I must confess to a feeling of disappointment that this Bill has come back from another place with the decision which this House arrived at, after considerable discussion, reversed. It will be remembered that when this was first introduced by the Minister of Justice the proposal was that in our Court of Appeal there should be a quorum of four judges and that when four judges sat and two judges favoured allowing the appeal and two favoured the respondent, then the judgment of the court below could stand. There were so many obvious objections to that course, and they were raised so strongly, that the Minister was apparently convinced, and agreed to retain the present position, under which there is a five-judge court and a quorum of five in case of appeal from a full bench of the court below. The matter, apparently, has gone to another place and the Senate has sent it back with a four-judge quorum restored. I do not know whether the Minister, when in the Senate, really stood up for the decision of this House, or not, or whether he showed himself as vacillating in the Senate, as he was here. Now I do hope the Minister and the House will not accept the proposed change which the Senate has introduced. I have here a letter from the Society of Advocates in the Transvaal conveying a resolution which they have passed. They say—

Further on they say—

I am sure that argument will appeal to the Minister, and I look confidently for the support of the Prime Minister in this matter. If he will cast his mind back to 1920, he will remember a Bill was brought by Mr. de Wet to increase the personnel of the Court of Appeal from three to five. A proposal was made then to increase the quorum of judges to four. The present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, strongly opposed that proposal on very much the same grounds as I am arguing this afternoon. He said this—

I take it that he spoke for his party, because as far as I can find out the rest of his party stood behind him on that occasion on this point. They felt that a four-judge quorum was unwise. The proposal was opposed so strongly that it was dropped, and yet we find the Minister of Justice, in the Cabinet of the present Prime Minister, now coming forward with that identical proposal which the Prime Minister himself scotched in 1920. On its merits I think the proposal is a wrong one, and I do not think any arguments based on convenience should be allowed to outweigh the considerations I have mentioned. So far as the Bar Council being vocal is concerned, I do not know what the other divisions have done, but the Transvaal Bar is opposed to the proposal. I hope the Minister will adhere to the decision arrived at in this House and not allow a four-judge quorum.

I concur in what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said, and I do not know why the Minister agreed to the amendment in the Senate. What we want in our jurisprudence is finality. When the matter is before the court, and it is disposed of, then there should at least be finality, especially with a view to the fact that there is practically no longer an appeal to the Privy Council, and because we may expect that the whole system of appeals to the Privy Council will be abolished in the future. If then it happens that two judges in our Supreme Court express a view which differs from that of two other judges of appeal, then you can easily imagine that there will be dissatisfaction among the parties to the case, because the Supreme Court is in doubt about the matter. That will not contribute to creating confidence in the public in our judicial system, but there will be uncertainty, and the man who lost in the Supreme Court will then say, “ I have lost, but two of the four judges of appeal were in my favour.” Such a person will have reason for feeling aggrieved, because finality has not been reached. If the Bill is passed, as it now reads, and cases occur where four judges of appeal are equally divided on the matter, then people will on every possible occasion avail themselves of the appeal to the Privy Council. To create a feeling of confidence in our own court of appeal and to get finality, I hope the Minister will again come back to the system of five judges of appeal.

I hope the House will adopt the amendment moved by the Senate in this matter. I think that when the Minister withdrew this when it was before the House, he did so very unexpectedly. I think that the argument which was used on the ground of convenience is a very wise and important argument indeed. If there was any question that the administration of justice, or the confidence of the public or the profession in the administration of justice by the Appeal Court, would suffer, then I should be the last one to agree with the proposal in that clause. But I do not for a moment believe that the administration of justice will suffer or that the confidence of the people or the practitioners will suffer in the least degree because of this. On the other hand, we have a very clear indication for the necessity there is for the clause in what has happened since the Minister withdrew; that is probably why the reinsertion took place in the other place. I saw a notification in the press, which I take is correct, that the Appellate Division was not able to take a case because it could not get a five-judge quorum. Delays of this sort are infinitely more to the disadvantage of the public than the comparatively rare occasions when you have four judges sitting as a quorum and the comparatively rare number of occasions out of these where there will be a division between the four judges. If there are more cases where the Appellate Division has to put them off because they cannot get a quorum, would it not be doing wrong to refuse to agree to the proposals? The Appellate Division itself is in favour of this alteration of the law. I do not think that is the last word; but I do say that with regard to a knowledge of what is best for the administration of justice, of what is of most convenience to the public, and of how far the prestige of the court is going to be lowered by this alteration, I do not think we can do very wrong if we take the view of the Appellate Division itself on the matter. Taking the view that they do, that it will be the best all-round proposal for the convenience of suitors and the right hearing of cases, I feel myself very much fortified in the view I took before. I receive with great respect the view of the Transvaal Bar Council—the only council we have heard giving expression to the views of a particular local body; but taking it by and large, we will be doing the right thing to accept the view of the hon. the Senate.

I wish to take this further opportunity of expressing my protest against this change. I do not propose to go through my arguments again, except to state that this is a sacrifice of principle for expediency. It seems that under this change there can be very little doubt that a four-judge court will become the rule, and not the exception. I was in Pretoria a short while ago and took the opportunity of consulting the Pretoria bar on the proposed change. To a man they are against the change.

Except Senator de Wet, who is a member of the Pretoria bar.

Senator de Wet is prejudiced like the Minister, in favour of the change. I know it is a difficult matter, from the point of view of administration, to find the full quota of judges, and that probably weighed with the Minister as it did with Senator de Wet when he held that honourable office. After all, the practitioners are more in touch with public opinion than the judges, and the practitioners are the better judges of what the public want than the judges themselves. Moreover, the Pretoria bar gave me to understand that the Johannesburg bar is also against this proposed four-judge court. Under the circumstances I intend to vote against this clause.

As far as I can ascertain, the feeling of the Natal bar is also opposed to this proposed change, and I would like to say in answer to what the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said that none of us question the desirability of reducing the quorum of judges. That point is not in dispute, and the only point which we desire to argue is where the four judges disagree as to the decision to which they come. I understand the Minister to say that Senator de Wet in another place was in agreement with this Bill, but if I am properly informed, Senator de Wet did say—

This was a proposal I ventured to put in this House. The great objection, as far as the bar of Natal is concerned, I am informed, is, that where the decision of the judges is equal, the judgment of the court below has to prevail because there are important points of law in the various provinces which still await decision in the Appellate Division. Take for instance, the question of malicious prosecution, the law in the different provinces is different. The law as decided in Natal is different from that as decided in the Transvaal. If the judgment on appeal is against the law of Natal as presently established, in the case of a disagreement the law of Natal would prevail—and for the whole of South Africa. That seems to be a grave objection to passing the measure in the form in which it comes. The learned Minister in charge of the Bill will know that there are quite a large number of questions on legal points where there have been differences of decision in the various provinces. The Minister would be well advized to withdraw this provision. As to the proposal to reduce the number of judges, although it may have come from the judges, the question of inconvenience was not discussed, and this question I venture to point out could not be discussed by the judges.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is right in saying that events since this Bill was passed by this hon. House have occurred which show the difficulty of the position to-day. We found that Sir John Kotzé was on long leave to which he was entitled, and Mr. Justice de Villiers was on sick leave on medical advice. The department tried hard to obtain the service of a judge of experience from one of the other divisions, but unfortunately none was available because several of the judges are on leave at the present moment. We could get one outstanding judge, and it was impossible to obtain two, and you have to make an acting appointment. It is difficult to make an acting appointment for six weeks or two months in the busy period, from the beginning of March to the middle of April. We could have obtained one judge of standing, but it was impossible to obtain two judges for that court. The late and the present chief justices are both strongly of opinion that no difficulty will occur in regard to a clause of this description. Sir William Solomon is strongly of opinion that four judges should form a quorum. I am surprised that there should be opposition to the proposal from the Transvaal bar, for in that province a very large number of cases are heard before two judges.

That is the position in the Cape.

In the Transvaal there have, in recent years, been only one or two disagreements, and then a third judge has been called in and the case has been re-argued. I believe that in important cases regarding points of law not already decided, the chief justice would not allow four judges to sit, but would require the presence of five judges. My predecessor is very strongly in favour of a clause of this kind, although I admit that both of us may be prejudiced in its favour on account of departmental difficulties. In cases where the opinions of the judges are equally divided, I should imagine there would be a re-argument before five judges.

Where is the power given to do that?

I think it is part of the inherent powers of the court to do that. I do not think there is any public opinion on this point, and the opinion of legal men is divided. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said what was required in this matter was finality. That is what I want, but I cannot attain it on account of inability to have a five-judge court. This provision is inserted in the Bill to meet the exceptional and not the ordinary case.

Upon which Mr. Blackwell called for a division; and the House divided:

Ayes—75.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Buirski, E.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W, B.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L,

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heat lie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—19.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Deane, W. A.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Pretorius, N. J.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Te Water, C.

T Van ZyI, G. B.

Tellers: Robinson, C. P.; Swart, C. R.

Amendments accordingly agreed to.

When the House adjourned last night I was endeavouring to bring Home to hon. members, especially those from the Cape and Free State, the vital importance to Natal of this Indian question and how it affected the people in that province. I gave details with regard to the Indian population of the Union and Natal and also with regard to the property held in Natal by Indians. In view of the fact that the total population of Natal, according to the latest information, is about 1,500,000, comprising 158,000 whites, 153,000 Asiatics, 12,000 mixed races and 1,140,000 natives, it will be seen that they own 90,000 acres and possess property in Durban alone valued at £1,300,000, what a strong hold the difficult problem we have there to deal with. I think that information is somewhat necessary because two of the provinces, having so few Indians in them, do not realize what the position is in Natal and how desirable it is that something should be done. These statistics also show that the Indian population in the Union is increasing steadily and rapidly, notwithstanding the comparatively high death rate and the repatriation which is going on. It is true that there have been increases in the European and native populations in Natal also, which fact points to the conclusion that Natal is becoming overcrowded and that there is not room for Europeans, natives and Indians. Some of them must clear out, or there will be continual friction, unrest and, possibly strife. Some alleviation of the position in Natal would ensue if some of the Indian population were allowed to settle in the other provinces of the Union. If spread all over the Union their presence would scarcely be felt, and the problem would not be so pressing and acute as it is and I would like to know from the Minister whether the point was taken up in the conference as to the accessibility of the other provinces to the Indians in Natal. If not, I am rather surprised that the Indians did not insist upon that being put in the agreement. The only reason, I suppose, is, that they are so comfortable and happy in Natal that they do not want to go anywhere else. The Minister, when questioned on this point said—

I would like to know when that principle was laid down and when it was accepted by the whole Union. I do not remember its being accepted in Natal. If that is a good argument, why does the Government force poor whites from other provinces into Natal, where there is no room and no desire for them?

That is racialism again.

You make it very one sided altogether. Poor whites are sent down into Natal where there is really no room for them. The position in Natal is now so acute and threatening that the Government has been forced to take cognisance of it and make some attempt to deal with it. Hence the Areas Reservation Bill of 1925. I believe that measure would have done something to alleviate the position, but it has been dropped to please the Indian Government and what is known as the agreement has taken its place. When the Minister made his statement and laid what was called—

on the Table, he was asked by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) whether these were the whole of the papers, and he (the Minister) replied in the affirmative. If so, why was one of the documents described as a “ summary ”? A summary, I understand, is an abridgment or condensation of something longer or more detailed. Therefore if what was published was only a “summary ” there should be another and fuller document we have not seen. I do not intend to go through the clauses of this so-called agreement, as it appeared in the press, but its main features appear to me as follows: Indians now have the option of leaving South Africa at Government expense or of remaining here. If they desire to leave, they can return again in three years with their families, which may have increased during the interval, and if they decide to come back there may be more of them coming back than went away three years before. I do not understand why our Government allowed this three years point to come in at all. If the Indians are once away, why open the door for them to come back again and cause trouble? The Minister thought there will be very few of them who will come back. I am not so sure about that. I think, perhaps, they have done so well in Natal, that, after a few years in India, they will want to get back to their former happy hunting ground. If they decide to remain in South Africa, they are to receive increased facilities for better and higher education; they are to have better sanitary and housing conditions and their public and social status is to be raised. It seems to me that these are all inducements to stay in Natal. The Union Government have practically promised to consider also whether the discretionary powers of local authorities in regard to refusals of trading licences to Indians might reasonably be limited; in other words to enable Indians to get more licences with less trouble than before. I would like to point out to the Minister that this trading licence question is at the bottom of most of the problem. It is the men who are getting licences and are trading throughout the country who are the most objectionable, who are causing the most trouble throughout the country and who are really doing the most harm. In many districts the Indian traders have put the Europeans out entirely. The European traders cannot compete against them because of the lower economic standard of the Indians. If the Government are going to make it more easy for Indians to get trading licences, and get them more frequently, that will accentuate the trouble enormously compared with what it is to-day. This agreement has been received, of course, with great satisfaction by the Indian community both in the Union and in India, and the Indian press has described it as—

That is natural enough, and what is only to be expected, for it places the Indians in the Union in a better position than they were before. It does not solve the problem as it exists, especially in Natal. On the contrary, it accentuates it. The Europeans in Natal are greatly disappointed that the Government have gone back on their promises and on their previous legislation. Unless the exodus of Indians from the Union becomes much greater than the natural increase of the population, the position will get worse year after year until it becomes intolerable, and the Europeans may be forced some day, very reluctantly, to deal with it in their own way in order to ensure self-preservation. Natal is a small province and it is manifest that if the populations of natives, whites and Asiatics, continue to increase as it is doing now and the Indians are not allowed to overflow into the other provinces in order to reduce the pressure, there will not be room enough for them all and some of them will be forced out. Is it the Government’s desire that it is the Europeans who shall have to go? Section 3 of the “summary of conclusions ” begins thus—

Does the Government really believe that? When I read it I could not help thinking what a hollow mockery those words are when applied to the Government’s treatment of the natives, by far the largest section of the permanent population. The Minister has told us that the agreement is more in the nature of an honourable and friendly understanding than a rigid and binding treaty, and the Union Government have not in any respect or to any extent surrendered their freedom to deal legislatively with the Indian problem. I contend that under this agreement it is possible that the position in Natal will get worse. It is necessary that the Government should do all in their power to make their scheme a working success. I hope they will see that there is an ample and regular supply of steamers ready for the emigrants, because in the past that has not been so. Indians have been obliged to hang about the depots at the ports for weeks and weeks until they have got tired of waiting and have gone back.

That is included in the scheme.

If the Government will see to that it is possible that things will work out more satisfactorily than we anticipate. This declaration of the Minister’s at the end of his statement contains a ray of hope, and I am of opinion that before very long the Government of this country, whatever Government it may be, will be obliged to take advantage of this freedom.

I wish to raise the question of the position of the diggers. The question was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), but the Minister of Mines and Industries in a speech of about five minutes dismissed the whole subject. That question is much more serious than hon. members realize. It is not merely a question of mines and industries or of making a law to provide for the way in which claims are to be pegged from time to time. The answer of the Minister, as I understand it, was—

That is only a small portion of the problem. If the report is correct that there were 25,000 diggers rushing at Grasfontein last week that means 60,000 people in the field at the very least. You have a city there of not less than 100,000 people; it stretches for 30 miles. They have no transport, no sanitation arrangements, no schools or hospitals or traffic arrangements, and they have no law. The Government has been exceedingly remiss in its attention to this problem. Not a single Minister has taken the trouble to make a thorough investigation of what the position is, yet every department is concerned. Take the schools. A very large number of children must leave school when their parents go on the diggings. Unless you appoint someone to thoroughly inquire into the matter we will get no further. In my opinion a body must be appointed, men of standing to inquire thoroughly into the whole position and see how that place can be best dealt with, not merely in regard to health, education and sanitation, but the actual control of the diamonds.

We are dealing with it in the Bill.

But that is not the only problem. What I feel is that the Government should appoint a commission if necessary and govern the whole of these diggings by means of a board of men of high standing who will control the whole position there with full powers of government. The Government must adapt itself to a new state of affairs. It is not digging in the ordinary way; it is mining on a very large scale indeed. I want to deal with the suggestion in the press that these diggings should be closed down. Nothing could be more fatal to this country than that. Under the suggestion Mr. Joel puts forward, by which he undertakes to buy ail the alluvial output in these diggings on condition the Government will not proclaim any further farms, what will happen? His suggestion is that in six months’ time all the open diggings will be worked out. It may or may not be correct, but let us see what would happen if it were. You have a very large business there; there are merchants and a large number of motors. In six months, if such a suggestion is adopted—and I have nowhere seen it denied by the Government—see what fatal results you will have. You will throw the whole of that population back on our shoulders unemployed. If the Government sits still and does nothing, I can realize you may have serious results in the diamond market, but the Government must not sit still. A board should be appointed to take full control of the diggings, exercising all the functions the Government could exercise if they were there themselves; even municipal powers should be exercised.

Who is going to pay?

The diggers themselves. They pay now. They are producing a tremendous income. Instead of being a charge on the Government they are paying a tax, and that money could be well spent on them. It is not being done now; they are receiving no facilities whatever. If you have a board, as I suggest, give them almost full government powers. When a farm is proclaimed make the owners claim one block, because a difficulty that might have led to trouble is that the owner gets 200 claims on even a small farm and be can get them wherever he likes. That must be stopped. This board must have complete control of all the open claims, and not a single rush must take place. Every digger who has been a registered working digger for six months, when his ground is worked out, would send in his name, and when there are 500 diggers with no ground, allot 500 claims that have been inspected previously, and are worth working. They then have a reasonable chance of making a livelihood. That is the first power the board should have. It should also have full power over education on these diggings, and a sanitary contractor must be called in to see that the place is in proper sanitary order before these claims are taken over. I suggest that a diggers’ bank be established at the diggings under the full control of this board. I would like to see men of the highest standing in the civil service on this board, men who are accustomed to control. We do not want party politics brought into it at all. It is not a question of party politics. Cut out all your diamond buyers. Have a bank there where the digger can deposit his diamonds— compel him to do so—and advance him any percentage you like. Then Government has complete control of those diamonds. There are merchants and all sorts of people working there, and this bank could be an ordinary business bank, and the money will be sufficient for advances on the diamonds. Then my hon. friend, the Minister of Mines, can talk about a quota, because the Government will have full control of these diamonds. They will have sufficient security for financing such a bank, and will control the whole alluvial output of the Union. The Government must control the market that way. Then it is asked what is going to happen to the mines? These diggings produce more than the mines, and are a greater asset to the country than the mines. They are an enormous asset to the country, and we have by no means reached the end. I went to farms in the Marico, Rustenburg and other districts, as well as my own district, and there are few farms where diamonds have not been discovered. The Government has sat tight for the whole year and done nothing, and it is time a proper and thorough inquiry is made into the whole thing.

They have lived in expectation of the Bill.

But it is not an omnibus Bill. There are several matters with which it does not deal. The Government must adapt itself to the new conditions which have arisen. I do not blame the late Government, because that state of affairs was not there at the time. To-day you have a big problem, and it must be controlled and taken in hand. Thousands of children are not getting schooling to-day.

More than half the people are nothing but speculators.

That is just the attitude of the Government—

I should say to the Minister—

He is quite mistaken. You have not only the diggers there. Does the Minister know that these diggings consume more petrol than Johannesburg? As to the supply of water, the whole of the population must be supplied from artesian wells in the neighbourhood. The water is carried by motor-lorries. There are a very large number of mechanics, who are not digging, but are employed as drivers. They have no coal there, and they use wood, and every farmer who has a bit of wood chops it down and sends it to the diggings by donkey wagon. Every hundred yards you have a motor-garage. The ground is rocky, and the people do not care, they just run over it. That means a great many damaged tyres and repairs, and many motor-garages. The post office is in Lichtenburg, but they have also a little agency at Elandsputte. On the window-sill you will find hundreds of native letters. The natives have to come and hunt for their letters, and you can never get to the counter. You have to rub shoulders with the natives, and it took me two hours one day to send away a telegram. The postal authorities ought to have known long ago that for a whole year this has been in existence. There should be a telephone on the diggings— there is not—and more postal agencies. During the election there were some postal agencies in connection with voting by post. That was done at my suggestion, and I think the Government for it. You had no officer there to register your letters in connection with the ballot. There you have 100,000 people without any address at all, or only one common address. This city is shifting from day to day, and the Government must adapt itself to the state of affairs there. It is the biggest compliment to the South African people to look at that city there, and see how the men behave without control. They are not out-at-eibows poor whites. Men make it their business to be diggers, and make a success of it many times. There are isolated cases of disease, but on the whole, the diggings are healthy, in spite of the remissness of the Department of Public Health. There are no doctors there, and it is only recently that the department appointed a district doctor.

An extra one.

Does the Minister realize that if an epidemic breaks out what can happen to the Union? With regard to liquor, there is not the slightest difficulty of getting it at the diggings at any time, night or day. I agree with the Minister of Justice that you should not have bottle-stores or liquor facilities on the diggings, as we know diggings. In the past licences were granted on small diggings. These small diggings have ceased to exist, but the bottle stores are there to-day in the veld—I refer to Diewedraai and Losberg. But here we have a new affair. Fifteen miles away from the diggings there is a bottle store, and the result is that every café is said to be a bottle store. I do not know where they get liquor, but they say the cafes are responsible. You will never be able to control it without having a large number of police.

How are these people so law-abiding, if you have illicit liquor selling going on there?

It is no good talking about law-abiding. There are certain laws where you can just go over the limit. Now let me say a word for the civil servants who, in that district, are on the whole, overworked, as they have to deal with an additional population of 100,000. The staff should be doubled or trebled. They are suffering considerably because houses that could be hired at Lichtenburg for £5 per month cannot now be obtained for £25 per month with the result that civil servants are turned out.

What about the rent board?

Government should inquire immediately into the steps to be taken to meet this changed position. Any Government that tries to ride roughshod over this industry, and to kill it is doomed to die. I will not support a Government that attempts to do that. What creates a bad impression is that we have suggestions thrown out by the big diamond people to protect the industry they represent. They have a perfect right to do that, but any Government that follows their advice and prohibits any further proclamation of diamond diggings is doomed to failure. Here is a natural wealth of great value, and employing a very large number of people. It would be very inconsiderate of the Government to even think of closing down such a source of wealth. At the same time we must be very careful not to make the law so stringent as to have the effect of closing down the fields, and we must not deprive the owners of every right they should have. If the owner is given 200 claims in one block he will be amply compensated, and the diggers will have a chance. The sanitary arrangements consist of sacking supported by four poles. There are thousands and thousands of natives, and they should be told that between sunrise and a certain time after sunset they must remain within segregated areas, and then there would not be so much i.d.b. At present the native places his hut wherever he likes, and that is wrong, when it is realized that there are more natives than Europeans on the fields. If a diggers’ bank were established it would almost finance itself, and it would pay the Government to advance the money in order to control the diamond output, and it would pay the industry to support the bank. Fifty per cent. of the value of the diamonds should be advanced by the bank, and the balance would be payable when the diamonds were sold. The same principle has been adopted in the case of maize advances. If the Government has control, there would be no risk, as the Minister could arrange the quota. The Government must be told that only by the adoption of a bold course will the situation be saved.

You would require millions of money to make advances on the diamonds.

But they are producing millions. What about the income tax?

Very few diggers pay it.

They have not been there a year yet. The Minister must not be so hasty.

Is there very much i.d.b. there?

A very great deal indeed. What I desire to stress in conclusion is that Government must take absolute control of the diggings by employing efficient and impartial men, and that it would be fatal for any government to close down these diggings, and thus deprive thousands of people and the country of the wealth which is lying there and of which we should avail ourselves.

The Minister of the Interior yesterday made an appeal to members of this House to be very careful when speaking on the Indian question. I think, however, the Minister will not take it amiss in my saying something about the question. I am not so optimistic as the Minister, because I cannot see how anything particularly good can be expected from the agreement. I can well recollect the time, years ago in Pretoria, when the first Asiatic shop was established. It was approximately in the middle of the town, and even at that time the white population at Pretoria was opposed to it. I remember how at night schoolboys rushed the shop and threw stones on the roof. That was the state of affairs at that time, and the position of the Asiatic has much improved since then. To-day we find these shops everywhere in the Transvaal. In the western Transvaal, in Lichtenburg, Potchefstroom, etc., the white traders have been squeezed out, and it is, I think, only a question of time how long they will be able to hold out before they are all squeezed out. I do not wish to oppose the agreement, but I want to ask the Minister how he intends, under the agreement, to get the Asiatic traders out of the Transvaal.

The Provincial Council of the Transvaal itself controls the issue of licences.

There is not the least chance of our getting rid of the Asiatics by means of the agreement.

What, then, do you actually suggest in order to get rid of them?

The Asiatics to-day possess many of the best sites, and are pushing the white traders out. With regard to repatriation, there will probably be 2,000 or 3,000 leaving the country each year, but they will consist of the ordinary Indians, who in most cases can no longer work, and are decrepit, and for that class of people we shall have to pay possibly £100,000 a year. But we are not concerned in the Transvaal about that class of Indian, i.e., the working Indian in Natal, of whom we know little. I have seen conditions in Natal, and know that they are bad there. I saw what the position was in Durban, but with us it is actually worse still, because there we find the Indian in direct competition in trade. In Krugersdorp, the position became serious, and we tackled the matter and commenced by advertising against the Indian danger, and we worked hard against it. I think that an anti-Asiatic society still exists to-day, but recently, since the Minister introduced the Class Areas Bill, we have remained quiet and the agitation has ceased. Now the Minister is going to take a different line to the previous Government, and going to give relief to the Indians in connection with the matter. The agitation of which I have spoken took place because the position in Krugersdorp was so serious that the richest and best shops had got into the hands of Asiatics. The Minister said that the Transvaal itself had control of the issue of licences. But what will happen if the issue of licences to Indians is interfered with? Is not the Minister afraid that the Indian Government will then again become afraid, and say that the agreement is not being complied with fairly and reasonably, but that class legislation is being applied by preventing Indians from getting licences? I can assure the Minister that the feeling with reference to the Indian question is strong in the Transvaal to-day. I am not astonished that hon. members for the Free State are silent on this matter, and satisfied. The Minister of Finance is also remaining quiet. They have not got the nuisance, and do not know what it means to the white people in the Transvaal. Nor is the position in the Cape Province as serious as it is in the Transvaal and Natal. With us it is not only that the Asiatic becomes rich in a shop at the expense of the white trader, but he spreads himself over other parts, and puts up shops in the native locations and all possible places, and the difficulty must be solved.

You give them the licences yourselves in the Transvaal.

What, then, is the Minister going to do? Is the Minister not afraid of passing legislation to empower the Transvaal Provincial Council to refuse licences? Will the Government of India not say that we are departing from the agreement? The position is that we are submitting more and more to the yoke of the Indian population, so that hereafter we shall entirely dance to their tune and make laws satisfactory to them. I say myself that our action must not be unfair towards the Asiatics. Let us try to uplift them, but it must not be at the expense of the white population. I do not mind what happens, and I would rather see us coming into conflict with the whole Indian population, than sacrificing the position of the whites. The Minister wants to educate them and put them on a higher scale of civilization, and I have just noticed an article in one of the papers that the Indians have built a great fire in one of their mosques, and thrown the glowing coals out at a spot past which children, screaming from anxiety, are compelled to walk. The idea was to cure disease in that way. This shows in what a primitive way they still live, and from what position they have still to be raised by education. I do not say we must not do so, but when they are placed on the same rung as the white people, then we shall have to give them all the rights of white people. The choice will come very quickly, because the Asiatics are not satisfied to-day. They already want the municipal franchise to-day, alleging that they have a stake in the country. According to what the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) told the House, the value of the property of the Indians in Natal, at the ordinary municipal valuation, is more than £1,000,000. and they will want the right of voting. In the Transvaal also, the Indians own very much. It is not only that they will not be satisfied with the position, but the Government will under the agreement want to live in peace and friendship with them, and concede their demands. The Minister, in his speech, made an attack on some of my hon. friends, in saying that they had made irresponsible speeches, and the remark was particularly aimed at the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). He, however, was setting forth the actual state of affairs in the Transvaal. Although the Minister said that the whole people stood behind him on the Asiatic question, I want to assure him that if he submits the matter to the public, he will have very few behind him in the Transvaal. They feel that the Minister has departed from the principle which he adumbrated long before the conference.

Why do they feel like that, and is it a proper feeling?

It is not a question of a right sentiment, but of the existence of South Africa. There is no doubt that if we allow further encroachments to be made, we shall in the future have to concede everything. Natal is already in a hopeless position, and the Transvaal is slowly becoming the same. As a result of the agreement, not a single Asiatic of the trading class who we are so anxious to leave the country will leave South Africa. They will say that if they remain in South Africa they will be in a country of great possibilities which is not yet over-populated, but if they go to India they will be in an over-populated country where it is difficult to make a living. I have not the least faith in more Indians emigrating from the Union as a result of the agreement. If we look at the birth statistics, then we find that it is already seen there that the Asiatic population in the Union, without immigration, increased during the past two years by 12,000. If 3,000 were repatriated in two years, then the increase is still 9,000.

The total increase in one year is not more than 5,000.

Thus, every year 6,000 would have to be repatriated to reduce the number. The repatriation of Indians is a hopeless thing, and will assist us nothing, notwithstanding all the expenses in connection therewith.

Yet your party insisted on repatriation.

That was the only solution we saw.

What solution do you see now?

Segregate the Indians, and say that they may only trade and do business there. The Minister wants us to assist their emigration, but he will anyhow not get them out of the country. Of those who go away many will return. Even if we spend thousands of pounds on repatriation, it will still only be a drop in the ocean. Legislation will have to be passed to prevent the Indians coming so much into touch with Europeans in business, and subsequently it may also be necessary possibly to take action in moral questions. The Indians are progressing. One of the Asiatics in Krugersdorp drives about in a Rolls Royce, and there are only three of those cars in the country. That shows how they are progressing. Now that the agreement has been entered into, we can do nothing or say nothing without coming into conflict with the Government of India. At one time we used always to be afraid of England, and when we said or did anything representations were made to the British Government, and we had to stop again. Now we have again suddenly become afraid of the Indians. I do not wish to go into the matter further, but the Minister himself knows that the agreement is a hopeless one. We shall see next year that the number of Indians who have left the country are much less than what is expected. The position is indeed improved because a higher sum is paid, but the class of Indians that will leave the country will not be those with whom we have the most trouble. That class of Indians you will never get out of the country. Many children are being born, and the Indians are more and more possessing the land. The Government should pass such legislation that the Indians should be put on one side in the towns and villages, and that they should remain out of the central places. Potchefstroom is one of the oldest capitals in the country, and it is really a shame to see how the Asiatics have taken possession of the place. At Wolmaransstad there were formerly six shops belonging to Europeans, but to-day there is only one, and that is on the point of closing down. The Indians are ruining the white people, and our future in that respect is dangerous. I hope that as a result of the agreement there will be a better position than what I imagine, because I can see nothing good in it. As the Minister of Labour has come in, I want to bring something to his notice. The other day, in answer to a question I asked him, he gave information which was not according to the actual facts. I have particulars of nine cases, but I shall only mention one of them to the House, to show what happened to the man after he came under the Department of Labour. A certain Mr. Uys came to the canals in 1923, and worked there until the 10th March, 1923. Then he was sent to the settlement in Machadodorp, and there he remained for a certain time until the departmental inspector came there. The report of the inspector was that you could just as well go and farm on the sand flats by the sea or on the mountains of the Cape Peninsula. The result was that Uys was taken away and sent to Potgietersrust, being placed there with a farmer. He worked there for a certain time, and I understand got along very well. The department, however, took him away again, and sent him to Makwane. There he remained some time, and after he had done quite a lot of work at planting trees and the cultivation of lands, he was taken away and sent to Uitvalgrond. That is the last place he reached, and he worked there more than two years One of the farmers close by, himself a capable farmer, told me that Uys was a first-class worker, but that the officials the department sent about as inspectors knew nothing about farming. They wanted to teach the people just to do the wrong thing on the farm. Has remained at Uitvalgrond until he got notice from the Minister to leave it, but before that happened—and I think that this is the cause of the difference—the chief welfare officer used the man to do transport riding for buildings that were erected, and later on to also carry manure for the lands of the other settlers, and in this way the person was employed by the Government for 21 days; and because he was not on Government ground for 21 days £2 was deducted from his monthly allowance, and that is what the dispute is about. The Government, through its welfare officials, used the man in the service of the settlers, and while he was so employed for 21 days he was not on the ground, and some of his pay was deducted. I do not think that was fair, and I think the man had cause for complaint. The result was that the poor devil received notice to leave the ground. I could mention other cases. I have nine letters before me, but I just want to mention the case of a certain Van Zyl. When the Government took over Uitvalgrond, he was employed by a certain Tom van Reenen, the owner of Uitvalgrond, and anyone who knows Tom van Reenen knows him as a farmer who knew how to make a man work, and what a man could do. The Government took over Van Zyl, and he remained on the Government ground until he received notice to leave the place. I understand the same thing happened to him as in the case I have just mentioned. The welfare officials said that he could have a certain piece of ground for himself, but that he could not work it himself, but his wife and children could, and that everything he made out of it would be his own. The result was that his wife, a capable woman, planted the ground with beans. She reaped a whole bag of beans, but just as she was finished reaping them the welfare official came and said that she had to send it to the store. When she said that it was the produce of her own piece of ground, it made no difference. She was obliged to deliver it at the store. Difficulties arose, and the poor fellow received notice to leave the ground. I do not wish to go into all the cases, but I think that there is enough information for the Government to make an inquiry, and to see in which cases people are not being fairly treated.

I am glad that in the course of the debate the alluvial diggings have been mentioned. Doubtless it is a matter of great importance and deserves the attention of the Government and the people. I should like first of all to go into the financial position a little. It is an industry which gives a large part of our people a living, but the State also gets a large revenue from the diggings, and I have taken the trouble to find out what the revenue is, from the report of the commissioner of in land revenue. It appears that in the financial year 1925-’26, the revenue from diamonds was £479,000, from income tax £319,000, from export duty £875.000, total £1,673,000. Thus the treasury alone benefited to an amount of £1,673,000. The output of alluvial diamonds last year was £1,970,000, and from mines almost £7.000.000, a total of about £8,800,000. We, therefore, see that the diamond industry is a great source of revenue to the State. To a question asked by me about the number of Europeans at present making an existence on the alluvial diggings, I was recently informed, as regards the Cape Province, that in December last there were on the alluvial diggings 1,446 persons, and 1,000 families, and 8,200 natives As regards the Transvaal, the number of European diggers was fully 8,000, of families 6,000, and of natives in the employ of the diggers, 28,000. I asked in the same question for an approximate statement of the estimated revenue from the alluvial diggings. I was told that for the last six months, for which figures were available, sales took place to an amount of £2,670,000. I quote the figures to prove that there was an increase in the production during the last six months in comparison with the preceding year. The production of the alluvial diggings must, at the moment, be assuming tremendous proportions, as is to be inferred from the descriptions given us by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees). The figures which were published in connection with the Grasfontein rush are difficult to understand, unless a person, like the hon. member for Delarey, has had the privilege to personally see conditions there. But we see that more and more people are flocking to the diggings, and it must be clear to everyone that if this continues there will eventually arise a state of affairs when the market will be glutted with diamonds. We had, I think it was two years ago, the figures with regard to the sale price of diamonds every year throughout the whole world, and it appears from that that the sale in the world market per annum amounts to about £10,000,000 to £12.000,000. If we consider then the increase of the production in South Africa, then we see that South Africa is able to alone supply the world’s demand of diamonds, and that it may come about that South Africa will alone produce more than the world’s need, which would lead to the collapse of the diamond market. That is a matter which the Government and the country cannot treat with indifference. Because I know how the number of people working on the alluvial diggings compare with the numbers earning their bread on the diamond mines. I asked for the figures, and I want again to bring it specially to the notice of the Government. The same point has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Delarey. It appears that the number of people who make a living on the alluvial diggings is not much greater than on the ordinary mines. In this connection I want to point out that only last year there was a notice in the papers that a large diamond cutting establishment in Antwerp was faced with the prospect that the diamond market would sag. I do not wish to approach the Government to-day with a definite proposal, but I think the Government, and particularly the Mines Department, should see to it that as much information as possible is obtained, and, as in the proposed Bill, in any case, a certain amount of finality is aimed at in this connection, the opinion of everybody concerned in the matter should, as far as possible, be obtained. The Bill has not yet been introduced, and I want to suggest that the Government should, as soon as possible, call a conference of the producers concerned, the people who make their living out of the industry, to see in what way it is possible to control the diamond output if necessary. In this connection the hon. member for Delarey suggested an idea with regard to the control, and I hope the Government will carefully consider it, but if I may express an unconsidered opinion, then I must warn the Government not to lightly accept the idea. That scheme may possibly run into a large amount, and I think that before such a scheme is decided upon, the general taxpayers should first be consulted. The Government should, however, immediately give its full attention to the health conditions at the diggings. I have repeatedly made use of my opportunities to urge that. The Minister of Public Health says that in the Bill just introduced, provision has been made for this, but I have gone into the Bill and find that there is not sufficient provision to meet the need. In the second place the provision ought to be equal throughout the whole Union, and not only to be applied to the new diggings. Provision ought also to be made for education at the diggings. There are many young people and children on the diggings, and they have to be educated. As there is a law to-day by which the State makes a grant for educational purposes to the Provincial Administrations, the State can do nothing else but point out their obligations to the administrations; yet I do not wish the State to interfere by establishing its own Government schools. The diamond diggings have hitherto been regarded as the salvation of the backward portion of the population, and the alluvial diggings have been recommended by various speakers as a partial solution of the poor white problem. If it was a possible solution in the past, then it cannot be said to be so to-day, because big capital is beginning to play an amazing part there. I think the people support the view that the Government should get rid of big capital on the diggings. We cannot be careless and hasty, and go to work stupidly, but the Government must intervene and put an end to the subdivision of farms, the selection of claims, and the influx of big capital. In connection with the sub division of farms, it is a question as to how far the Bill should not be given retroactive force. With regard to education on the diggings, I said that the State must see to it that the provincial administrations did their duty, but on one of the diggings which I have the honour to represent, something happened to which I object. An attempt was made to get assistance for native education on the diggings, but although the natives were themselves prepared to contribute a part of the cost, they could get nothing from the State. It is only fair and light that we should see that something should be done in that respect. I do not say that the State must do it directly, but the State must see that the provincial administration does its duty. I hope the Government will give its earnest attention to the matter of the diggings, because it is not only of financial importance, but a matter of public health and public education, matters which concern the whole immediate future of the people. I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister of Labour, and it is in connection with the application of the Industrial Conciliation Act. I want to keep party politics out of the matter, but if I were inclined to bring them in then I could read a quotation from a speech by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) where he took to himself the credit of being the father of the Act, and regarding it as the only solution of the labour problem. I want to keep the matter out of party politics and, therefore, I will not quote it. What we feel, and I speak particularly of the countryside, is that it is an entirely sound principle that in certain centres, an agreement between employers and employees should be entered into. We have nothing to say against that, but we are opposed to the circles being drawn so wide that a large part of the countryside is excluded from regulating the price. The position on the countryside is quite different from that in the large centres, and ought not to come under the same agreement as that applying to the large centres. I should like to know from the Minister of Labour, according to what principle the circles are drawn, and to whose judgment it is left to draw them. We all feel that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that we, as far as possible, want to have a healthy sentiment between employers and employees, and, therefore, we have no objection to the Act. We must, however, be careful in its administration to see that we are not ourselves the cause of its failure. I am thinking here of the building trade. An exception has been made in favour of certain buildings, viz., where the value of the material, and the cost of building amount to more than £400. In one case notice was never given until on a certain day an official from the department came who said that such a proclimation had been made. The principle was not applied here that there should be an agreement between the employer and employee, and the intimation of the official was a surprise to both parties, and caused a dislocation at that place. In connection with the Wages Act, I may say that I am more than ever convinced to day of the sound principle which is embraced in it we had a certain object with the Wages Act, viz.. that there should be a healthy sentiment between employers and employees. When that sentiment, therefore, cannot be created by agreement, it is in the interests of the country, and it is the duty of the State to see that the best agreement between the two parties is reached. I think that the State, all things considered, must assume the responsibility in avoiding dislocation and irregularities such as we have had in the past. My intention, and the intention of Parliament when we voted for the Bill was, however, not that people should be discharged from service, because it was stated that that had actually occurred. I asked the Minister a question, and I gathered from his answer that a certain number of employees had been discharged. There is another aspect which we must bear in mind. We cannot go carelessly to work in raising wages, and we cannot take into consideration one aspect of society without considering the whole. I want to lay down the principle that if it is decided to increase wages and improve working conditions, then it is also necessary that the carrying capacity of the industry should be borne in mind. If we are going to raise the wages without taking that into account it will lead to the discharge of employees. If the discharge takes place for another reason, then there must be malice on the part of the employer. The department must see that that sound economic principle is followed, and when it is proved that the discharge of workmen takes place from mere malice, only because of the existence of the Wages Act and matters connected therewith, then an enquiry must be made and action taken. I hope the Minister of Labour who is not now in his place will be informed of my remarks, and that he will consider them. I support the principle of the two Acts, but in applying them we must only follow sound economical laws. I should also like to say a few words in connection with the Imperial Conference of last year. As the Prime Minister has promised to give us another opportunity of discussing the matter, I will not go into details. To us, who are attached to our people, and have a strong feeling and love for the development of our people, and more particularly of our constitutional liberty, this is not an opportunity which we can allow to pass unnoticed. The first question is: What is the meaning of the declaration of the Imperial Conference to us as a State. In the second place, what is the meaning of it to our sister states, which are called the dominions of the British Empire, and in the third place what is the meaning to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland? The declaration is one of the most astonishing monuments in our constitutional history. To us, at any rate, it is one of the most noteworthy milestones in our historical development; it is one of the extraordinary occurrences in world history that such a development should have occurred peacefully, i.e., without a revolution or shedding blood. Because it is such a unique occurrence in history for such a far-reaching constitutional change to take place in that way, it is one of the monuments of modern history, and cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. There is one case in history where a country obtained its independence without revolution. I am thinking of Norway, where a subordinate part of a kingdom was created into a new kingdom. By the acknowledgment and the declaration of the highest authority that can speak on behalf of the peoples within the British Empire, each people has indisputable self-government. If we were to pursue the history of constitutional development, we should find that in every case it was a lengthy process. We notice this in the development of the form of Government in the British Empire, and also in our own country. We have to-day a state of affairs which can hardly be compared with the position of 20 or 30 years ago. We should be ungrateful if we did not give expression to our feelings about the noble and monumental work which was done last year by the great architects of the conference, and to us as South Africans, it is a matter of great honour and pride that we can count one of our great statesmen amongst them. We gratefully accept the work that was done there, and see in it the continuance of our constitutional development, and regard it is a milestone in the development of the self dependence of a people which has a future before it. It will be realized that we should speak carefully about a matter in which sentiment plays so great a part, but we accept it as a beacon in the history of South Africa. Those of us who for years have given attention to the constitutional development in South Africa, and in the British empire, and to the various tendencies which were from time to time observable within the empire, must be more observant than ever before for the conservation thereof, because imperialism in all its pride is by a long way not dead yet. Although we would gladly admit that that British empire which we have had before us for so many years has absolutely ceased to exist, we know on the other hand that imperialism which is meant to advance the idea of that empire, still wants to continue. As imperialism in the past was dangerous, it will in the future, under existing circumstances, be a still greater danger, because it shows itself in another form. Therefore, it is the duty of each of us to maintain the honour and freedom of our people.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) for calling attention to the position of tens of thousands of our citizens engaged in diamond digging. One noticed with surprise, and perhaps with some regret, the irritability of the Ministers when one of their supporters brought to their attention the need for definite action in connection with these men, a large number of whom are their supporters. In my opinion, steps will have to be taken to secure that the interests of these diggers shall in no way be sacrificed to the diamond corporations of South Africa, and that in dealing with the matter the Government must look after the interests of the diggers, even although that may prejudice the interests of the big diamond corporations. Without going into details of the well-informed speech of the hon. member, who knows the actual position on the diamond fields, I do feel that the problem which has arisen is due to the fact that no steps have been taken in the past. The threat which is held out about the excess output of diamonds is a threat which can be overcome if the Government, instead of concerning itself about the output of diamonds, rather concerned itself with the control of the export of them, and not leave the exports in the control of the big corporations. The hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin) was instrumental in drawing the attention of the House to issues more important than other issues dealt with by hon. members of the S.A. party. We had a series of criticisms. First we had the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir William Macintosh) concerning himself with the condition of the Labour party, which had nothing to do with the discussion before the House. Then we had the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) dealing with finance, and he gave two illustrations of increased expenditure, namely, pensions and education. With regard to what he said in connection with pensions, one would be glad to know whether he desires to reduce the pensions provided for by Acts. If so, did he speak for his party or for himself? Then he took up the second point, the increased expenditure on education. As far as education is concerned, I think the State cannot spend too much, because the better the education of its citizens, the bigger the wealth of the State. He gave credit to the Minister of Finance for certain items of increased expenditure which he said was occasioned because the Minister had swallowed the Baxter report. To some extent I agree with him, but there was one item in the increased expenditure which the hon. member overlooked. One of the reasons why there is increased expenditure on education is due to the fact that under the arrangements which have taken place, technical education has been taken over from the provinces by the Union, the cost amounting to £160,000. In reality, I think the amount is even greater than that. If anybody has a grievance, it is the members sitting on these benches and supporters of the Government generally, because of the new policy in connection with vocational training for which the people of the Transvaal are now obliged to pay, where before it was free. I suggest the correct policy to pursue is not a policy of retrogression in respect of the Transvaal, but rather to raise the other provinces to the level of the Transvaal, and see that vocational training in South Africa shall be completely free. Another point is the criticism against the Indian agreement. There will be an opportunity at a later date to discuss that, but one is surprised that members of the S.A. party who hold themselves out as protagonists in South Africa of English ideals and interests should criticise an agreement which is in pursuance of those ideals, and which eases the difficulties of Great Britain in India. They should have congratulated the Government. One hopes the problem will be settled on the basis of voluntary repatriation and the enforcement of economic conditions in South Africa, so as to secure to all workers a civilized standard and civilized rates of pay, and that there shall be no question of exploiting cheap labour at the expense of the white people. Those members having dealt with this subject, we had the hon. member for Peninsula (South) asking for and securing a statement in connection with the great work the Prime Minister has done in Great Britain in connection with the Imperial Conference. Everyone on the cross benches are grateful to the Prime Minister for the great service he has rendered to the British commonwealth of nations, and more particularly to South Africa in the declaration which has been obtained and which has settled the question which has been diverting our attention for 15 years from economic problems which matter. After several years of Pact Government, we have, even to-day, a considerable amount of unemployment and a great deal of poverty. We have farmers working for 1s. and 1s. 6d. a day, and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), a leader of the National party, has to admit, even himself is guilty of employing men of his own kith and kin at these miserable pittances. Obviously, if you have got these problems confronting you and you have also got the problem to which I have just referred, I think one must be grateful to the Prime Minister for having secured a settlement of the barren controversy which has prevented South Africa from effectively dealing with the real conditions of the people in this country One feels, to some extent, some regret that the Prime Minister, having been responsible for such a great accomplishment, did not implement that and bring it to a head, by taking away the last vestige of any controversy that exists on racial matters in South Africa, by taking the attitude of saying that, as far as the flag question is concerned, that should be left over until it is possible to secure the common consent of all sections. I believe that, if he had followed his own inclinations he would probably have saved South Africa from a good deal of controversy for which I do not blame the Government, because I think that both sides are to blame for that position. The Prime Minister, in his statement last night, definitely showed that the issue which has been dividing the people of South Africa for a considerable number of years, has been finally settled. If one might utter a word of criticism, it is this, that a statement of such vital importance was, to some extent marred by an attempt on the part of the Prime Minister to show that he had always occupied the same position. After all, what does it matter on a great issue of this kind whether one has changed one’s opinions or not, as long as to-day you have arrived at the right opinion? The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), perhaps in a more tactful manner, took up the same attitude of trying to prove that the position has never changed, that, so far as he is concerned, the position is the same that he has always held it to be. If that is the position, as has been admitted by both the Prime Minister and the right hon. gentleman, if in reality the difference which has existed between them has been imaginary and not real, then it is to be regretted that with an imaginary difference which has existed between the two parties and the two leaders in South Africa, this country should have been allowed to suffer for a period of 15 years. The matter has been settled, and the best evidence at the moment of that solution at the moment is to be found, perhaps, in the actual legislation which is to-day being given effect to in the House of Commons as a result of the decisions of the Imperial Conference. During the last few days this Government has been giving effect to the results of some of the decisions which were taken at the Imperial Conference. The Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, in speaking on the Royal Titles Bill, said—

He pointed out that now there were no—

the dominions certainly since the last conference were co-equal with the United Kingdom, and were not subjected to its jurisdiction. That statement definitely clears up the position as far as we are concerned. The Prime Minister said last night—

The right hon. the member for Standerton stated—

That being the position, it gives an opportunity to this House and the country of now, once for all, devoting attention to the solution of the economic problems which are confronting this country and the poverty which is existing among thousands and tens of thousands of people in South Africa. Let the fight in South Africa, in future, be to drive poverty out of the land, and to secure a reasonable existence and proper conditions for the citizens of the country. The question, as a result of a solution of this constitutional issue, that will confront not only this House but the country, will be as to where the people stand, as to, where the different political parties stand, in relation to the position to-day. I do believe that the ultimate advantage of the people of South Africa depends on the people of this country being divided if they are to be divided at all, on economic problems, and not on constitutional issues. The economic problems which confront us at the present time, now that the constitutional issue has been swept away, are problems which will easily lend themselves to people ranging themselves either on one side or the other, without regard to any attitude which they may have adopted in the past. As far as the S.A. Labour party is concerned, we have never had a say, we have never interfered, in the controversies, the barren controversies, of the last 15 years. The S.A. Labour party has taken up a very consistent attitude, the consistent attitude throughout that South Africa can work out its destinies, even though it remains a member of the British commonwealth of nations. Now that the sovereign independence of South Africa has been secured, our business is to secure the economic independence of South Africa, and not only the economic independence of South Africa as a State, but the economic independence of the citizens of this country, so that they shall not be dependent upon a handful of people who may use them for purposes of exploitation. That is the clear-cut issue. I know hon. members on the S.A.P. side will be amused. They do not believe in freedom. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who has made a study of economics, although he propounds wrong theories, knows as well as I do that no man can be free unless he has got economic freedom; no man can be free if he is subject to the power of some other individual as to whether he shall have the opportunity of working, and as to what shall be the conditions under which he shall work. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) asks me what I mean by economic freedom. He knows, but I will explain it to him. As far as the State is concerned, the economic independence of the State, it means in regard to our key industries that we must not be dependent upon anyone overseas. Then comes a question which has been exercising our minds the last few days. I refer to State shipping. We know that fruit farmers in the Cape are largely to-day at the mercy of shipping combines as to whether they shall have the opportunity of exporting their goods at reasonable rates or not. That is a question which must be definitely tackled to free the population of this country from outside rings so far as the export and import of goods is concerned. The third point I make is that it is imperative that we in South Africa shall secure the control of our credit and the establishment of State banking. Those who are anxious to follow up sovereign independence by the economic independence of South Africa will have to seriously tackle these problems and not remain subservient to big financial interests which control shipping and key industries. Then it is imperative to secure the economic independence of the citizen. The citizen in South Africa to-day is dependent on a handful of people as to whether he shall get employment and the conditions under which he shall get it. It will be necessary more and more to take away the power from these private individuals or corporations, and to replace it by an ever-increasing tendency towards State enterprize, so that people shall know they are working not for the profit of a few, but for the profit of the whole community.

What about the land?

I am not afraid of tackling the land. I believe there are tens of thousands of our fellow-citizens in South Africa, our Dutch-speaking fellow-citizens, who would welcome the opportunity of working the land, and who do not get it under present conditions. I am concerned with the position of the people, and I believe this is going to be the issue before many years are over; first, whether you are going to have co-operation or dominance. It has now been settled that there shall be no dominance, no super-State, but co-operation between the various States which form the commonwealth of nations. The next issue is in connection with the economic development of South Africa, as to whether it shall be based on co-operation or the dominance of the few. I believe a new position will arise when you will find all who in South Africa give lip service to freedom will combine on the one side, and on the other hand you will find all those sections of the people who believe in governing South Africa on the lines of co-operation, and they will gradually develop South Africa in the interests of the people, and not for the benefit of the few.

I want to say a few words upon the Asiatic agreement. I realize that whatever may be said in this House, it will not alter that agreement. It all goes to show how fallacious it is for members of the Government, such as the Minister of Lands and his supporters, to go about making wild speeches, vote catching, and saying that when they get into power they will alter things by a stroke of the pen. They are up against it, and as the result we have this agreement. The best thing in this agreement, in my opinion, is the co-operation we have with the Indian Government. I hope the Minister of the Interior will take full advantage and make this a fruitful agreement. There are tens of thousands of Indians in Natal who are not conforming to the European standard of civilization. I hope he will put his back into voluntary repatriation. He should set the mark at 20,000 a year, and if the inducement is not sufficient, let him increase it. I am sure that hon. members will regard what is spent in that direction as a good investment for South Africa. I now want to ventilate a very serious matter, and that is the elevator grievance.

The hon. member cannot discuss that on this debate.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will divert my attention to other matters. We have heard a great deal of officers being dismissed because of being unilingual. We have heard that all administrative officers must be bilingual. Their cry is efficiency and economy. Could there be a more deplorable breakdown in any government’s policy than with regard to east coast fever? It is entirely through inefficiency, and remember we are spending over £90,000 per year to cheek the disease. The figures I will give you will show how the disease is spreading—due entirely to the inefficient men employed, who are unilingual. These are the Minister’s figures. I asked him for a return of infected farms, and the number on December 31st, 1926, was given as being 169. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) asked for the figures on the 8th February, and the answer was 202, or an increase of 33. We have this disease spreading in the Cape, where it was suppressed years ago. The Government ’s policy, I may explain, is to take away the responsibility of the landowner—the farmers— and put in their place these men who are inefficient and unilingual, and men of the bijwoner class. I ask the Government to consider, where you have progressive farmers like in Umvoti county, to put it into the hands of these men. These officers do not always consider the convenience of the farmers in fixing dipping hours; farmers like their cattle to be dipped on Saturdays, so that they can be ready by Monday’s ploughing. All that the farmer has to do is to send his cattle to the tank, and there his responsibility ends. These officials do the dipping, and are supposed to test the dips. I can give you one instance where an official ordered a farmer to add 30 lbs. of arsenic. The farmer was immediately suspicious, and on testing his tank he found the dip was up to strength. If he had added this arsenic, he would have poisoned his cattle. I have a letter from a man who says that out of 230 head of cattle, 50 were scalded by one of these inspectors making the dip over strength. One of these inspectors—I have the original letter here, and the Minister can have it—I have the proof here for everything I may say about east coast fever—wrote—

is there any sense in fixing dipping from 12 midnight to one o’clock in the morning? I have others of these letters, but one will suffice, and I will hand it over to the Minister. In my division we have an increase in the disease. For 1924, according to the Minister’s figures—when the present administration commenced—25 farms were affected, and eight were declared clean during that year. His figures up to the end of 1926 were 30, and only five were declared clean. I suppose my unfortunate division is one of the most badly infected divisions in Natal. I am one of those who advocate efficient dipping, and through the efficient dipping of my own cattle during the past 16 years, notwithstanding that I have had infected farms on my boundary, I never had east coast fever. Therefore, I am an advocate of efficient dipping. I want to quote a concrete case as to how the administration of east coast fever is carried on by the Government. A man named Fintel in my division had 103 head of cattle when east coast fever broke out 10 months ago. On my return from Australia he interviewed me, and told me that after nine months’ dipping under one of these inspectors, dipping at five-day intervals, he had only 50 head of cattle remaining, and the previous day he had lost five head of cattle from east coast fever. Does the House realize and appreciate the gravity of this? Surely there could not be a greater proof of inefficiency than that? I have his letter, dated 23rd February, and I will read a portion—

Surely the Minister knows that this sort of thing cannot go on. These inspectors are the reason of this great breakdown. The Minister, in reply to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), said that the number of inspectors in Natal had increased from 153 to 209. Why should a disease like this be fought with inefficient men? Where are we coming to, and what is the object of spending this £90,000 a year? I see on the present estimates the amount for inspectors will be increased by another £7,000, or nearly £100,000 in all. What are we achieving? Nothing. We have the disease at the Cape. There is an increase of 24 farms in the Transvaal, a reduction of five in Natal, an increase of eight in the Cape, and an increase of six in the Transkei. There is no justification for wasting public money in carrying on such a policy. In my district we would far rather save the expense of inspection, remove the restrictions, and place the responsibility on the farmers, and in that way better results would be achieved.

How long did your farmers fight east coast fever?

We have had 18 years’ experience of east coast fever in Natal, and the farmers there know more about the disease than the inspectors do. The Minister, who has sent a commission round the country to allay feeling on the subject, must be reasonable regarding his restrictions. The South African farmer is a peculiar man. You can lead him, but when you impose unreasonable restrictions, he fights them. Look at the deplorable condition of our cattle in South Africa. We have 10 million head of cattle, and our farmers are in such a deplorable state of semi-bankruptcy because they are producing an article which cannot be turned into cash. The Minister’s policy has failed. The agricultural industry is valued at £81,000,000 per annum, the mineral production at £54,000,000 and the industrial production at £41,000,000. Why should the hen that lays the golden eggs be handicapped in this manner? I hope the Minister will admit his failure, for his own figures show it, and don’t let him twist my words when he replies. I am a most strenuous advocate of efficient dipping.

While the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was speaking and placing his economic principles before the House there was some jeering from members of the South African party. They jeer against socialism, but when they get into trouble they rush to socialism. I have heard them say for many years that Government must never interfere in any business enterprise, but to-day they and their newspapers are shouting—

That is asking the Government to interfere with private rights. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) is a left winger of the Nationalists and I hope that when the two parties separate he will join us; it is only a question of time. We now have the Gilbertian situation of the country being asked to limit its wealth, and we have a tadpole financier in the person of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) crying out that the country is practically bankrupt.

I said nothing of the sort.

He said that we spend far too much on education and commissions, although I notice that he sits on commissions. A man who is against the payment of commissions should not serve on them. Last night we had an interesting debate as to our status as a dominion. It was largely an academic discussion with a good deal of hair-splitting, which is so dear to our lawyer politicians and so distasteful to plain men. One thing, however, stands out clearly, and that is the Nationalists have without any mental reservation, thrown overboard the “ plank ” of secession from the empire. That is all to the good, and should stop a recrudesence of that racial feeling which has done so much to mar South Africa’s progress. I hope that those who agree on economic principles will stand together and fight those who disagree with them, and that this is the end to English-speaking people fighting Dutch-speaking people. We have been given to understand that what has happened in the past is dead. That position was accepted by the leader of the Opposition in his speech last night, and was granted, perhaps rather grudgingly, by the leader of the Government. The lion is lying down with the lamb, and so far as the wild animals are concerned, a little child can lead them. Speaking for a small but influential section of the country, the Free State, I want to thank the Prime Minister for bringing about a state of affairs which will allow all sections of the community in that province to concentrate on things that really matter, and to leave the dying ashes to burn themselves out The English-speaking people of the Transvaal always liked and respected the Prime Minister. We find there has been a change of heart regarding the British Empire. We are now all members of a strong and virile British Empire which, according to a speech made by the Prime Minister, there was nothing wrong in belonging to there was nothing wrong with a man of English blood, if born in South Africa, tenaciously clinging to the traditions of his fore-fathers. That is a welcome move upwards in the building of this nation, and for it the whole country is really grateful. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has joyously welcomed the higher status, he has said—

and he is anxious to build up our own country. I hope he means what he says. I am prepared to accept it that he means what he says. I hope the South African party mean what they say, and I hope we may expect from his party press absolute support of what he said last night. My experience of a few weeks ago in Natal, proved conclusively there is a section of the public of South Africa that can be whipped by the press into a frenzy of racial feeling. When I spoke in Dutch, it was sneered at by the people in Natal, and I was told that language would not be tolerated in Natal. That was the South African party English-speaking people of Natal, and we have here to-day one of the most prominent members of Natal sneering absolutely at the rural Dutch unemployed. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) sneered at them just now, and placed them on a level with the Asiatics. When he talks about these poor whites, he must remember their ancestors were those who died at the hands of the savages to save Natal. If they mean what they say, and their press means what it says, we shall probably hear a good deal less on the flag question—I hope so, at any rate. We have just had one flag election, and it would be interesting to hear from the South African party what the design of the flag is which they want. They talk about the Union Jack and the vierkleur. They forget the Free State vierkleur. I challenge them that they dare not come out with the design of a flag for the Union of South Africa. I challenge them, as a party, to officially publish the design of a flag for the Union of South Africa. It is all very well to say “ rot,” but you will not do it. You say—

We have a flag question on the horizon, and if that party means what it says it will come forward and publish a design for an official flag for South Africa. They dare not do it, and I will tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) why. Some of the section want the Union Jack and some want the vierkleur in. He dare not publish a flag with either of these. Yes, they will have the colours in the flag, but they dare not publish a flag containing in its entirety both of these flags with the Union Jack. I am prepared to support a flag without the Union Jack. With this new spirit in the House, I am prepared to see this flag question settled without trouble, and I am prepared to try and meet the wishes of the English-speaking people. I want the existing state of affairs to stop in South Africa as regards parties and everything else, and I want a fresh start. These amicable arrangements have been arrived at, and it is what the Labour party have fought for many years. You can call us what you like, and your press can say what it likes, but you cannot say that the South African Labour party has ever stood for racialism on either side. No party in South Africa has done more to push racialism off the political stage, and no party has suffered more by the exploitation of the flag by the South African party and the exploitation of the republican question by the Nationalists. We have been oppressed by the native question for years, and certain sections of the English people have been afraid we have been giving away the rights and traditions of our ancestors because the Nationalists have put up the cry of republicanism.

Before the dinner hour I was saying that we were many of us glad that the National party had, without any equivocation or mental reservation, thrown over the plank that at one time appeared in their platform—secession. We of the Labour party take a good deal of credit for this, because when the Pact was formed, in the letter from the Prime Minister to the leader of the Labour party, it was stated that our allies would not deal with the question of secession inside this House for five years, or words to that effect. The Labour party is pleased with the amicable arrangements which have been arrived at between the Labour party and the National party, and we hope that future contests will be fought on economic questions, and it is very probable that numbers of men who are now in this House sitting on opposite sides will be found sitting together. You can say whatever you like about the South African Labour party, you can call it any names you like, but there is one thing we cannot be accused of, and that is that, as a party, we have stood for any racialism in South Africa. For years we have endeavoured to keep the nose of Parliament to the grindstone in regard to economics, but we have found it very difficult to do so, because either from the Government side or the Opposition side a racial attack has arisen. Many times we on these benches have watched the two sides, one to a large extent representing the English-speaking section and the other the Dutch-speaking section fighting each other, ploughing the sands of racialism, while women are starving in the towns and men in the platteland are getting a shilling a day and two bags of mealies. We have always said that, from a Labour point of view, we intend to remain an integral part of the British empire, and that we believe that inside the empire we can solve our own problems in our own way. We have always held that opinion. We have been called by people on this (the Opposition) side traitors to the cause of Great Britain and by people on the other side we have been called imperialists, but I think our record shows that we have always stood for the interests of South Africa and for the British Commonwealth of Nations. May I suggest to the Government, now that this good feeling has been engendered in the House—and it will go outside the House —that the time is ripe for the Government to approach the fight hon. the leader of the Opposition and say to him—

I do not want to go into the flag question here to-night, but I say this definitely—and there are many men on the Government side who will agree with me that on the flag question, as far as the Free State is concerned, the people are cold. When this good feeling has been engendered between the two sides here, and when we are coming down to the economic question—certainly the Labour party is trying to get down to it—then I say that the time has arrived for the Government to go and say to the leader of the Opposition—

And perhaps by his suggesting to you a flag you will arrive at some via media, some method whereby you will stop any more quarrelling between the English-and Dutch-speaking people of this country. I make that suggestion. Getting back to the economic question, I say this—if all we have heard is true—and I am sorry to see that some of the South African party newspapers are already attacking the leader of the Government, who has done such a lot to stop racialism in the country—if all we have heard is true—and I accept it that it is so, that we are going to drop racialism and go on to the economic factor—I ask what is the difference between the gentlemen who sit on the right-hand side of Mr. Speaker and the gentlemen who sit on the left-hand side? Economically, I find very little difference. I do not find any great difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). I find far more difference between the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and his brother, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) and the Minister of Lands. If that is so, has the time not come to kiss and be friends and to allow Labour to go along its own path in its own way with its eyes fixed on the star which stands for the contentment and peace of the working classes of South Africa? Let us fight on economic lines. We shall drag from the Nationalist side many of their younger men and from the South African party side some of their aged men, because this is an aged party. The time has arrived when we can put aside the bitterness of the past, and there will be a new arrangement as far as the parties are concerned; Labour, Of course, will always pursue its own path. Probably the time will come when Natal will be the strongest part of the Labour movement of South Africa; as far as the cities are concerned, they must drop in time once you remove the facial question. It is quite impossible to divide the Dutch-speaking working class from the English-speaking working class. I want to strike a note of peace, the peace which is going to allow the South African Labour party to develop on its own lines as the great economic party of this country. I want to touch on this great question, the Indian question. I want to congratulate the Government on the great spirit in which they have tackled this question, the spirit of the higher status. Many of us in the Free State feel deeply for, and sympathize with, the people in Natal. We were wise enough in 1883 to pass a resolution allowing the Indians to leave our country. We were an independent country, and we could do it, but Natal, we know, has the Indians. We sympathize with the white working man who has seen the Indian exploited, so that his Wages may be reduced. We sympathize with the commercial man of Natal; he has to contend with great commercial ability and other things. But if the people of Natal are sincere in saying they want to be in the British empire, they must be consistent; they cannot take the benefits of the empire with one hand while rejecting the disabilities with the other. We cannot ask the British empire to protect us in one breath, and in the next say we will not allow Indians. Some people are pro-British as long as their cash balance at the bank is not touched. I want to say this, that India is a great and dignified nation; she is a co-partner in the British League of Nations; the blood of her sons dyed red the green grass of France in protecting—-what? The Union Jack. Yet we have the people of Natal, through some of their representatives here, spitting fire and brimstone when the name of Indian is mentioned. Here we have one of the most painful subjects the British empire has had to tackle, and we find a republican general from the Free State solving the difficulty; a man who, not many years ago, was in the field fighting against Great Britain, we find solving one of the thorniest questions England has ever had to deal with, and yet these men are called disloyal in Natal. These are the very men who have solved the question which would have meant great harm to India, Great Britain and South Africa. They deserve, instead of being sneered at, that Natal should come to the rescue of the National party, to the rescue of the Pact in solving this thorny question. I am not dealing with election pledges. Gen. Botha said one day that election promises were like pie crust, meant to be broken. If we carried out all our election promises, as members of Parliament, we should be living in heaven. It is no use one party complaining about the other party. I have a good memory, and there are all sorts of things I could bring home, but I am not going to discuss that now. We know there are rumblings in the far east. We know that 400,000,000 people are awakening to civilization. Is it not better to have a contented India within the league of British nations than a discontented India? If the great war ever does come—which God forbid—between east and west, is it not better that India should stand with us than against us? That is the question I ask Natal. It is not so many years ago there was an Asiatic fleet defending our coast, the Japanese fleet, The time may yet come in South Africa when an Indian cruiser may come to save Durban, Durban has no protection; she could be blown into the air. If people are as loyal as they say they are, it is up to them to stand by the Government and to settle the Indian question so that there should be rancour neither in India nor in this country. I believe it can be done. We have had criticisms from the Opposition. You will have repercussions in the north; people will be worked up against the Indians. I believe the people of Natal are in the main a generous people and a great people, and that they would not sympathize with their representatives who did their utmost to make party capital out of what is a danger to the British Empire. I believe they are good South Africans and will uphold this Government and will watch with sympathy and with pride what is being done to-day. One thing I found in Natal was this, that during the whole of the election in Natal when I was there, the Indian question was never raised by any speaker either South African party or Labour, through the whole of the election. I spoke to men I know, both on the South African party side and my side. The South African Labour party held numerous meetings, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will tell you that the Indian question was never mentioned. I do not believe it is a burning question in Natal at all. I do believe it is a burning question with my hon. friend, who is trying to make party capital out of it, and that my hon. friend is afraid he will lose his seat. From the speech, as I read it, I thought he was trying to make party capital out of it. I did not hear it, and I was sorry to read of a son of an old voortrekker family making such a speech. I do not believe the majority of the people of Natal are going to throw sand in the machine, but they will assist the Government in this direction. As far as I am concerned, and I am speaking for myself, I am going to support the Government on this Indian question, as I believe they are doing the right thing. I believe it takes a good deal of courage on the part of a man like the Minister of Lands, who had joined the anti-Asiatic League, to say—in our younger days we sowed wild oats—we all did so—but for the sake of peace and harmony, for the sake of South Africa, and putting everything right, we are prepared to come to a harmonious agreement with that great and dignified nation which, after all, is a co-partner with us. It takes a great deal of courage on the part of the Minister of Lands and of the Minister of Agriculture. I know the point of view of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) and Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), and I respect it. It is the view held by conservatives in all countries— exploit the wage-earner as far as you can; get your building done as cheaply as possible, and it does not matter what happens, but whether it is the best policy for South Africa we have to find out. We take up a different position, and that is that the working classes shall be highly efficient and highly paid. I believe that the Wage Act should apply to the countryside, and that when the day comes that the farmers pay their men as highly as they do in Canada and Australia, they will be able to compete with those farmers.

We will be insolvent then.

When the day comes the hon. member will be sitting with members on the other side. [Time limit.]

I gather, from the deep attention with which the speech of the last speaker was listened to by my hon. friends opposite, that his words of wisdom have been duly taken to heart. The expression with which some of them listened to it rather suggested to me that they accepted it as a bitter medicine, hoping that what is bitter to the taste may be sweet inside. But I want to enter a protest against the wild attack he made on Natal. I can understand the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) coming back from Natal with a sore head, but I do not think he was playing the game to work it off on Natal hon. members here. There is nothing extraordinary or remarkable in the attitude of hon. members from Natal. You can easily understand their attitude if you remember what was the promise made to them by hon. members opposite before they came into power. They were promised to be relieved from what was said to be—

They did not believe it; they did not Vote for us.

Let the hon. member remember, it is one consolation to them that when one party was defeated at the polls the incoming party was going to relieve them They had not reached the state of sophistry of my hon. friend on the cross benches. He said—

These simple people of Natal believed what they were told—

They are simple enough.

That is why one hears protests from Natal and elsewhere from people who regard the Indians as a menace. I think it was an act of courage for the Government to do this when it came into power—responsibility gave them more sense and a real insight into the nature of the problem. I agree with the hon. member that the problem is a great one, and it is hot one which arises because of the British empire at all. It would be more serious if we did not belong to the British empire. If we had to face a great independent Asiatic power like Japan, our position would be worse. It is a very big question. I only rose to speak for a few minutes on it because the agreement come to by the Government has been criticized from this side, and I was one of the members of the select committee representing this side Of the House. I think it right that I should say a few words about it. I think that the Government have done wisely in coming to this agreement, and I do not share the pessimistic view taken of it by some hon. members on this side of the House. I do not believe that this agreement has sold the pass, so to speak, or abandoned the interests of the Europeans in South Africa—not at all. This agreement is not a settlement of the Indian question—not by any means. We are going to have many questions arising—of the status of Indians and their relationships with Europeans. We are going to have many questions arising with regard to the permanent Indian population of South Africa, because there will always be a permanent Indian population here. What the agreement does— and that is why I think it is valuable—is it creates a new Way of dealing with this question. There is a new atmosphere in which these questions can be approached—an atmosphere of goodwill and peaceful relationships. It may he we will not be able always to carry them out, and we may come up some day against a snag we cannot come over. I welcome the agreement to deal direct with the Indian Government instead of through London, and to try to create an atmosphere as far as we can do which gives a promise of peaceful solution. We do not need to fear that while this agreement is being tried out, so to speak, irreparable harm will be done. Some of my hon. friends said that irreparable damage will be done. I do not hold that view. We have heard a great deal of the position of Natal, which undoubtedly is serious, but I do not agree with toy hon. friends behind me that the position in Natal is already hopeless—far from it. I do not think so at all. It is a curious thing that if the position of the Europeans in Natal is “ hopeless,” between 1911 and 1921, and again between 1921 and 1926, there was a greater relative increase in the European population in Natal than in any other province in the Union.

The most prosperous province in the Union.

So I cannot think that Natal is in extremis. Yes, politically it is doing equally well, and I might make reference to the percentage decrease of certain parties when they came back from Natal, but I will not do that. In 1911 the Indian population of Natal exceeded the European population by 50 per cent. Now the European population exceeds the Indian population by some thousands, so it is difficult for me to believe that the position is hopeless. It can be retrieved, and I think this agreement, if things go well, will set our policy on the road which will lead to a peaceful and satisfactory settlement. I entirely agree with what the Minister said about the upliftment of the permanent Indian population by raising them to European standards of civilization. But then I find a strange contrast between the words of this agreement and the recent actions of this Government. The agreement says that the principle underlying the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 and the Wage Act of 1925 of equal pay for equal work will be adhered to. If Ministers found that compatible with the colour bar passed last year, I cannot. I cannot see how to reconcile that with the colour bar. I hope that the Government, having included Indians under the Colour Bar Act, have now seen that they must take a different road. If they have done so, I congratulate them upon it. I should have liked personally to see some provision made for some amount of residential separation, such as was contained in the Class Areas Bill which I introduced, and the similar Bill the Minister introduced. That would be a way towards removing causes of friction which exist to-day, and I fear will be accentuated as time goes on, but I know the difficulty which lies in the way of carrying that out by compulsory measures. I did hope this conference would have submitted a way of dealing with that matter. I hope that and other questions will be solved along the lines of this agreement—by negotiation, by getting to understand each other’s position and point of view, and above all, by recognizing that as we are going to have a certain number of Indians as permanent inhabitants, it is our duty to treat them fairly, justly, and to give them some outlet for their energies so that they shall be able to rise in the scale of civilization and industry. If we hold fast to these principles, this question may possibly find a solution in the future. After all, when one hears hon. members attacking this agree ment, they do not give us an alternative way out, and that, after all, is what we have to find. Nobody thinks for a moment that wholesale repatriation is possible, and as that is not to be thought of, we must look along another line. An hon. member behind me suggests “ distribution.” By that I suppose he means that the sister provinces should ask Natal, gently but persuasively, to hand over a few of the Indian population to them. That is one of the things which I am afraid public opinion is not yet ripe for.

Natal can’t part with the bulk of them.

I remember a debate when a member for Natal, who is not now a member, spoke on this question, and Mr. Merriman following him, asked him if he would part with his Indian cook. The answer was inconclusive. I hope many of us will live to see the day when the presence of Indians will not be looked upon as a menace. I hope the scheme of assisted emigration will be successful, and I hope my friends from Natal will give this agreement a fair chance of success, and not crab it from the beginning. The success of assisted emigration depends on a large number of factors, many of them psychological, but influences may be set in motion which will wreck it. I hope hon. members who do not like the scheme, but would prefer something more forcible, will give it a chance. With regard to the other matters which have been touched upon in the course of the debate, I hope to take the opportunity of saying something later on with regard to the resolution arrived at the Imperial Conference. I certainly re-echo the hopes of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) about an era of peace—although I don’t yet see any signs of it—when Labour will pursue its own lonely way, looking at the star on which they have always fixed their eyes. He reminded me when he said that of a hymn I used to sing as a little boy about—

I appreciate, and I am sure my colleagues also appreciate, the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the way in which he and others from the other side in this debate have helped to raise the question above party politics, and to deal with it from the point of taking the long and big view It is not to be expected that the Indian agreement will satisfy the extremists on that side of the House, and it is quite likely that some members on this side of the House are not altogether fully satisfied with it. In Natal it is quite possible that extremists may try to exploit the position for party and other reasons, or because people may honestly think that the Government has not dealt with the problem as drastically as it might. But I think all, will agree that the results achieved with the co-operation and goodwill of the Union and Indian Governments, has established an atmosphere which will make further handling of the question easier as time goes on. The greatest achievement in connection with the agreement is the fact that, for the first time in history, the Union Government has got the active assistance of the Indian Government in helping this country to reduce this problem to its least possible dimensions. We shall never be able to get rid of the problem entirely, as so many Indians have been born here. I am satisfied that when the people in Natal see the agreement at work, they will realize that under the circumstances, it was all that could be managed. I disagree with several speakers who have attacked the people in Natal for being responsible for this trouble. The people of Natal were never responsible for the Indian problem, and for years they protested against it. The people really responsible were a handful of vested interests who held political power, and who were so entrenched, owing to electoral laws, that it was impossible for the people to alter the position. At one time it took more votes in Durban to elect one member to the Legislative Assembly than it did to return the whole of the members of the Cabinet. I have always paid a tribute to what Gen. Botha and his Government did when they prohibited the further importation of Indians. The hon. member for Yeoville is right when he suggests that if an attempt were made to remove the Indians holus bolus, the people of Natal would be pleased, but certain vested interests— mainly the tea and sugar interests—would put up a strong fight against that. I think that when this agreement starts to operate properly, and when we have the active assistance which has been promised, of the Indian Government, to help to get the Indians back to their own country, and to place them in suitable employment over there, the position will be greatly improved. What have we sacrificed in exchange? We have merely said that we are going to give this experiment a trial, but we have not tied our hands for any time. If the experiment fails, we can take action in any direction in order to deal with the problem in any other way. We have deferred repressive legislation, and we are trying measures which have the co-operation and goodwill of the Indian Government. That has been the main achievement. Before replying to criticisms against the Labour Department, I want to refer to a little matter that happened yesterday when I made an interjection. The leader of the Opposition, in his speech yesterday in connection with the declaration at the Imperial Conference, made, in my opinion, one very unworthy suggestion, which annoyed me a great deal. I made an interjection, and the hon. member resented it and made a certain remark. He said he did not think it fair to the component parts of the empire, or to the other statesmen who took part in the conference, that the Prime Minister should represent it as if it were his own work alone.

I did not say that.

The Prime Minister at once interjected and said—

Nor did I say anything of the kind. I said I thought it reprehensible that it should be represented.

By whom?

By many people.

They have been doing it all over the place.

In view of the tone and attitude of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), I think it was unnecessary and unworthy to bring in that particular point, to make the suggestion at all—

Don’t be silly.

Well, the Prime Minister took it that way, because he interjected, and his words were—

Why should the Prime Minister make such an interjection if he did not believe that the hon. member for Standerton was suggesting, or imputing, that he was talking to himself that he was the man who was responsible? I think it was unworthy. I think it was meant to suggest to the world that the Prime Minister was making out that he was responsible for what had been done, and he alone, and so bringing on him a certain amount of discredit and trying to cause ill feeling between himself and the other Prime Ministers of the dominions.

Tell us about your letter to the “ Guardian.”

The hon. member for Standerton also reported some remarks by Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, and I invited the hon. member to quote them, and he did not. This is what was said on this question—

He could not have been referring to himself.

Who was he referring to?

He could not have been referring to Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, because in those dominions jingoism has not got the sway it has in South Africa, and I am satisfied, if there is one man who is the victim of unprincipled and uninformed jingoism, it is the Prime Minister of this country. Even when he went over, before he arrived in London, certain sections of people in South Africa did their best to discredit him in the eyes of the public of Great Britain—the same clique which goes in for unprincipled jingoism. The Prime Minister, and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, not only came back to South Africa as participants in this great declaration which the hon. member for Standerton said was so great a work that it could stand on its own merits, but they came back to South Africa with something more, the confidence and the goodwill of the British Government, the British people and the Prime Ministers of the other dominions. That is worth a lot to this country. They are now known by intimate contact and negotiation with the people on the other side, and will not in future be viewed from the point of view of this unprincipled jingoism which has emanated from South Africa.

You have beaten bogey by three up and two to play.

The party responsible was the Unionist party, and, to a certain extent, they permeated the South African party, and I am pleased to see there are signs now of a clearing of the air. It has been laid down what our position is with regard to the United Kingdom.

Let us hope it will cure “ Randism.”

I have lost hope as far as the member for East London is concerned, and I think he will still take that side when he gets to the gates of Heaven.

I shall not meet you there.

I want to treat with the criticism of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He and other members, both inside and outside at different times, have accused this Government of extravagant expenditure, and as one of the instances they point to the new Labour Department. They say there is a new Labour Department, and it is costing the country nearly a half million.

I gave the figures, £280,000.

I thought the hon. member said £480,000.

No, I read the figures.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Co. D. Reitz) said it was a harebrained scheme He said—

He said it outside the House, and it has been repeated repeatedly. Let me quote the position. Under the late Government they had a Labour division in the Department of Mines and Industries, and, in addition, they had a separate vote which they called the unemployment vote—two votes which under this Government have been combined under one head. Under the present Labour Department the unemployment vote is embodied under one head. What are the figures? I have got here, not only the estimates for the different years, but the exact expenditure of the Labour Division and the unemployment vote under the late Government and that of the Labour division, which includes the unemployment vote, under the present Government. I will give the figures to show the extent this Labour Department is costing the country so much more money, and I am going to deal with the way the money was spent both by the late Government and this Government. I am glad of the opportunity of doing so. In 1921-’22. the actual expenditure under the late Government was £445,138, that included the expenditure on unemployment under the revenue vote, and also the loan vote, and also the cost of the Labour division of the Department of Mines and Industries.

What did the two separately cost?

I will quote these figures. The unemployment vote on revenue and loan was estimated at roughly £450,000, and the actual expenditure was £398,000 odd. The Labour division of the Mines and Industries Department was £46,700. That does not include the proportionate charges on overhead and administrative expenses. There was the head office staff, and this does not include any proportion of the money which should be debited. In 1922-’23 the expenditure on revenue and loan was £534,000, and the Labour division £47,000. In 1923-’24, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) got busy, and there was a big cut, the actual expenditure was £249,000, and administration costs £41,000. In 1924-’25—the estimates we took over—the actual expenditure was £414,000, and administration £47,000.

It is the administration costs I was criticising.

You cannot talk of £280,000 if you were only taking the administration costs. You cannot have it both ways. I am going to show the administration costs are higher to-day, and why they are getting higher, but the total expenditure is considerably less, under these two heads than they were under the old Government. In 1925-’26 the expenditure on unemployment was £337,000, and on administration £62,000. This year, to the end of this month, the total on unemployment is £221,000, which is the lowest for the last six or seven years. But administration has gone up to £67,000, and the reason is it includes the normal increments, which have been growing, the wage board and staff, and £2,500 paid for telephone and telegraph services which was not paid under the old Government.

Yes, they were.

We had the total cost including administration in 1922, £445,000; 1923, £581,000; 1924, £291,000; 1925, £462,000; 1926, £399,000; and 1927, £300,000, a saving over last year of nearly £100,000, and over 1923, the year before we came into office, of over £200,000. Yet the hon. members on that side of the House talk about the Labour Department as though it was an additional expenditure which they never incurred.

Do you deny that your administration costs have doubled?

No, they have not doubled. There has been a rise from £47,000 to £79,000, but I may explain that that includes normal increments, £2,500 paid for telephones which were not paid for before, and also the Wage Board additions and extra staff necessary for administering the increased activities of the Labour Department. I say if it costs five times as much, the country would be getting good value for the money. How was this money expended before?

Are the figures on the same basis for all those years, revenue and loan?

Yes, I have the same comparative figures right through. What was the late Government’s policy in spending this money? What policy have they for dealing with this difficult problem of unemployment? They had a policy of indiscriminate subsidy, paid out to provincial councils, municipalites; anybody who would take men who were out of work on to relief works. They gave 2s., 3s. and up to 4s. a day subsidy. In 1924, when we took over, there were 9,911 men on relief works, most of them married, which meant that there were from 40,000 to 50,000 people in South Africa who were dependent at that time upon relief works for their maintenance. To-day, instead of 9,911 on relief works, we have got the numbers down to 2,100 odd.

You put them all on the railways.

Have not a good many of them gone to the alluvial diggings?

The alluvial diggings are going to give me much more trouble that, I care to anticipate.

Didn’t you draft some of these men on the railways?

Some have been absorbed by the railways. The difference between this Government and the late Government is that the late Government would rather give a rich man a title than a poor man a job. We have not been putting out white men in order to put kafirs in their place.

Nor did we, either.

We have been extending the avenues of employment for our Europeans in South Africa, and that is why we have been able to reduce the relief works to the extent to which we have done, and to bring down the vote in the way we have done.

You have not brought down the actual expenditure. You have merely juggled with the figures.

We have found that it is possible to utilize these men, many of them, known as the poor white section, if you select them and organize them properly, supervize them and systematize their work properly and that you can get economic results. White men are being employed on road-making in the Transvaal at 7s. or 8s. a day, which is hardly costing the country 10 per cent, more than when the roads were made by natives at 2s. 6d. a day. I might give you instances from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I could give many instances where the employment of white men at 6s. to 8s. a day has resulted in the taxpayers’ money being saved, work for work done, as compared with natives. In the past, under the late Government, no proper attempt was made to classify the men, to sort them out properly and to supervize their work, and to see that the work was done on the best basis. Under the system of the late Government the sick, the lazy, the lame, all classes were mixed together, higgledy-piggledy. Take the case of their land settlement. A man had only got to work on a dam and push a wheelbarrow and that was sufficient to entitle him to get a plot of land and to get an advance as a settler on the land. Thousands and thousands of pounds have been wasted by the late Government in taking men simply because they were working with a wheelbarrow and trying to make settlers of them. What the late Government never did, and what we are doing, is to sort the men out. The fit men have been properly organized, and the country is getting good results.

What do you do with the unfit?

I have a scheme for the unfit, a scheme for the semi-fit, and a scheme for the fit. I have met some of the provincial executives and I have met several municipalities, and they have accepted the principles in respect of the fit, the semi-fit and the unfit.

I thought you did not favour that subsidy policy.

No, we are trying to do away with it. I wish to show you how we are trying to do away with it. In 1921 the subsidies paid to the provincial administrations by the late Government were £104,000. They just threw the money away. In 1922 it was £114,000, 1923 £133,000, 1924 £88,000, 1924-’25 £68,000, 1925-’26 £45,000, and this year, ending this month, £13,000, reduced from £133,000 down to £13,000. We are doing away with that system and going in for another system. We say, let us classify the men and we will share with you half the excess cost of the work.

What is that but a subsidy?

It is as different as chalk and cheese, because, under the old regime, you were not interested; you paid the 3s. or 4s. whether the work was done or not. Now we are getting excellent results. I am pleased to say that the principles of dealing with this question of unemployment were put by me to the Cape municipal congress, the Transvaal municipal congress and the Free State municipal congress, and they have accepted and approved of the principles for handling and dealing with unemployment in respect of fit, semi-fit and unfit. We are doing an even more important work than that. I think, perhaps, the most important work the Department of Labour is doing is through its juvenile affairs boards and apprenticeship committees, and that is giving the boys and girls of South Africa the chance to make a start in life, so that they may grow up good and useful citizens. Let me quote some figures to show the extent of the work that is going on. In 1923 the total number of boys and girls that were employed in South Africa as far as we could get the figures was 5,275; in 1924 7,083, in 1925 9,595, in 1926 9,901, and the January and February months of this year go to show all over the country double the placings of boys and girls in employment than was the case in January and February last year. Let me pay a tribute to the boards. These juvenile affairs boards and apprenticeship committees consist of something like 600 or 700 men and women in South Africa who, in a most self-sacrificing way and public-spirited manner are giving their services willingly, freely and ably to the service of this country in order that boys and girls may get a fair chance in life. [Time limit extended.] I thank hon. members for the indulgence. It is only right that a word of praise should be given to these committees. There are three columns in the “ Review,” one showing the number placed by the boards and the others showing the number that found employment before registration, and after registration. I will give the figures of those actually placed by the boards. 1923, 1,217; 1924, 1,643; 1925, 2,753; 1926, 3,440, so that the boards have actually more than doubled their own placings in two years. Let us take some of the work. Take the Witwatersrand Central Board. In 1925 they had interviews with 12,500; in 1926, with 18,000; in 1925, they placed 638 children, and in 1926 they placed 958. Letters and circulars sent out in 1925 were 14,000 and in 1926 23,000. Now I come to the apprenticeship committees. There has always been a handicap on the South African boy if he had had training in South Africa, because he never got a proper training. What do we find? In 1924 there were 537 registered apprentices in the country; in 1925 there were 3,311; in 1926, 5,519; and, at the present time, nearly 6,000 boys are apprenticed to trades in South Africa, an increase from 537, when this Government took office, up to nearly 6,000. That is going to have far-reaching effects on the future efficiency of our industrial life; we will now have boys properly trained to do the skilled work. Perhaps, at a later date, on the main estimates I will have an opportunity of dealing with other matters I intended dealing with to-night.

I wish to express my hearty appreciation, even if I am a Freestater who does not know the Asiatic question from close quarters of the way in which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has dealt with the matter, and that he has shown in such a refreshing way that one on the opposite side of the House can deal with a matter of general public interest outside of party politics. The speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) made me think of the proverb that there is always something new from Africa. We always get something new from him, but it is extraordinarily new to see one who is a member of the Labour party pleading for reunion between these two parties. I can tell him that the reunion which he sees is impossible. If we were kept apart solely because of the question of secession, then hereniging would take place automatically, and I am certain that hon. members opposite would automatically join us in proportion as the exploitation by the capitalists and the old spirit, the old kind of imperialism, died out. If we stopped that to-day, then he would possibly see that some of the members of the Nationalist party would go over to the Labour party, but hereniging will not take place because we feel that we differ on economic matters. We cannot, however, concentrate on economic matters alone. Man cannot live by bread alone; there are higher interests. I should like to say a few words in connection with what we heard in the House yesterday. The Prime Minister promised that he would shortly introduce a motion giving us an opportunity to discuss the details of the resolution of the Imperial Conference, and for that reason I do not want to go fully now into the details of the declaration, or into matters on which there is vagueness or uncertainty. I want, however, to make use of the opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the Prime Minister for the definite and fearless way in which he stated his point of view yesterday, with reference to the results of the Imperial Conference. His speech yesterday showed to us, and to everybody who is unprejudiced, that his view is the same as it has always been. I considered it blameworthy that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) wanted to make out that the Prime Minister had had a change of heart, because if he had listened carefully yesterday, he would not have said that the Prime Minister had changed, but that the British empire had changed. With regard to what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, it astonished me that he wanted more even than the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin)— whom I regard as one of the arch imperialists of the old kind. The hon. member for South Peninsula said that the whole action of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference met with his approval, but it seems as if the hon. member for Standerton is not so easily satisfied, and as if he had demanded more than the hon. member for South Peninsula. He quoted from the speech of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference, and disapproved of the Prime Minister having said that the will to remain within the empire was not fully present in South Africa, and the hon. member said that the Prime Minister had misrepresented South Africa there. He did not, of course, read the whole paragraph which is regarded with strong disapproval by a section in the country, that the Prime Minister represented that we were eager to live within the empire. I want particularly to thank the Prime Minister for so clearly expressing his point of view about what we call imperialism, and I hope that hon. friends opposite will understand that we make a distinction between what we call imperialism and what they will consider as anti-English feeling, or may call race hatred, and what we regard as the empire. It was represented that the Prime Minister had said that the empire should be squeezed out like an orange and then thrown away. It is ridiculous to think that South Africa wants to do that. Because we knew what the old exploitation of the imperialists was who were busy plundering South Africa, it was the purpose of the Prime Minister to protest against such plundering. We know that the imperialism of the past, about which all the conflict and bitterness have taken place succeeded often in exploiting the national feeling of the English people, and of using it for its own ends. It was always the aim of big finance to exploit the national feelings of England by means of the imperial ideal, so that not only South Africa, but all the dominions and colonies could be plundered. It is against that that the Prime Minister from the earliest days protested. I agree with the Prime Minister that that time has passed, and that a new empire has risen, and that we now have an empire which will not so much shock the feeling of self-respect of South Africa, because domination has been taken away. This does not mean that there is not to-day a certain amount of imperialism, but it is not the imperialism of domination. The old imperialism of domination was the cause of the strong feeling which arose in the country, and in proportion as the old sort of imperialism dies so will arise a completely different understanding. The old imperialism not only aimed at domination, but it embodied an economic purpose to supply mighty England with an outlet here and in other places for its surplus capital and population, while, at the same time, trying to increase her influence so that they could be certain that those countries would buy in England. We know that the same attempt by capitalists will go on by means of the new imperialism. We will, as the Prime Minister has said, be able to stand definitely on the solgan “ South Africa first,” and we can decide how far the investment of capital, immigration and the exploitation of minerals by capitalists and others are in the interest of South Africa. So far as they are in the interests of South Africa, we shall, of course, be able to co-operate with imperialism, but if we find that they are contrary to the interests of South Africa, we shall certainly, all of us, English-speaking (I hope) as well as Dutch-speaking, resist this sort of imperialism, and say that we abide by the slogan “ South Africa first.” I only got up to say a word of thanks to the Prime Minister for the assurance that he still stands for the pure view of “South Africa first,” and I want to congratulate him that all the flattery that he has recently received from the capitalistic press and from friends who are still inspired by the old capitalistic spirit, he has not departed from his old attitude of “ South Africa first.”

As a representative of a constituency which takes, and has, a great interest in the Asiatic question, I want to say a few words about that matter. The Minister made a statement yesterday in answer to the speeches made by the hon. members for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and Newcastle (Mr. Nel), and with his usual clarity of expression he has cleared up the meaning and necessity of the agreement, but the result of the agreement will not only depend on the Indian population being satisfied, but also our own population being so, and only if the satisfaction is mutual can the good results, which the Minister had foreshadowed, actually be expected. There is no doubt about it that great satisfaction exists among the Indian population, but the question is whether the inhabitants of our own country are also satisfied. As far as I can see, the expectations were very high that a solution would be found for the Asiatic problem, but let me say at once that I have always been one of the people who, at his meetings and in his speeches and his ordinary conduct, has always said that no immediate solution or satisfactory solution could be found in a short time, and that it was one of the matters which would take time to solve. I further stated that a system of repatriation and giving compensation was, in my opinion, impossible, and I opposed it. Without doubt, the explanation of the Minister yesterday will much assist in making the outside public better understand and appreciate the benefits of the agreement, because I believe that it was personally rather difficult for the Government and the Minister to arrive at an agreement, and that the agreement may possibly have good results. In certain respects, however, I am disappointed at the speech of the Minister, particularly with what he said regarding the Transvaal. He made it appear as if the difficulties of the Transvaal were caused through the fault of the Transvaal population itself, and that I cannot agree with. The Minister has mentioned here that Asiatic traders might have been prevented from trading by means of the system of licensing Asiatic traders, but that is not the point. The point is how they came here, and the licensing system only comes in the second place, because it never would have existed it the Indians were not there. The Minister, who has carefully studied the whole Indian question, and has certainly gone into the 1921 report into the minutest detail, well knows what opposition there has been in the Transvaal since 1885 against the coming of Indians into the Transvaal. The first war of independence in 1881, when the Transvaal again became a republic, arose after the first section of Indians had come into the Transvaal since 1877. Laws had already been made in 1885 and 1886 to compel Indians to live and carry on business in certain areas or bazaars. From that time, 1885, until now, the struggle has always gone on with reference to the living and trading in bazaars. The whole struggle is one of interest between the Europeans and the Indian traders, and in the old days when an Act was passed there was always a resort to the supreme court, or the matter was referred to England. All kinds of difficulties were put in the way, even after the war, of coming to a solution. It is certain that in 1924 when, for the first time, a Class Areas Bill was introduced, it was hoped that an end would finally be made to the feud, and that the Indian traders would be compelled to live in certain parts of the towns and villages. We know why nothing came of the Bill provisionally. In 1926 the present Government again introduced the Class Areas Bill. I have a letter here from residents in my constituency in which they say that at a large public meeting thanks were expressed to the Government for its firm attitude about Asiatic legislation, and which states that the inhabitants of Lydenburg will fully support the Government in compulsory legislation. Of course, I was asked after the last session what had happened to the Bill, and, loyal to my promises, I said that the public should wait the result of the negotiations which were to take place, and I set them at rest. It cannot, however, be denied in respect of my district that more is generally expected as regards the Indian question than is in this agreement. As for myself I shall, after the detailed explanation of the Minister, do my best to so explain the agreement to the people, as the Minister has done it, and I shall do my best to remove the exaggerated expectations which I have always spoken against, and to tell the people that we should now first wait for the results of the agreement when put into practice. I now want to revert to what was said by the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen), who suggested that the matter should not be solved by the Government, but by the people themselves, by means of a boycott. That is a thing which was tried in my district. A movement was started in 1924 with the object of opposing the Indian trader. Meetings were held, and certain promises made, on honour, etc., never again to buy from Asiatics, but this appeared impracticable, and the whole movement collapsed. I should much like to see more sympathy on the part of the Free State and the Cape Province with us in the Transvaal, I should like to know what hon. members from those provinces would say if there were rows and rows of Asiatic shops in the nicest streets in their beautiful villages. Would they then remain so indifferent towards our complaints and objections? It seems to me as if they adopt the attitude—am I my brother’s keeper? I should like to see us getting more support from them in the solution of this difficult question.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who led off in this debate on behalf of the Opposition, agreed this was not the most appropriate place to discuss the general financial position. Only two other hon. members on the other side, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) dealt with a few points connected with finances, and I want to say a few words with regard to the criticism levelled at the Government’s financial policy, as disclosed in the estimates which hon. members have before them. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), in discussing my statement that, at the end of the financial year we shall probably have a considerable surplus, pointed out that it was not altogether satisfactory. He made a point that it showed inaccurate estimating, and that it resulted in taking out of the pockets of the people more taxation than was necessary. Hon. members must not forget the circumstances under which the revenue estimates were framed last year, especially the customs estimate. I pointed out to the House at the time that, owing to the drought conditions existing in the country, and the information we had then, we could not expect a maize crop—at any rate, a crop showing an exportable surplus. The previous year the country had received £6,000,000 of new money which came to the country as the result of the bumper maize crop, and I stated that we probably could not expect the same amount of importations because there would be a considerably reduced spending power in the country, and that was the main factor which induced me to reduce the estimates of revenue which would probably he derived from customs duties. The hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and Port Elizabeth (South), both business men who knew the conditions of trade, agreed that it would have been foolish to expect the same amount of importations, owing to the short maize crop we were to expect. Our expectations have not been realized in regard to this matter. Importations, instead of falling off, have increased, and the only explanation I can give is that, owing to the result of the discoveries of alluvial fields during the latter part of the year in the western Transvaal, and the large amount of money coming into circulation as a result of the sale of diamonds, not only motor-cars and other articles of luxury were purchased, but they generally purchased all kinds of articles, which resulted very largely in the increased importations into the country. That, I think, explains the discrepancy in what we considered would be the importations for the year and what was actually realized. Let me admit at once that I have all along tried to be conservative in my estimates of revenue, and I think it has been all to the good. We have had in previous years considerable discrepancies in the amount of the estimates and the amount actually realized, but they have mostly been on the wrong side of the ledger. We had been running this country, for several years prior to the advent of the present Government, on deficits.

Trade is better now than it was then.

I do not want to dispute that. It is a fact that during the last three years, whether as a result of better conditions, or conservative estimating, we have had revenue surpluses, and I say it has been all to the good. I do not think hon. members are quite right in saying that we have surpluses because we have been overtaxing the people. The surpluses we have had have not been frittered away; they have gone to the redemption of our debt, and that has undoubtedly, in the first place, strengthened our credit position in the world, and in the second place, owing to our failure in the past to shoulder our responsibility in regard to debt redemption, and owing to our action, in many cases, in debiting loan account with items of unproductive expenditure, it has been all to the good that for three years we have had considerable revenue surpluses. Further, through the operation of our legislation, we have been able to improve the debt position, and especially the unproductive portion of our debt. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) said I was not quite fair in my comparison of the expenditure figures as disclosed by the estimates placed before hon. members when I pointed out that, although on the face of it these estimates show an increase of over half a million on the previous year’s estimates, in reality it is only an actual increase of about £60,000 on the amount actually expended during the current year. I did not draw any deduction from that. I merely mentioned it in passing to show that the position was not really as bad as it appeared to be. There is only a very small increase on our actual expenditure for the current year. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) proceeded further, and he condemned what he considered the general evidences of extravagance on the part of the Government as disclosed by the estimates and the manner in which our expenditure had grown during the three years since 1924. The hon. member said that our expenditure had gone up by £3,500,000. I think if the hon. member examines the position, he will find that that is not quite correct. It is true that the gross increase has been about £3,500,000, but there has been a reduction on the other side of over £600,000, which brings the net increase to about £2,900,000. I will explain that. If the hon. member will take the gross increase on the various votes, he will find that he will get a figure of £3,530,000, but then on votes like the League of Nations, Prisons and Reformatories, Police and Defence, Agriculture, Unemployment Expenditure, and various other votes, we get a decrease amounting to £620,000.

I took the total figures of the last estimates and compared them with the present estimates.

That is another way of getting at the position. Now let us test it by the hon. member’s way of looking at it. If he will take the expenditure of 1924-’25, he will find that the amount is £24,527,000. That includes an amount of £100,000 which was added to the estimates by the present Government for the Labour Department.

It includes a good many other items, too.

No, the actual figures were over £24,000,000. Hon. members cannot have it both ways. They have always been telling me that I accepted the Burton estimates for 1924-’25.

With certain additions.

Certain additions were made in connection with the Labour Department, and they were minor additions. I introduced the estimates just a few weeks after we came into office. I could not make any alterations, and I had to provide for what was absolutely necessary expenditure which we found when we took over. I think, for the purposes of comparison, these are the figures that we have to take. The expenditure for 1924-’25 totalled £24,527,000. The present estimates for 1927-’28 are £27,437,000; that gives you a net increase of £2,910,000. The hon. member was very generous, and said that it would not be quite fair to debit all of this increase to the actions of the Government, and that some of the expenditure was justified. The hon. member was also good enough to take out the expenditure in connection with the provincial settlement (£1,000,000). The only other item which he thought was justified was £250,000 cm the sinking fund,

No, I said the whole increase of £600,000.

Well, that gives you £1,600,000. What about pensions, for instance? If you take the general pensions payable for which provision is made in these estimates, is there a single pension which is not payable under an Act of Parliament passed by my hon. friends opposite?

I referred to the oudstryders.

I am coming to that. The payment in connection with the oudstryders is responsible for £90,000 in 1927-’28. Does the hon. member speak on behalf of his party in challenging that payment, and the action of the Government in making provision?

Do not miss the point. I challenge your action.

That is quite another point. The hon. member proceeded by way of finding out what were justifiable increases and what were not. I have taken an increase on the pension bill of £324,000. Does the hon. member advocate a reduction of pensions—to repudiate our liability?

That is begging the question.

It is not begging the question. It is no good just saying the expenditure is going up. No, the only way is to see whether there has been expenditure that has not been justified. This is futile criticism. If hon. members say there has been extravagance, let them point out in what instance, in the expenditure provided for here, they would take the responsibility of moving a reduction. What is the use of saying this Government is responsible for an increase of £3,000,000, when they would not dare to reduce it by £1,000? I shall quote just now what the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said in regard to that expenditure, but at present it is sufficient for me to ask the hon. member whether he would be prepared to say that the Government should cease expending money in this connection?

You know very well I said it was a right expenditure.

Well, what is the good, then, of saddling the Government with extravagance, as disclosed by an increase of £300,000 on the pensions bill? Take, for instance, education. Education is responsible for £391,000, and the hon. member knows that the greater portion of this amount is made up of expenditure which was formerly incurred by the provincial authorities, and now taken over by the central Government in connection with technical education and vocational schools.

And you give them an extra million a year.

The other day the hon. member questioned this again, and then he approved of it. Is he prepared to say we shall cut this expenditure in connection with the provinces?

You made no reduction when you took it over.

The provinces are expanding all the time; and that is where we differ from other hon. members. This is one of the items. We say where it does entail increased expenditure, that is one of the points where we are prepared to join issue with hon. members opposite. But let us be fair, and let us not include in this increase items which are not justified. I am trying to find out first which are the services which even they will be prepared to approve of now. Take an item like £312,000, which is to-day being expended more, in connection with the post office, which is a business department. If their expenses have gone up, the receipts have gone up.

I did not take that.

The hon. member said only two items are justified, the provincial settlement and the public debt. The others are apparently items of expenditure for which no justification existed.

I gave you the items I criticised.

I am coming to those. He has debited those three and a half millions and credited us with one and a half millions, and mentioned the balance of two millions, but he put that to our debit. Take items like mental hospitals and child welfare—all inevitable, unavoidable expenditure. Child welfare is growing continually as the result of legislation passed by this House, and over which I, as Minister of Finance, and the Government, have no control whatever, unless Parliament is prepared to take the responsibility.

That was not the way Mr. Fichardt used to talk.

I am not concerned with the way Mr. Fichardt used to talk. I am responsible for carrying on the affairs of my department. If hon. members will indicate to what extent they object, of course we will try to meet them on the point. One of the items was the expenditure in connection with the Labour Department, and I think the Minister of Labour has dealt very effectively with that criticism to-night.

Did he explain how it was doubled?

It was halved.

The services and expenditure of the country are developing, and in future you will have a progressive increase in the expenditure. You will always have it. I gave the figures last year, and I will give them again. All we can do is to see that the money is not expended on objects which we cannot justify to the country. If the country will have the services, it will have to put up with the increase in the expenditure. What was the position formerly— the progressive increases during previous years? Let us take 1916-’17.

The war period.

What has that got to do with the general services of the country?

A great deal.

The increases were 12.58 per cent., 6.51 per cent., 15.74 per cent., 16.90 per cent., and 26.20 per cent. Then hon. members opposite started reducing, and when we took over the progressive increases re-started—1.50 per cent., 2.09 per cent., 7.29 per cent., 4.02 per cent., and this year 24 per cent. is the increase on the previous year. If hon. members want to take exception to the way in which we are incurring expenditure, let them challenge the particular votes when we deal with these estimates.

That is very cheap, with the majority at your back.

Even if we have a majority, if hon. members opposite are right the time will come when the country will be able to judge. In the meantime, hon. members should be satisfied to be ruled by this majority. Even if we have a majority now, if we are not justified in what we are doing, we shall pay for it when the country is called upon to decide.

Which you will have to do.

The hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) follows the Auditor-General in his criticism regarding the tendency for the multiplication of various boards and commissions. The hon. member forgot that of the 36 boards and commissions mentioned by the Auditor-General, 33 were appointed by the previous Government.

I expressly mentioned it.

Then what is the point of the hon. member’s criticism?

In making this criticism I expressly admitted that probably the great majority of these boards and commissions were carried over from the previous administration.

Is the hon. member prepared to mention any of these boards that we can dispense with?

What about the Civil Aviation Board?

Do you want that wiped out?

Yes.

Another point of attack was my action two years ago in asking for the Governor-General’s authority to initiate expenditure in connection with the oudstryders. What was there illegal in that?

A departure from the terms of your own Audit Act.

In what way? The Act says that the Government is entitled to incur expenditure up to £300,000 in case of unforeseen expenditure which cannot be postponed without injury to the public interest.

Until the next meeting of Parliament?

What were the facts? The warrant was laid on the Table. Why did not he challenge it then?

Because it was only brought to my notice a few weeks ago.

The point is not how long before Parliament sat, the warrant was obtained. The question was how long would it be before we got “ supplies ” through the House The expenditure only passed through the House at the end of March, and it was financed, in the meantime, by obtaining a Governor-General’s warrant. What was there illegal about that? The law lays down that the Government has the right to incur this expenditure, but it does so at its own peril. If the House does not approve of the expenditure, it will have to go, but the Government must take the risk. On the 2nd January the warrant was taken for £5,000 to meet this expenditure in connection with the oudstryders, and in February the additional estimates were before the House to legalize the expenditure incurred under a Governor-General’s warrant. What did the hon. member for Standerton say when it came before the House? He said that he agreed with the solution which the Minister of Finance had found to a question that had troubled the House for some years. Several committees had considered the question, and finally a proposal emerged to establish a series of homes to house these veterans in the evening of their life. Something was being done which he was sure ought to be done, and the House was doing the right thing in coming to the relief of these veterans.

That has nothing to do with my criticism.

Then what does he object to?

He objects to your taking out a Governor-General’s warrant three weeks before Parliament met.

But the Government has that power, and the Auditor-General does not question the right, but he said the reasons given to the Governor-General were not sufficient in the memorandum. He does not say it was illegal expenditure.

I do. It was an absolute violation of the spirit of the Act.

What was the object of the provision in the Act if the Government cannot incur expenditure which is necessary and which cannot be postponed, except to the detriment of the public interest? The previous Government didn’t do anything for these oudstryders. The other day they said they went from office before they could do anything, and during the recess we came to the conclusion that something had to be done, and took the proper and constitutional course and the House approved of it. The Governor-General’s warrant was laid on the Table and not a single member of the House objected. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in this case, as in previous cases, made the point that we should not limit the expenditure to those who served on the side of the republicans, and it should apply to veterans who fought in other wars. We found the hon. member was right and that it would have been an invidious distinction to so limit the benefits, and we were faced with the position that we had to continue what was really an injustice or again take a Governor-General’s warrant to relieve these people, and we faced this responsibility and Parliament approved of it.

You are making a rubber stamp of Parliament.

How can it be making a rubber stamp when Parliament has to approve of it in due course? The hon. member has fastened on to this because the Auditor-General made mention of the dispute arising between him and the Treasury—not on this point—he did not question the right of incurring such expense—but the Treasury did not agree with him that he had the right to question the reason which the Minister gave to the Governor-General to get this expenditure approved of. That was the point in dispute. It had nothing to do with initiating this expenditure, and the only body that is entitled to criticise and refuse approval of expenditure is this House.

The Auditor-General brought that forward for the information of this House.

If the Auditor-General was right, I submit that the Government took the responsibility; it initiated the expenditure and the Government submitted itself to this House, this House has approved of it, and that is an end to the whole thing. These are the only points in connection with financial administration that hon. members opposite have discussed, and as a rule I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was right when he said that the more appropriate place to discuss the Government’s financial policy, will be when we deal with the main estimates, and when we can go more fully into this matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 21st March.