interesting to know what is being done. There is also the purely economic side. The report says there was an interesting discussion on the economic question, and there was a strong desire on the part of all Governments represented to study methods of encouraging further development of empire trade. That, I think, is a very satisfactory statement. I quite admit that the Government of this dominion or any other dominion cannot do everything. A great deal must depend on the wishes, peculiarities and inclinations of the general public, and other considerations. The conference also said that the question of what the Governments were doing or could do was a very important factor. I am much more happy about that position than I was a week ago. I put some questions the other day to the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance as to what proportion of the requirements of the railways and other Government departments which have been imported in the last three years have been imported from England and other dominions and from foreign countries and, so far as the various government departments other than the railways were concerned, I think the answer was very satisfactory. So far as the railways were concerned, of course, the answer was not so satisfactory, because the figures showed that the proportion of goods imported from foreign countries had risen by leaps and bounds, had more than doubled during the last two years. I do not want to go again into that subject, after the discussion we have had during the last week. We have had what I think and say again is a very satisfactory statement from the Minister of Railways when he said, as far as the Government are concerned—

We cannot ask for anything more than that. I was very glad to hear the Minister say straight out that he entirely disapproved of what the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) had said in that connection, and the only regret I have, as far as that question is concerned, is that the Minister of Defence, who had an opportunity of doing so, did not equally show his disapproval.

I said I entirely disagreed with the hon. member for Winburg.

The hon. member (Sir Drummond Chaplin) must not deal with the previous debate.

I think the position is much more satisfactory than it was, because I consider that it is not unfair to say that, at any rate, to many of us on this side it did appear that until recently the Government had since it came into office made a dead set against trade with England. I think the events of the last few days have shown that, at any event, as far as the quality of goods is concerned, we shall not lose very much if we deal with the people who take the best part of our goods. I hope the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues will tell us a little more of the intentions of the Government for giving effect to this machinery and the resolutions to which they are a party. The other dominions apparently are taking practical steps—Canada, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand— but the only thing that I can see that our own Government are doing is that they have invited the empire forestry conference to be held in South Africa in 1933. I hope that that is only an indication of what is going to be done. I do not want to find fault with anything that has been said on the subject, because I think the statements which have been made are perfectly satisfactory. What I do want is to have some indication of the actual steps which the Government propose to take in the near future to give effect to the recommendations of the conference to which they have been parties. I that during this debate or before long we shall receive some information on that subject.

As it seems to me that the hon. the Prime Minister is not going to give us a special day to discuss the Indian Agreement, I would like to say a few words about it now. I have said the Indian Agreement, but, as I look at it, it is no agreement at all, because in an agreement one expects that both parties would give up something. As far as I can see, this is an agreement where we have given away almost everything and received nothing in return. The Minister of the Interior has made an appeal to the patriotism of this House and the press to say nothing which would tend to wreck, I think he put it, the best results of the conference. The—

is rather good. I would like to know “best results” for whom. It is very difficult to remain calm and to restrain one’s language when you notice that we have been outwitted at every turn, that the policy, our policy, certainly the policy of the Transvaal, O.F.S. and Natal, has been reversed and has suffered defeat. I can only say what flashed into my mind when I heard the astounding declaration of the Minister, and I said to myself—

I think I am not prepared to modify that on further consideration. I would like to call the attention of the House as to how this matter really started. I think it is fair to say that it started with the introduction of the Class Areas Bill in this House in 1924 by the late Government, and I remember that the burden of the criticizm of the then Opposition was that it was a milk and watery measure, that the measure did not express the opinion of the white people in South Africa, which was largely that the Indians should go. They agreed to the second reading of the Bill, or would agree to it for one reason, and that the principle of segregation was established. I remember the speech of the present Minister of Lands, in which he said that the proper policy to follow would be to compensate and repatriate the Indians even if it cost the Government millions of money, but as this law contained the principle of segregation, of which he was strongly in favour, he would support the second reading. Well, what is this agreement? There is no segregation, and still the Minister of Lands sits there and does not say a word. I have said we have given away almost everything. It is true that the Minister has not given away the prohibition in the Transvaal as regards the Indian buying land. I suppose we must be duly thankful for that. But I say it is a one-sided agreement, a one-sided arrangement, and you will see it at once if you take the headings to the summary of conclusions in the three chapters—

1. (1) The scheme of assisted emigration.
2. (2) Entry of wives and minor children of Indians.
3. (3) Upliftment of the Indian community.

Where is our chapter? Where do we come in? Not a word.

Are you speaking for your party?

What has that got to do with it? I am speaking for myself. I suppose the Minister will tell us that we are getting the benefits of Chapter 1. What a farce! On the one hand we want the Indian to go. We are providing him with £50, a free passage and free railage from the port to his place of destination. On the other hand, we are going to make things as nice and comfortable as we can for him in this country, more comfortable, I venture to suggest, than in his own country, or probably anywhere else in the world. And yet we hope he will leave, and he will go for good. You will note that the delegation of the Government of India does not even undertake to advise and encourage Indians to avail themselves of these facilities or to leave the country under the assisted emigration scheme. I should have thought that at least that stipulation would have been contained in this summary of conclusions. The Minister smiles. I would like to ask him how many Indians are going to leave the Transvaal under this scheme?

Wait and see.

It is not necessary to wait and see. I know more about it than the hon. member there. I say that not one of the Indians that we want to leave, not one of the trading class, is going to leave the Transvaal.

Why must the trading class leave, and not the others?

It is the trading class we want out of this country, as the Minister knows. If the Minister had the trading class in the Free State he would not be so callous about the matter. I think I should make one exception. I think from the Transvaal one class will go, the decrepit adult who cannot earn his living. I see, under this summary, we shall pay the decrepit Indian who leaves the country a pension in India for life.

Why do you misrepresent it?

That is how I read it. The law says that a discrepit adult who leaves here will obtain a pension in India.

What about “must”—you leave it out now.

What I say is this: The man that will leave is probably: One, the decrepit adult who is going to receive a pension in India from our Government.

Must he receive it?

It says here that an amount of not more than £500 per annum will be spent upon it. I am not surprised it touches the Minister on the raw, because there is not a white man in this country that gets the same pension, except the soldier. The second man that will leave is the Indian who wants to marry in India and bring back his wife, and so increase the Indian population in this country. The third man who is likely to leave is the man who wants a holiday, not shorter than a year, on money advanced to him free of interest with rail fare, etc., and he can come back. I can foresee that many of my Indian friends are going to make use of that provision. If a man should want to come back after a year, and there is special hardship, and he cannot refund the money, the Minister has the discretion (perhaps a Kind-hearted Minister, like the present occupant) to order that that money need not be refunded. I wonder, is the Minister relying on the good faith of the Indians to carry out this agreement? I would like to say at once that I accept the good faith of the gentlemen who negotiated this agreement on the Indian side without question or reservation, but our experience of the Indian of the Transvaal is that he has been out to do us from the beginning, and he will do us to the end of time. I say the trading class in the Transvaal is a parasite on the community. They have come in after the white man and wherever he has tried to create trade they have slowly, but surely, wrested that trade from him. We have tried to keep him out of the country; we have tried to segregate him, but he has fought us, first under the protection of the mighty arm of Great Britain—I am speaking of the republican days—and since then he has found means to get round every law we have, often, unhappily, with the assistance of the white man. But what does make one’s blood boil about this arrangement is the fear shown of hurting the susceptibilities of the dear Indian. On the question of domicile, the Indian is supposed to leave, and he can come back in three years’ time. If he does not come back in three years’ time he loses his citizenship, but in order not to hurt his feelings, we are all to lose our citizenship if we leave this country for longer than three years. I shall be very glad to hear if I am wrong. As I read the position, the Minister will have to introduce legislation to that effect. I hope he will do it this session; we shall probably have something to say about it. But it is when you come to Chapter 3, the upliftment of the Indian community, that you are inclined to rub your eyes and read again, because here we find our Government apologizing to India for the narrowness and backwardness of our people. They would like to do these things, but they cannot do it—

One is inclined to say: Thank God for the provincial councils and municipalities, because I do not know what would have happened if the Union Government had not divested themselves of certain powers. We would have lost very much more than we have to-day. It goes on—

I am wondering about the colour bar. Is it too soon to run away from it? What about the proposal in the Liquor Bill where the Minister of Justice lays down that Indian waiters will be allowed in certain hotels in Natal, but in that case hotels will be charged double licence fees. I think, when you come to sub-section 4 of the last paragraph, that is really the last straw. It states—

What does the Minister mean by this? Did he have his tongue in his cheek?—

1. (1) The grounds on which a licence may be refused should be laid down by statute;
2. (2) the reasons for which a licence is refused should be recorded;
3. (3) there should be a right of appeal in cases of first applications and transfers, as well as in cases of renewals, to the courts, or to some other impartial tribunal.

I wonder whether the Minister and the Government mean what they say here? Are they prepared to put that amount of pressure on the provincial councils that will be necessary to get that through?

Do they say that?

If they do not say that I am afraid to say what I think of the Government’s standpoint. Have they let the Indian delegation down? If not that, what do they mean? I say they do not dare to put that amount of pressure on the provincial councils to carry this. I would like them to get the Transvaal and Natal to advise the municipal councils to repeal that law. If they do not mean that why say so to the delegation? I can see the Indian Government say—

I have said enough to show that the policy of this country has been reversed, and it has suffered defeat in the severest manner. And by whom? By the party which promised—

That is what the Minister of Justice said even after the elections. At Wakkerstroom, on 25th November, 1925, the Minister of Justice said—

In July, last year, when our delegation was in India, or just about to go, the Minister of Justice at Lydenburg said, on the 24th—

Your election promises were worse. I do not think hon. members on the other side will seriously contend that they did not say—

In August of last year the Minister of Justice at Potchefstroom said—

I ask the Minister of Justice—

He said this only a year ago. The Minister remains sitting in the Government that has negotiated this agreement. I cannot understand his mentality. Take the Minister of Lands, who interjected a minute ago. He was the vice-chairman of the Anti-Asiatic League together with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and myself.

I was only a delegate to the congress, but I was not vice-president.

I must, of course, accept the Minister’s word, but he will not deny that he was in sympathy with the Anti-Asiatic League, took a leading part and moved a resolution that the Asiatic had to go.

Was that an election promise? I thought you said we made promises before the election.

Have you two sets of promises?

What I do not understand is that the Minister of Lands, having expressed those opinions, and I believe, still having those opinions, calmly sits in the Government which has made this arrangement. Take the Minister of Agriculture, who said in Wolmaransstad—

Do you want it?

I want people to be true to their promise.

Why complain then?

The hon. member who has spoken I do not take notice of. I would like to have asked the three Labour Ministers how they stand, but they have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. Do the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance take such a calm view of the matter because there are no Indians in the Free State? I do not think I am saying too much when I say that the manifesto of the Prime Minister in 1924 contained one point—the repatriation of Indians— and he owes the country some explanation. I am rather afraid to say it, but I will take the chance, and say—

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has spoken this afternoon about the Wages Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act. He has mixed the two, just as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did in 1925. He was then already engaged in misleading the people, I will not say intentionally, but possibly because he also did not properly understand the Bill. The hon. member for Standerton will remember that in 1925 he pointed out that the Act was the cause of increased wages, and in this connection he mentioned the case of a man who was sentenced to pay £27. The man was sentenced under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and not at all under the Wages Act, which at that time was not yet in force. The same happened with other hon. members on the countryside. They told our friend on the countryside that as a result of the Wages Act, wagons and carts had already become dearer, although the Wages Act was then not yet in operation. To-day also reference is being made to conditions which are not attributable to the Wages Act. In the Paarl, for instance, the employers, long before the Wages Act had passed the House, met to decide upon prices, and, of course, when the cost of living had become higher, the workmen got more, in consequence of which the prices of wagons and carts went up. I just want to point out how these matters are confused by hon. members, and even by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I now come to the Industrial Conciliation Act. If the hon. member for Standerton, when he was Prime Minister, had not merely allowed things to develop as in 1922, then the Industrial Conciliation Act would never have been passed. We know why the Act was passed, with the object, of course, of preventing strikes, but there is something in the Act with which I do not agree—I am no blind follower of the Government, and when I see faults I point them out. This is a case where I do not agree with the Minister concerned. I think the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has already pointed it out. We know that the National Industrial Council has been established in Pretoria under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and that all parts of the country have the right to make application for the creation of local boards. In this way, one has been established in Cape Town, e.g., which extends quite out to Bellville, and the result is that people outside are obliged to pay the workmen on the Cape Town scale, notwithstanding the fact that the cost of living is, of course, higher in Cape Town. This is absolutely wrong, and the same applies also to the case mentioned by the hon. member, where the authority of the Queenstown local committee extends as far as Cradock. The cost of living is greater in Cape Town than in Bellville, and in Queenstown than in the country districts as far as Cradock. Therefore, I want to urge that separate local boards should be established for suburban places such as Goodwood, Bellville, etc. At my place outside a person is possibly prepared to work for 1s., but he must be paid 2s. 9d., because the Cape Town Wages Board has fixed that amount. It is in our interests for this alteration to be made. Then I want to say something about the 1s. an hour for unskilled labour. As regards this. I see the object, and agree with it as to the larger towns, but it is wrong for the countryside. I am also glad to learn with regard to the countryside that only one contract with this stipulation has been given out. Then there are two other small points. When I was a member of this House in 1920, I was second on the list with the irrigation scheme of Windsorton-Barkly West. It was the second on the list of recommendations, and ought to have long since been carried out. I hope the day will soon come now, and that the Minister will pot wait for the irrigation board to go on with this scheme. Then another thing in connection with the stream of diggers going to Lichtenburg. A Precious Stones Bill is shortly to be introduced, but in the meantime I want to suggest something to the Minister. He should try to get some of the people away from there, so that there is not too great a concourse. There is magnificent irrigable ground in my constituency, but because the ground has already been worked as diggings, the people go to Lichtenburg. I hope the Minister will proclaim the 93 morgen at Delpoortshoop—he knows what I am talking about—so that the concentration at Lichtenburg can be partially relieved. It will be said that then still more ground will be thrown open, but there will be no rush fiasco there, and you have all the facilities there that Barkly West has. I shall speak about this again at the second reading, and point out how the diggers do not possess the claims, but that large owners get hold of them. With regard to the Indian question, some remarks have been made. It makes me think of the agreement in relation to the importation of Rhodesian cattle. It is surely much better to settle a matter by give and take as to make the relations with a country completely hostile. Much was said at the time about the promise we were supposed to have given in relation to the prohibition of the importation of Rhodesian cattle. As to myself personally, it was one of the points in my manifesto, but do all the wiseheads opposite now deny that it is better to regulate a matter amicably than to become bad friends with our neighbours? We have, however, got so far that the importation has become considerably less. In 1923—if I am right in the year—the importation from Rhodesia was 33,000 cattle, and I see for the last six months for which figures are available, only 4,700 came in. Is not better, then, to attain your end by friendly means, that only about 8,000 cattle are imported in place of 33,000, than to have our neighbours hostile to us, and yet not to attain our end? In the case of India, much has been said about the difficulties we should cause to Great Britain. That we have now avoided, and attained our end by friendly means, and not broken the good relations with a country with which our trade will possibly increase a good deal.

I want to say right away, go far as the Asiatic question is concerned, I regard it as one of the questions to be dealt with unbridled by party politics. It is a national question, and one on which each member should be allowed to express his opinion unadulterated by any other influence. In my opinion, the native question is not such a difficult question to handle, and not fundamentally so dangerous to the future of the white civilization of the country, as the Asiatic question. The native can be assimilated into our civilization. They will, I believe, probably more rapidly become assimilated into our western civilization than we realize, but does any member of the House believe we are going to assimilate the Asiatics of this country into our western civilization and get him to conform to western standards of life? This agreement contemplates that the Asiatic will conform to the western ideas of life. I want to show it is hopeless and impossible to believe the Asiatic will so conform. We have got to realize that the Asiatic comes from a civilization older than our own civilization, that he has an uncompromising religion surrounded by its castes, its class distinctions, its language, its difference in colour and mode of thought, all totally different from our own Eastern civilization is so deeply rooted in the marrow-bones of every Asiatic, that I say emphatically you will never get him to adopt western civilization or standards of life. I hope to show how seriously they will affect the civilization of this country. If there ever was a question requiring clear thinking, and clear seeing, it is the Asiatic question. I am going to express exactly what my feelings are, and, in doing that, I am representing the feelings of 95 per cent. of the European population of Natal. It has got to a stage in Natal when every white man realizes that our self-preservation is the matter which has to be considered first and foremost. It is not a question of patriotism, of peace and goodwill, but a question of self-preservation, and I say we are entitled to throw aside many considerations which we would have to consider in the ordinary course of events. There is a considerable distinction between our wider patriotism, which we in South Africa have to adopt, and the question of considering our own self-preservation. Not only the self-preservation of the landowners, but of every worker in Natal. What I say here I say from the depths of my heart. It is what I feel. I don’t want the House to think I am talking for political purposes. In a national question of this sort, South Africa cannot allow outside interference, if there was ever a question where the doctrine of South Africa first has to be considered and given its fullest effect, it is this very problem we are dealing with here. It is a question where we cannot birk outside interference. We must deal with the problem firmly and justly from our own South African point of view. I say that no statement made by a responsible Minister in this House was received with greater disappointment in Natal, and, I think, in South Africa, than the statement made by the hon. Minister when he told us what the arrangements were that had been come to with the Indian delegation. There has been no greater brilliant diplomatic victory of any delegation to any country than the victory attained by the Indian delegation to this country. I will deal just now with the brilliant diplomatic victory attained by the Indian delegation.

When the House adjourned I was dealing with the question of the agreement which had been come to between the Minister and the Indian delegation, and I say that when one reads the statement made by the Minister when he introduced the Class Areas Bill and one understands the empty and meaningless objective of the agreement how come to, those of us who are familiar with this problem and who are every day taught to realize its import have a full sense of the difficult question that we have to face. The country, and certainly Natal, realizes that so far as this question and also other questions are concerned, we do not feel safe in the hands of the Minister. There has been a total lack of understanding by the Minister of this problem; he has not understood the deep-seated feeling of the people of Natal, who are most concerned in this problem. This agreement, I hold, is a one-sided agreement. It has been called an agreement of peace and goodwill, but I maintain that it is an agreement which is sacrificing the interests of the people of Natal. Better a hundred times that the Minister had never touched this question and allowed the status quo to remain until we had got a Minister to deal with it who fully understood it. I say that the Minister has been jockeyed, has been forced into a funk-hole by the Indian delegation; the delegates, with their masterminds of Asiatic ingenuity, forced the Minister into a funk-hole, and from that funk-hole has been moulded this half-baked, ill-considered, hare-brained agreement. There is not one item, not one declaration in this agreement which in any way seeks to protect the white civilization so far as Natal is concerned. I invite the Minister to indicate one item in this agreement which provides for any protection against this unmerciful penetration which is going on in Natal? The Asiatic is gradually undermining the economic structure of our European civilization, and penetrating into every phase of life in Natal. This question not only touches the trader and the man on the land, but it touches even the men who are working in the ordinary industries. I say that, with the education which the Indian is receiving to-day, and the further facilities contemplated under the agreement, and his gradual advancement, he is becoming a menace to the European population in Natal in the industries and every other phase of life. Under this agreement he is to be allowed, unhindered and unfettered, to continue with this deadly penetration that is going on. The weapons which he already has are to be sharpened, the slaughtering is to continue, and he is to be assisted under this agreement in this process of gradual penetration which, with a fixed purpose, is being carried on in Natal and, in a smaller degree, in the Transvaal. I notice that the Minister has been described by the Asiatics as a godly man. I only wish he would apply this godliness to a large section of the European population in this country, whose traditions and feelings are being disregarded. All the hopes of the people of Natal which were built up on promises made to Natal by the Nationalists, on the declarations at public meetings and manifestos, have been jettisoned. I heard the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), in my own native town in Natal, holding forth how, if the Nationalists got into power, they would solve the problem by prohibiting the purchase of land, etc. I would point to a resolution which was moved by the present Minister of Lands at a congress which was held in the town hall, Pretoria, in 1919. He was not satisfied with the resolution which had been moved by the previous speaker; it was too mild for him. This is the resolution which he proposed and which was passed—

Has the Minister of Lands changed his opinion since then? I take it that this resolution which was moved by the Minister was moved seriously. I say this, and I say it deliberately, that so far as Natal is concerned, we have no politics on this question. Every Nationalist, every Labour man, and every South African party man stands united. Those of us who are the sons of the old voortrekkers arid British pioneers realize that we have a responsibility—we have a responsibility as trustees of the inheritance which has been handed to us by our forefathers, those grand old men who faced terrible dangers and untold privations that this may become a white man’s country. I say that we are determined to preserve that inheritance which they handed to us and which we intend to hand over to our descendants. We will fight to the bitter end, and we will win out. We are not going to be sullied by cowardice, and we are not going to run into a funk-hole like the Minister, whom I charge with entering into an agreement which is no agreement at all so far as the people of Natal are concerned. The Minister of Lands—and I say it in all sincerity—has changed his views since he has come into contact with the Pact. Let me read what the Minister of Labour said when this matter was discussed in this House some years ago. He said quite a different thing from what the Minister of Lands said. The Minister of Labour said—

I want to know from the Minister of Lands whether he subscribes to that declaration. I hope the Minister will be man enough to tell us exactly what his views are, so that we can know whether his views have changed since he spoke at Pretoria. I notice it has been declared in India that the Asiatics under this agreement have made a long stride forward in getting equal rights, and if only they would have patience the time would come when they would possess full political and civic rights. That is, I take it, the object of Asiatics in this country, and there is no doubt that under this agreement there has been a considerable step forward in this direction. I put it to the Minister whether he believes that under this scheme he will be able to withstand the demand of the Asiatics for full political rights.

What scheme?

Of uplifting the Asiatic, of giving him further facilities for educating himself. Does the Minister know the percentage of Asiatics being educated in their own country? There are not more than 5 per cent. So far as Natal is concerned, there are over 40 per cent. of Asiatic children receiving education in public schools. I have another complaint to make. I want to know from the Minister why he did not consult the people of Natal, who are deeply interested in this question? I say the Minister has not acted fairly to the people of Natal.

You can challenge the agreement; it has not been approved.

I am challenging it, but I say that once having made the agreement you have indelibly compromised our position. It would be very difficult for us ever to depart from the terms of the agreement.

Who created the position?

Let me tell you it was never created by the old colonists in Natal. We have been told by many people in the Transvaal and Free State that the old colonists of Natal were the people who created this problem. I say that responsibility does not rest with these old colonists; I say it rests with the former Crown Colony Government of Natal. That is the historic fact which everybody knows. In 1857, when this question was mooted by the then Governor of Natal, the people of Natal opposed it tooth and nail. The first elections took place in Natal under Crown Colony government. There were two candidates in favour of the introduction of Asiatics into Natal. Both these were on the coast, and both were hopelessly beaten in the election. That is the position. The Governor of Natal at that time insisted upon uplifting the natives with the assistance of the churches. Now the churches in many respects have created in this country more difficulties and problems than people realize. They created a difficulty at that time by insisting upon the natives being uplifted. The old colonists are not to blame for this problem. It was only when economic ruin was facing the farmers in Natal that at last by a majority vote in the Legislative Council that they agreed to the introduction of Asiatics. As far back as 1897 the people of Natal felt so strongly on this question, that they actually went down to Durban and threatened to forcibly eject the immigrants from two ships; in fact, they actually stopped the landing of Asiatics from these ships. In consequence, legislation was then introduced, the Immigration Restriction Act was passed, and the law of 1897 dealing with the granting of trading licences was passed. The law provided that licensing officers must be appointed in each district, and they could refuse or grant licences without giving any reason, and there was no appeal to any court of law. The discretionary powers were absolute. What is the position now? The Minister has held out the expectation and the hope to Asiatics under this agreement that, when the time comes to consolidate or alter the licensing law, that the very thing which we in 1897 achieved after fearful difficulties, is now to be altered, namely: (1) Reasons are to be given for refusing a licence; (2) there shall be the right of appeal to a court of law against the decision of the licensing boards. I say this, that so far as Natal is concerned, we will never agree to the alteration of the law. The discretion of the licensing authorities must remain absolute.

I am afraid of your determination.

I want to deal in a little more detail with the agreement itself. The agreement presupposes that we are to have two classes of Indians; the one class are those who will not agree to adopt European standards of life, and genuine efforts are being made to get them out of the country. Then we have the other class of those who will remain in the country and are prepared to adopt European standards of life. Does the Minister honestly believe that these Asiatics who refuse repatriation under his scheme are going to adopt European standards of life? Why did not the Minister as a first step towards the adoption of European standards stop polygamy, or does he wish us to believe that a man leading a polygamous life is going to adopt European standards? Does he believe that these Asiatics, who have a civilization older than ours, are going to adopt our system? Does he believe that these Asiatics are going to change the very food they eat, which is imported? They have a different religion from ours; they have class distinction far stronger than ours. Yet we are told that, so far as this country is concerned, there is not to be any class distinction between European and Asiatic. When the Minister introduced his segregation law last year, he recognized the principle of class distinction and the desirability of having class areas, but that has all been scrapped; there is to be no segregation at all. The Asiatic is to be entitled, unfettered and unhindered, to go on the same as before, to live cheek by jowl with the European. So far as Natal is concerned, the Asiatic is entitled to buy land without any restriction. The acquisition of land is extending more and more every day. The position is changing very rapidly in Natal. The Asiatic is acquiring wealth; we all know that wealth means power, and they are becoming more and more powerful. It is impossible for the European to compete against the Asiatic. Does the Minister believe that these Asiatics, who are living in a comparative paradise in Natal, are going to leave Natal and go back to their own country, where they will be practically treated as dogs? So far as this scheme is concerned, it is going to be a hopeless failure, and in the meantime the whole of the country is to be hopelessly compromised—

Tell us what you propose to do with them.

I will tell you in a minute. In the Transvaal there is protection against the purchase of land, but so far as Natal is concerned there is absolutely no protection at all. I am certain my hon. friends opposite all agree that the man who owns the land holds the keys of the country. The purchase of land by Asiatics in Natal is continuing so rapidly that the time is coming shortly when the keys of Natal will be held by the Asiatics, and when a large section of the European population will become their economic slaves. No attempt has been made under the agreement to stop this gradual penetration. It is impossible for a European to compete with an Asiatic. They start a business and pay an employee £5 or £6 a month, as against £15 to £25 a month paid by a European, but the Asiatic does not pay his employee every month. The wages are credited in the books, and paid when the employee has accumulated sufficient to start on his own. I ask members to try and visualize the tremendous economic powerful advantage the Asiatic exercizes in so far as his European competitor is concerned. It is impossible for the European to compete under those circumstances. As a first instalment of this agreement which has been entered into by the Minister, the Asiatics have started a boycott in Natal, and they are at present refusing to buy any goods through a European traveller?

Why do not the Europeans do the same?

The Asiatics are now purchasing exclusively through Asiatic travellers. Boycotting is easier said than done, because human nature being what it is, people will always go into the cheapest market.

When did they begin doing that?

Two weeks ago. If you read the Natal papers, you will ascertain the position. European travellers have hitherto been forced by the Asiatic to display his goods in an Asiatic building, and to give a donation to a mosque. If the traveller refuses to do so, he is boycotted.

Is that because their grievances have been taken away by the agreement?

Because their grievances have been taken away by you.

It is revenge!

If we had a Minister of the Transvaal or Natal who had carried on this negotiation, this agreement would never have seen the light of day. For instance, if the Minister of Lands, or any other Transvaaler, had been the Minister dealing with this question, I am confident that our position under this agreement would have been totally different. Will the Minister of the Interior tell me whether he consulted the people in Natal on this question of greater educational facilities to the Asiatics? Will he tell us who has to pay for it? The Union Government or the people of Natal? The Minister admits that, with regard to educational facilities, the Indians are not receiving fair treatment. I deny it.

It is admitted by your own representatives in Natal.

The Asiatics are receiving better education facilities in Natal than in their own country. There is a bigger percentage of Asiatics receiving education in Natal than coloureds in the Cape, and the Minister knows it. I would like to ask the Minister another question. When he agreed to this last clause, which puts the “tin hat” on the whole thing, did he really believe that the country would ever agree to the amendment of the licensing laws on the lines indicated? Because, if he does, I say we have been hopelessly sold. Let the Minister tell me what it means, or is it meaningless and mere camouflage? Was it ever intended, when the agreement was made, that this provision would be carried out? How is the Minister to determine whether sufficient Indians are availing themselves, under this agreement, to allow voluntary repatriation to take place? There is no determination what the actual number of Asiatics is who are going to be repatriated. I am seriously considering myself, next year, with the assistance of other members who are interested, introducing the legislation which is necessary, and so far as a large number of people in Natal are concerned, we say—

After he has accumulated his wealth he will eventually go to the country of his origin, where he can buy land. If the landowners in each magisterial area were given the right to decide whether land in the rural area was to be sold to Asiatics or not, we would have been on sound ground. I feel that unless further steps are taken—and I hope they will be taken very soon—to protect us against this unfair penetration which is taking place, Natal will become, as has been said by an hon. member over there, an Indian location. All the hopes of the people of Natal which were caused by promises made by the Nationalists to Natal, have been dashed to the ground, and I am afraid that the time will come when our friends in the Free State will realize the great disadvantages under which we are being placed in Natal. Some of my hon. friends of the Free State are laughing, but if they only realized that there should be unity of interest in the Union, they would be prepared to bear their share of this burden.

Why did you not take the same precautions as we did?

We were not in the same position. We were forced to receive in Natal the Asiatic against our will. I hope that the time will come when this subject will be dealt with on a far better basis than it has been dealt with by the Minister.

It was a bitter disappointment to us young members this afternoon, because we thought that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) would talk about the country’s finances. Instead of that he made a kind of tirade against hon. members, but I want to remind him of the proverb of “Satan rebuking sin.” Seeing he has himself offended, it is possibly easy to punish others. He mentioned the sections that are dissatisfied with the Government, and named the railway workers. He also spoke of the members of the Labour party. I want, however, to say that the people who are most dissatisfied are the members of the South African party.

That is not true.

The members of the South African party are the most dissatisfied of all, because they see things going so well with the country, and because they have been entirely swallowed up by the old Unionist party. We should very much have liked to hear something from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) of money matters, because he has the reputation of being a good business man, but no, he only spoke of the dissatisfaction in the country. Then the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) raised the Asiatic question. Many of us think, and feel, deeply about it. He mentioned the agreement between the Governments of the Union and of India, and attacked the Minister of Lands quoting something from “Hansard.” I do not think, however, that he was quite right. I shall quote from “Hansard” what the Minister of Lands said—

It appears clearly from that, he said that there should be an agreement between us and the Indian Government, and that is what the Government has done. I also feel that the important matter is to come to an agreement between the two sections. The hon. member for Ermelo forgot to quote it. The hon. member wants to make an impression on his voters, however, because the recent provincial election did not please him, but very much depressed him He wanted to make out to the Ermelo Provincial Council candidate that he was a great friend of the Indians, but it all availed nothing, the Nationalist party won the seat. Hence the hon. member comes with this quotation to rehabilitate himself a bit, but he is late—the fight is over. We agree with the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) that the Asiatic question is one of the greatest and most important matters to our people, and that it must be solved. The hon. member has referred to the history of Natal, and I, too, have read about it. We know that Governor Scott got the original colonists to import Asiatics. I know that the inhabitants of Natal were at first dissatisfied, but gradually they began to agree with this view. Sir George Grey also did the same thing. The people of Natal gradually commenced to agree to the importation. We feel that the sins of the fathers must be borne by the children, and Natal has to-day, alas, to pick the fruit of it. We are sorry for Natal, out we must never forget that they are themselves responsible for it. The Free State has been mentioned. I admit that the Free State Volksraad consisted of a group of farmers, but they were more far-seeing than the clever people who came from overseas to govern Natal. The Volksraad would not permit Asiatics to enter the Free State. I remember, as a boy, that Sir Henry de Villiers came to the Free State to arbitrate in the matter. The British Government wanted to compel the Free State to admit Asiatics, because they were British subjects, but Sir Henry de Villiers said that the Free State was entirely independent, and had the right of excluding Asiatics. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) said that he is disappointed with the agreement. I wish to say that we all feel that if it were possible to get rid of all the Asiatics and send them back to India everybody would be in favour of it. The question, however, is whether that can be done. If it happens, the Indian Government would say that the repatriated Asiatics were born in South Africa, and were South African subjects. An attempt had, therefore, to be made to come to an agreement, and it was successful. During the past year more Indians have been repatriated than in any year while the South African party was in office. This means that the Indian Government appreciates that the time has come for sending Asiatics back, and that they must be received. It will cost the country a lot of money, but we must pay it with the utmost generosity and pleasure, as long as we only get rid of the Asiatics. It is said in the agreement that the Indian Government will receive the repatriated Asiatics if we pay the rail charges and boat passage. The agreement is, therefore, a step in advance. With reference to the remark of the hon. member for Newcastle in connection with the provision, which he is opposed to, where the agreement says: The Union Government fully accepts that it is the duty of every civilized Government to prepare schemes for the upliftment of every section of its permanent population to such a height as its capacity and education guarantee, I want to ask him why missionaries are sent to India if there is no thought of raising the Indian people. Is it the idea that they should remain uncivilized in our country and live like animals? We should be neglecting our duty if we did not try to elevate every Indian to a certain standard of civilization. We must not allow these people to remain uncivilized, but must teach them the Christian civilization. If we did not do that then we should be neglecting our duty. All there is about this in the agreement is that we must raise the Indians to a certain standard of civilization.

Did you vote for the colour bar, although you hold this view?

Of course I voted for it. I can be in favour of the colour bar, and not want to allow any mixture, and yet support the raising of the Asiatics and natives. If the hon. member is in favour of equality between the various races, then he can take up that attitude, but I beg to decline. I can be in favour of uplifting them without wanting to sit in the same church with them. I think each one of us feels that it is his duty to raise the Asiatics. The colour bar is an entirely different matter. I am speaking here of the Dutch churches in the Transvaal, which have always said that there must be a dividing line between white and black. Then there is still another point which was mentioned by the hon. member for Newcastle. Clause 4 in the agreement says: “When the time has arrived for the revision of the existing laws in connection with trade licences, etc.” It, therefore, says: “When the time has arrived.” No time is fixed, and when the time comes then it will teach us. To say that we should do it immediately now is to entirely miss the point. There is not the least doubt that we appreciate the Asiatic danger, but we must well understand that at the round-table conference there had to be give and take. We realize the position and therefore I think that we ought to be thankful that we have got the Indian Government so far as to receive the repatriated Indians. I think that we have done the best in the circumstances. I fully admit what the hon. member for Newcastle has said, viz., that there is dissatisfaction in the Transvaal. We should like to be rid of the Asiatics, and if it can lie done without an agreement, I should be content. That can, however, not be, and therefore we must have an agreement. It cannot take place in any other way. I want to end by saying that the hon. member for Newcastle has talked earnestly about the matter. Why does he not introduce a motion? I challenge him to hand in a motion disapproving of the agreement. That is the only way open to him, and then we shall see whether the Opposition will agree with the challenge. We feel that we are dealing with a big matter, but the present arrangement is the best we can do. I feel that the only thing is to educate our people not to buy from Asiatics, because then I can give the assurance that every trading Asiatic will have to leave the country. Let us go about our constituencies and urge our people not to do business with Asiatics. Let us talk to the people on the countryside and in the villages not to buy from any coolies. If our people are educated on these lines then the white traders will be benefited. We shall be thankful when the last Asiatic has left the country, but that cannot be brought about by force. It is impossible to take them by the neck and throw them out, and their departure from the country must be brought about in a diplomatic way. I feel that the way taken by the round-table conference was the only possible one, and I think the hon. member for Newcastle will in ten years be satisfied that we have in this way got rid of the Asiatics. He protests here to-day as a descendant of the voortrekkers, but I hope that he will also speak in the voortrekkers’ language, to show that he is a true son of theirs. I agree that the voortrekkers’ blood was not shed to turn Natal into an Asiatic colony, but we must go to work diplomatically to attain our object.

There is no doubt at all that this Indian question is a very difficult and complicated one. Although the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has expressed himself very strongly on the subject, we ought to give the Government credit for having met the representatives of the Indian Government with the intention of trying to arrive at some working agreement which would satisfy public opinion in South Africa and in India. The question is tremendously complicated when we remember that Indians were welcomed with open arms in Natal from about 1860 to 1890 by planters, coal miners, stock farmers and other employers of labour. The Government in working the railways and other public works felt themselves obliged to utilize Indian labour. Then public opinion changed, and to-day the whole country is desirous of sending these people back to their own land. The change came about many years ago. Instead of paying the Indian to come to South Africa, we are paying him to go out. The question is also complicated by the fact that the Indians were the means of bringing about a great deal of prosperity in Natal. They did the hard work of the country. They developed the sugar and the coal industries, they worked the railways, they grew crops, tended the cattle, and altogether they were responsible for a very great degree of the prosperity which Natal enjoyed and they have a strong claim on us. It has been said that more or less Natal is a native and coolie location, but, as a matter of fact, there were more Europeans in Natal at the last census in 1921 in proportion to its size than there were either in the Cape or the Free State. The figures show that the number of Europeans to each square mile in the year 1921 in the four provinces were: Cape, 2.35: Natal, 3.88; Transvaal, 4.92; Free State, 3.80. Hence it is incorrect to say that Natal is mainly a native and coolie location, and it is also incorrect to think that the European population in Natal stood still because of the introduction of Indians. The fact of the matter is that when industries were established in Natal, and especially when sugar-growing was commenced in the ’fifties, it was found impossible to obtain reliable labour. Indians were introduced by the Crown Colony Government at the wish of the planters and other large employers of labour because they could not get reliable labourers among the natives. It was impossible to get the Zulu, who was then really a warrior and hunter, to work from month to month in a steady manner, and in 1860 it was a very rare thing to get a native to work more than three or four months at a time. Often the sugar planter who had grown his cane and had it ripe for crushing found that the labourers had gone to their homes or to beer drinks and left him without labour. The Indians were then introduced and these people helped in the building of the prosperity of Natal and at that time were welcomed by the employers. In course of time these people were looked upon by the white traders as a menace. They found that the Arabs or Bombay traders were supplanting them. These people were not immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. They came on their own accord to carry on trade and business with their own people and, being good business men and living in Indian fashion, it was found by the European traders that they were being gradually ousted from the native business, and an agitation arose to have their activities restricted. It was also found that the Indians were acquiring political power. When their indentures were served they, and their descendants, were getting on the voters roll, and, as they were increasing more quickly than the Europeans, there was an agitation to prevent more Indians coming on the voters roll. After responsible Government in Natal in 1893, attempts were made to restrict the activities of the Indians. About 1895 a law was passed under which Indian immigrants were compelled to re-indenture for a further five years or return to India. If they decided to remain in Natal they were obliged to pay a tax of £3 per annum. In 1896 a law was passed for a purpose of setting up a system of licensing traders. There is no doubt the intention was to restrict the number of Indian traders and, as the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) remarked, the licensing authority was, in the towns, an official appointed by the town council, with the right of appeal to the town council, and in the country districts the Government appointed a licensing officer with the right of appeal to the local licensing board, but in neither case was there any right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the refusal to grant a licence. The result was that gradually the Indian traders were confined to certain parts of the town and, generally speaking, were not allowed to carry on business in the better business districts. In 1897 we had an Act under which no person who came from a country which did not have parliamentary institutions was entitled to obtain the parliamentary franchise in Natal. The result was, while Indians already on the list were allowed to remain there, no further Indians were allowed to be placed on the voters’ roll, and to-day there are very few. Out of pure self-preservation the Europeans of Natal had to take steps to protect themselves and their high standard of life. It is said we treated the Indians unfairly and that we should have given them the ordinary rights of men and that we were not guided by ethical considerations. Had we been so guided we should have given the Indians the parliamentary franchise, as they were as much entitled to it, on ethical grounds, as the European. We should not have interferred with his engaging in any employment he liked, and we should not have put any restriction on him coming into Natal, but we did all these things to protect our European standard of life. About 1890 European civilization was thought to be in danger of being swamped, and unusual steps had to be taken to protect the Europeans. It was felt, in regard to the conferring of parliamentary political power, that it was unfair to the natives to give the Indian greater power than we were giving to the natives themselves. The Europeans were not prepared to give the natives equal political power with themselves and were, therefore, not prepared to give it to the Indians. When Union came about in 1910, the Government of Gen. Botha put a stop to further immigration and appealed to employers to depend upon natives for the source of their labour. From being warriors and hunters the native has become a more steady worker, and as time goes on he will become better still. The economic factor is having effect on the natives, and if we do not interfere with it they will take their place in the industrial development of this country. I would like to remind the Government, and some of our friends opposite, that we heard a great deal from the other side about the intentions of the Government to solve the Indian problem by getting rid entirely of the Indians. At the last election throughout my constituency and Natal, generally, that was the cry of the candidates opposing the South African party. That is what they said and they got considerable support. To-day their friends are waiting to see if they are going to carry out their promises, and I think they will be disappointed. This agreement, like the curate’s egg, is good in parts. It is to the credit of the Government that they have carried out the policy of the South African party Government with regard to repatriation. It began in 1914 and continued at an accelerated rate and is still going on, and I congratulate the Government on carrying on this policy. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) told us that more Indians had gone back to India during the last year than went back during the whole of the time the South African party Government was in power. That is totally incorrect. If the hon. member turns up the figures he will find that 17,000 Indians voluntarily went back between 1914 and March, 1924, and in addition 14,000 went back under the scheme by which they were entitled to have return passage to India at the end of their indenture. During the time the South African party Government was in power no fewer than 31,000 Indians went back to their own country. I have not seen the figures of those repatriated under this voluntary scheme since the present Government came into power, but I shall be surprised if they exceed 5,000 or 6,000 for the whole time. I think the hon. member will admit that he was mistaken. There is another point on which the Government did the right thing, that is in allowing the entry of the wives and children of Indians already here. That also was the policy of the South African party Government, and again the Government is to be congratulated on continuing that policy. I do not take any exception to the part of the agreement where the Government undertakes to do its best and use its influence with the Provincial Government of Natal to give all reasonable educational facilities to the Indians. If any extra expense is involved the Government must come to the assistance of the Provincial Government, and I shall be glad to hear what the Minister of the Interior has to say about the matter. I agree with the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) when he says the position has not been improved so far as the European section of the community is concerned, by the indirect undertaking of the Government to use its influence to have the law amended so that appeals may be taken to the Supreme Court, or some other impartial tribunal, where applications by Indians for licences have been refused by the licensing authorities. At the present time there is an appeal, allowed in 1909, in the case of a licensing authority refusing to grant a renewal of licence, but at the present time there is no appeal in the case of a first application for a licence. If an Indian, or a European, because they are both treated alike, makes an application for a new licence and it is refused, there is no appeal excepting to the town council in case of the towns or the licensing board in the case of the country districts but there is an appeal at present, and there has been since 1909, where the licensing authority has refused to renew an existing licence. Now the Minister goes one step further, and he has agreed to use his influence to give any Indian the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in the event of his application for a licence being refused.

Where do you read that—use my influence?

I hope I have not misunderstood the agreement. It is called an agreement, though some people say it is not an agreement. But the Minister himself I see calls it an agreement, and it reads as follows, Clause 4 under the heading “Upliftment of the Indian community”—

That is the wish of the Government of India; it is not my wish.

Isn’t that rather a Jesuitical way of putting it? Either it means nothing or it means something. If it means nothing at all, why put it here? Has the Minister put these words in to delude the Indian Government and the Indian community?

They know exactly what the meaning of it is.

Any plain man who reads this would come to the conclusion that the Government intends to use its influence to get the law amended in these directions.

Well, that is a wrong interpretation on your part.

Why didn’t you make it plainer then?

It would be very interesting indeed to know what meaning the Minister attaches to these words, but it seems to me that, although it is not a definite promise that the Government will amend the law—

I will explain it to you afterwards.

The Minister tells me that he is going to give his own interpretation. I have no doubt he will. At the same time he will allow me to say now what I cannot say afterwards, that the plain man who reads this will come to the conclusion that it is the intention of the Government to use its influence with the provincial authorities in Natal to get them to amend the law in this direction and to that extent.

Don’t put your ideas into it.

You didn’t draft it with the intention of deceiving, did you?

I think perhaps the Minister has really forgotten what he agreed to. The Minister has agreed that—

Then he goes on to enumerate them. If he does not use his influence with the local authorities to get them to amend the law in this direction, then I say he is not carrying out the spirit of the agreement. Then I think there ought really to have been some attempt made to prevent the Indians from acquiring property in the towns in what might be called European areas, because one of the great complaints which have been made in Natal by the town dwellers is that their property is depreciated by an Indian coming along and buying an adjoining house. It would not be so bad if the Indian was intending to occupy the house himself, but as a rule he fills up each room with a separate lndian family, and the invariable result is that the property in the neighbourhood is depreciated. Then it, is not unreasonable to ask the Indian traders to carry on their business in a part of the town which is set apart for them. That is the position at the present time as far as it can be done under the licensing laws. I understand that in most towns in the East where Europeans are settled and in large numbers—Calcutta, Bombay and Hong Kong— although there is no law or by-law compelling Indians to occupy a certain part of the town or compelling Europeans to live apart, as a matter of fact they do live in separate portions of these towns, but the Indians in South Africa are inclined to spread themselves out and, as Ï said, depreciate the value of property belonging to Europeans. On the whole, with regard to the licensing question, there is no doubt that the position of the European has not been properly protected by the Government, if I understand what the Government has agreed to. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is the meaning of another clause in the agreement. Clause 3 under this heading of “Upliftment of the Indian community” reads—

Neither the Conciliation Act nor the Wage Act makes any reference to any colour bar. These Acts apply to Indians and to natives as well as to Europeans, and if the Indians in future are to be enabled to take their place on the basis of equal pay for equal work, what is to become of the colour bar? I think the Minister ought to explain exactly what this rather ambiguous clause of the agreement means. The underlying principle of the Wage Act and the Conciliation Act is equality of treatment regarding all employees. Is that to extend to a repeal of the colour bar which was enacted last session? That is how people read this clause, and that is how the Indian community, I understand, may read it. At any rate that is a matter on which I should be very glad indeed if the Minister would enlighten us. We have been told by the Minister that this is not a permanent settlement, and that we shall have to give the system which is laid down in this agreement a fair trial. I think it is only reasonable that both parties to the agreement should wait and see how the agreement will work out, because, on the one hand the Indian community expect to get fair and just treatment to which they have a claim, and on the other hand the European community expect to see the Government doing all that is reasonably possible to reduce the point of contact between the Indian and the European, and also reduce as far as possible the number of Indians in Natal. It is only in Natal where the position is acute. As far as I have been able to judge public opinion in Natal, there is every reason to believe that a fair trial would be given to this agreement in order that it may be seen whether further steps have to be taken, either in the one direction or the other, in order to protect the interests of the parties concerned.

I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), and heard him call the agreement “a curate’s egg.” I expected that he would indicate why, at any rate, the largest part of the agreement was bad, but on the contrary he mentioned facts by which he established that the whole egg was a good one. What was his chief criticism? That the provinces are not sufficiently protected. What rights then are being taken away from the provinces or from any town council or local authority? Is there anything in the agreement to prevent Natal looking after such things, e.g., municipal areas as it thinks fit. It is peculiar that the hon. members from Natal, like the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) disapprove of the agreement in the strongest language. He may say that his ancestors were not those particular ancestors who were responsible for the introduction of the Asiatics into Natal, but that does not do away with the principle that the large majority of Indians in Natal were imported by Natalians who were out to benefit their own pockets. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) frankly admitted this, that money was in the first instance spent to get Asiatics here, and that money was now being spent to get them removed. It is ridiculous that the Natalians of all people should now come here and make a fuss—not to speak too strongly—about the agreement. What are they doing of a responsible nature towards putting their own house in order? In the best hotels in Johannesburg and Pretoria we pay £1 a day or less, and we are waited on by white men, but in Durban one cannot get a really good hotel under £1 a day; and there we are waited on by Indians. My question is what has Natal done, what have the large towns in Natal done to bring about an improvement in the position? Now they are all shouting murder and arson when the despised Nationalist Government—with which they want to have nothing to do—have pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for them, and put their house in order. What did we promise at the time of the last election? Did we promise that we would pass legislation to send every Indian out of the country?

Yes.

No, we should just like to hear what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) thinks of the agreement. Does he also want to use force? What has the South African party, as a political party, done in the past. They have allowed matters to drift as far as the Asiatic, the native and practically every important question is concerned. A friend of mine has called them the Wacht-een-beetje party. As a reply on all big problems, the South African party always said: The time is not yet ripe, wait a bit. So also with the Asiatic question. What did we promise? We promised to immediately commence with an attempt to find a solution. We took over the Bill as it was drafted by the hon. member for Yeoville himself. Last year we decided not to put the Bill through this year, but to hold a conference in respect of which we had the guarantee that we should not hold a one-sided conference, but a conference of two independent states to consider the matter. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in this House accused the Government of running away from the Asiatic problem. Is that the opinion of the hon. member for Yeoville as well, or did he himself, I think it was at Boksburg, admit that the Government had acted wisely in the present circumstances in agreeing to a conference? There we have the two opposite views. The hon. member for Standerton says that the Government has run away. The hon. member for Yeoville honestly praises the Government in having agreed to a conference. The great question is what was attainable. If one asks in South Africa in general what should be done the answer is that we must get rid of the Asiatic. That is the chief point, viz., that we must in any case get rid of the Indians. In what way can that be attained? By going on with legislation? What should we have attained if we had gone on with the Bill on class areas? The hon. member for Yeoville knows that the repatriation of Indians which was progressing well under the last Government, suddenly receded when the hon. member for Yeoville, when Minister of the Interior, published that Bill, but as soon as it was decided to hold a conference, repatriation increased once more. What is the reason? That repatriation is only a success when we have the co-operation of the Indian Government and people so far as the people take an interest in this matter. We must therefore acknowledge that the rate at which we can get rid of Indians, is to a large extent dependent on the co-operation of the Indian Government and people, not necessarily of the whole Indian people, because possibly not more than 5 to 10 per cent. of the Indian people take an interest in the matter. That small portion is, however, strong enough if they are opposed to the repatriation of Indians to make the repatriation a failure. We surely cannot put the Indians born here on ships and disembark them in India. It is only possible to send them back if they are received there and kept. If we had gone on with the Bill, we should not have got rid of the Indians because they would not have been received in India. With reference to the agreement, it does not prevent us in the future, if it appears necessary, from passing legislation. That was clearly acknowledged by the conference last year. We now have voluntary emigration, and larger sums than before are available for the repatriated people. We can take it that the number of Indians to be repatriated will therefore become much greater and will be greater than the natural increase of Indians in South Africa, while the Indians who go back to India will be welcome there. Natal, which is now shouting so loudly, gets the greatest benefit from the agreement, because we must accept—and this is in my view as a Transvaaler, the only point which gives me any Cause for disappointment—that we can expect nothing else but that the agricultural workers of Natal will go away, while the trading class in the Transvaal will at any rate not go away at once. If, however, the provincial councils and the town councils persist, and do not continue issuing licences, the repatriation of that class will also in time increase. The natural increase is automatically reduced by repatriation. Hon. members say that that is not a solution. I want to remind the hon. member for Standerton of a speech he made at Windsorton, when he said that the Asiatic question could not be settled for ever, but that agreements could be made. What is this but an agreement that we have made along friendly lines as much as possible? The great benefit is that the poor class of people who are going to make use of emigration will quite probably not return. They may not return within the first twelve months, nor after three years. Therefore, they must return between the second and third year, and then refund all the bonuses they have received. We can safely assume that that class of Indian will not return. And when he lands in Calcutta he will not be stranded, but will be received. He will no longer land there and be regarded by his fellow Indians as having lost caste, but will land there with a welcome from the Indian Government and people. He is therefore encouraged, and the hon. member for Yeoville knows that no Indian will go back if he has to feel in India that he falls in a still lower class than what he was in here, or was in, when he left there. If he can go as a welcome guest of the Indian Government and people, then he will leave South Africa with great pleasure. The Indian Government will see that he is not stranded, but will provide work on the railways, a removal to other parts of the country, or for jobs in the great irrigation works in the north-western provinces. What is the attitude of the Opposition? The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) says that it is good in parts. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) regards it as entirely bad, and now the hon. member for Yeoville will possibly get up and say that it is quite good. Then the hon. member for Standerton may get up and say that he wants to warn the country against the terrible danger, because he has commenced all his speeches in that way. The last Government entered into the so-called Smuts agreement, but nothing further was done. We do not want to say that this agreement is perfect, but it is the most practical agreement which could be made. We shall within a certain time get rid of certainly the maximum number of Indians, and that is what the South African people most want. Is the South African party going to try to make political capital out of the agreement. If that party feels that it has solid ground to go to the country with, then it ought to be easy to introduce a motion expressing disapproval. Then they could go throughout the country and say: “We feel (as the hon. member for Ermelo has said) that the agreement has betrayed us and that we are now sitting with the baked pears.” The South African party can then say what motion was introduced and ask the country for its support. Let the South African party do so. No, you can humbug a part of the public for a part of the time, but not the whole of the public all the time.

This is one of the most important questions, which ought to be approached in the most delicate way in the world—a question which we have been rightly and reasonably asked to approach from the non-party point of view, but a question which has been dealt with by the hon. member who has just sat down from the most partizan point of view one can imagine. We have been asked by the Minister of the Interior to deal with the thing from the patriotic point of view. That does not mean that those who do not agree with it are not approaching it from the patriotic point of view, and if the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) have approached it with very strong feeling, and voicing what they believe to be the view of their constituents, is the Minister of the Interior going to blame them for expressing clearly and plainly, from a non-party point of view, what their views are, and is the Minister of the Interior going to throw a stone at them? The hon. member who has just sat down has done his best to turn this discussion into a purely party one, taunted the hon. members for Newcastle and Ermelo with what they have said, poured scorn on the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) and compared the speeches with certain speeches made by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

It is hot and cold.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) does not realize the delicacy of the position, and the appeal made by the Minister to treat the matter from the non-party point of view. I blame the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) very much indeed for turning this into a party discussion. I regret his speech very much indeed.

I am afraid we shall regret all the speeches that have been made, with the exception of one or two.

The Prime Minister seems to have made up his mind in advance as to what is going to be said, but if he will kindly listen to what we are going to say he will change his mind. If the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) said things which we from the Cape regretted to hear—

Getting their votes.

There the hon. member is, trying to drag things down to the level we wish to avoid. The hon. members for Newcastle and Ermelo spoke with a deep sense of feeling: they also spoke with a considerable amount of provocation. They spoke with the knowledge of where the shoe pinches, and also in realization of the promises made by men who are now in the Government, promises made right and left as to the very strong line the Nationalists would take when they got into power. The South African party were taunted with having adopted a policy of drift on this question, but in what single respect does the Government’s present policy differ in essential from the policy initiated and carried out by the South African party? The Government, instead of taking the short cut they announced their intention of following before they assumed office, have gone on the very same policy of a patient and wise consideration of the subject, they have given time for future developments and an opportunity for allowing the problem to be settled by mutual goodwill and co-operation. That has been the basis of the position all the way through. We in the Cape have endeavoured to approach all these questions—Asiatic, native and coloured—from the point of view first of justice and second from what we believe to be expedient in the interests of ourselves as a white race. On both grounds we should have very much opposed the policy originally promised at the elections by hon. members opposite. We cannot forget the very challenging and defiant speeches that were made which would do no possible good either here or in India, because the solution of the problem lies as much there as here.

Hear, hear. If you would only take that to heart.

I do not approve of the language used by the hon. member for Newcastle when he talked about “funk holes” and our being “done down.” I prefer to believe that on both sides the negotiations were conducted with a desire to settle the question by mutual understanding and goodwill.

When were these previous speeches made?

In April last year, before the negotiations came to a head. While we remember perfectly well all the speeches that were made, the taunts that were thrown out and the promises made by Ministers, I prefer to forget them and to believe that with their greater responsibilities as Ministers of the Crown, and greater knowledge of the subject, there came a desire for a settlement on lines entirely different from those they had led the public to believe were the lines they would follow in deciding the question. We know what a huge problem this is. It is not only a question of Natal, or the Transvaal, or of Natal and India. There are also great responsibilities in Asia, where a simmering is going on. There are tendencies and influences at work in some of those great races of Asia which are developing a national spirit and a national consciousness of their own, and there are far bigger things behind the whole question than the mere question of Natal, or Natal and India. These are bigger problems which in the end will not only affect the white people in this country but they are going to affect us and our fellow states and the empire if we do not watch our steps with caution. Whatever is done now may affect the whole future of the white people in the world. I say I believe that what is done now in connection with the settlement, which may be irretraceable and irrevocable, may have reverberations throughout the whole of the white world. We have had discussions to-night as to who is responsible for this state of affairs. It is surely futile to go back to find out whether the first Governor of Natal, or the planters or anybody else was responsible. We are dealing with the problem as it is to-day. Whatever regrettable inheritance we have got, the position is there as it stands to-day. Our posterity may pour blame upon us for the regrettable heritage we hand down if we take any step without due regard for the future welfare of the whole of the Union. We, nourishing the old Cape traditions, believe that in dealing with the thing we must look to the future and safety of posterity, and not only that, but we must deal with it with justice, and not settle it with harsh measures, heaping retribution upon them, such harsh measures as compulsory repatriation, but we must get the whole country united, and this is the only way we shall get salvation. I hope whatever criticism may be directed to certain aspects of the agreement, the Minister of the Interior, while we repudiate any suggestion of astuteness on the part of the delegates who came over here will not give them any opportunity of thinking that we are guilty of astuteness. With regard to Clause 4 the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) gave the meaning and reading which every fair-minded man would give to it, and if it is not the intention of the Government to take steps to carry out the provision of that clause, it should be made clear so that there can be no cause for complaint or recrimination. If they have been charged with astuteness do not give them a thought that on our part we have been guilty of astuteness or lack of candour and good faith. Taking that point of view I regard the settlement as a provisional arrangement which gives time for further application of the principles which we are developing, and for the atmosphere to get calmer, as it has done since the conference and the visit of the delegation from here to India. The more we encourage that atmosphere and the spirit of co-operation, as set out in the agreement, the more likely are we to get a final settlement. Whatever the details of the Bill, and no matter what the past of the Ministry was in regard to policy, I welcome this settlement as a fair and reasonable contribution towards the settlement of a very difficult problem.

I agree with what the hon. member for Rondebosch said that we should not concern ourselves with who was responsible for bringing these people to this country, but rather with how we are going to combat what is undoubtedly a menace to European civilization. I do not think we have gained much ground in the direction of combating this menace in the agreement entered into between this Government and the Government of India, I am more concerned with the provisions of one clause than with anything else, and that is the clause referred to by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) —which is numbered 3, under the head of licensing. This question of the control of trading licences strikes at the root of our trouble in Natal. The European trader in Natal is undoubtedly being ousted by the unfair and unequal competition of the Asiatic, and it is only a question of time when there will be no European storekeepers in the country districts of Natal. I was surprised to hear the Minister question the interpretation placed on clause 3 by the hon. member for Dundee, because it seemed to me the clause in question is capable only of that intrepretation. It reads—

I do not think the Minister can know that in Natal there is already provision for an appeal to an impartial tribunal from the decision of a licensing officer. In the case of licences granted within the areas of local authorities there is an appeal from the licensing officer to the town council or the local board as the case may be, and I take it that a local board or a town council can fairly claim to be classified as an impartial tribunal. In the case of trading licences in rural areas, the control is vested in a board which has been constituted for the purpose, and that board is functioning at the present time. Haying regard to the position as it exists, if this section does not mean that this Government has committed itself to giving an applicant for a new licence, or a transfer, a right of appeal to the Supreme Court, then I would like to know exactly what it does mean. I think the only interpretation that can be put upon this section, and I have no doubt it has been so interpreted by the representatives of the Government of India, as well as by the Indians in Natal, is that as soon as this agreement becomes operative they will be entitled to seek redress in the Supreme Courts in the same way as they are entitled to do so in respect of refusal of renewals to-day.

It was not understood so by Gandhi.

I do not care what was understood by Mr. Gandhi, but I am quite sure I am right in saying that that is the impression which prevails in the province of Natal, and I have no doubt whatever that the delegates representing the Government of India are also under the same impression. Since there appears to be some doubt as to the correct interpretation of this section, the sooner the Minister gives the interpretation which he thinks is the correct one to this House, and to the country, the better for all concerned. There is undoubtedly a great deal of dissatisfaction and disappointment with this agreement in my province, and I have no doubt also in the province of the Transvaal, where there are also Asiatics. I think the Government are themselves to blame for this dissatisfaction and disappointment, because when the late Government introduced the Class Areas Bill into this House, the then Opposition twitted the Government of the day with introducing a measure that only touched the fringe of the question, thereby giving the impression throughout the Union that if they got into power they would introduce something far more drastic and far more efficacious than that Class Areas Bill.

I thought you were going to keep out party politics.

I am not touching upon party politics, but I want to tell you what has given rise to the dissatisfaction in my province with this agreement—I am fortified in my conclusion by a speech delivered by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) in the debate on the motion moved by the hon. member for Illovo and reported in Vol. 2 of Hansard, page 687, in which he said—

This bears out what I said that the attitude which the then Opposition took up in regard to the Class Areas Bill is responsible for a great deal of the dissatisfaction that exists with reference to this agreement. During the last election Pact candidates went stalking about Natal, pretending they had a solution of this problem in their pockets, and gave the people to understand that as soon as the Pact Government came into power, this matter would be effectively dealt with by them. Instead of having effectively solved this problem, i: seems that we are in a worse position than before these negotiations took place with the Government of India. The Natal people have for many years past by organisation, agitation and laborious work, managed by getting the control vested in a licensing officer whose discretionary powers are in no way limited, to get a measure of protection against undue competition, and they feel, after having carefully studied the section that the effect will be to nullify all their efforts, and that they have now been deprived of that measure of protection which they have enjoyed in the past. Therefore I do urge on the Minister the necessity of clearing up any ambiguity in the meaning of Clause 3. That is the main grievance, I think, that we have. There are other grievances, of course, including the question of providing facilities for the education of the Asiatics, and thus enabling them to enter into competition with the Europeans in all walks of life, not only in commerce and industry, but if we are going to give them higher education, then even the professional men will feel it.

Are you against the education of the Indians?

I am not against the education of Indians, no. I am in favour of the segregation of Indians both as regards trading and territorially. I am not in favour of giving them higher education. Certainly not.

They get it now.

The very object this Government pretends to have in view, that of encouraging the repatriation of these people, they are going to defeat by making things so very comfortable for them. That is the wrong way to go about encouraging repatriation. Under our existing machinery objectors are allowed to appear either in person or by counsel before a licensing officer, or an appeal board, and support their objections. I do say this, that if an applicant is to have the right of appeal to a higher court against the decision of a licensing officer in the case of new licences then objectors are going to be deterred from coming forward and lodging objections, because of the fear of being involved in expensive litigation. In that way you are going to cut the ground from under the feet of objectors and to a certain extent licensing officers who are often furnished by objectors with cogent reasons for not granting a licence. I would like to ask the Minister exactly what he meant when in explaining this agreement he said—

If there was no bargaining then I should like to know how the representatives of the Government of India managed to obtain the concessions which they have obtained under this agreement. It appears to me there must have been a considerable amount of bargaining, but in any case the representatives of the Government of India can claim to have won a diplomatic victory over this Government. He goes on—

Does the Minister claim that this is a comprehensive and effective settlement? With regard to the pious wish that by educating: the Asiatic you are going to bring him up to conform to a civilized standard of life I quite associate myself with what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has said. We have had these trading classes in Natal for 60 and 70 years, and they are just as far from conforming to European standards of life to-day as when they first came to the country; and if that is the objective of the Minister it is doomed to failure. I do hope the Minister, when he replies, will comply with my request, and give this House his interpretation of Clause 3 of the agreement.

I did not think that I should be asked to say anything in this debate about the transactions at the Imperial Conference, but the hon. member for South Peninsula. (Sir Drummond Chaplin) appears to be particularly interested in what took place there and the meaning of it. Therefore I would like to say a few words about it, but the hon. member is not in the House, and it is late.