The statements of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) last night amounted to this, that the present Government took the people away from the farms instead of bringing them back, and secondly that the late Government did actually follow the policy of attracting people to the farms. In the introduction to my speech last night I dealt with the first allegation, and I quoted figures to show that that is not the case, and that the present Government has already done much to get the people back to the farms. I hope that Parliament this year will vote even more than £500,000 for settlement because if there is one effort which has succeeded it is that made by the Minister of Lands which I dealt with last night. Besides the action of the Lands Department in connection with probationary lessee and tenant farmer systems of settlement, there is an entirely new scheme by the Government in connection with the attempt to get the people back to the farms, viz., the scheme which is being carried out by the Department of Labour under the energetic policy of the Minister. Hundreds of people have already been taken back to the farms under this scheme. I have some authentic figures here which show that the Labour Department is making an earnest attempt to put people on farms as tenant farmers. The number of tenant farmers who are now working with farmers on various farms is 215; at Zanddrift there are 100 lessees, at Uitval 61, at Doornkop 96, at Geluk 100, and at Losperfontein and Sonop 350. The total number which has been placed by the Department of Labour is therefore 922 persons, and this in spite of the statement of the hon. member for Yeoville that the present Government is not making an attempt in that direction, but is working in the opposite one. For the carrying out of this scheme £45,806 has been taken from the loan estimates, and £35,000 from the revenue estimates, and the money is being used to give the people a chance of making a start on the farms. I think this attempt of the Minister to save a large number of people in that way will undoubtedly be approved by such a well-disposed member as the hon. member for Yeoville. I now want to give a summing up of the number of people who have been brought back by the Government to the farms. The number of learner settlers is 123, under Section 11 of the Land Settlement Act, 1,171, under other Acts by the Department of Lands, 1,357, and by the Labour Department 922. This makes a total of 3,573. Now I think that I can say that for every man a wife and at least three children go as well, so that I come to the conclusion that this Government has taken back to the farms no less than 18,000 people. I think that I have in this way given adequate proof of the unfairness of the statement by the hon. member for Yeoville that the present Government does not assist the return of people to the farms but rather drives them away. It is not necessary to give any clearer proofs. When the present Government came into office there were 11,000 people on the relief works. I remember quite well, and I think the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) remembers better, how in 1907 when the Transvaal got responsible Government a large commando of unemployed came from Johannesburg and demanded work or bread from him. This he gave by following the policy of establishing relief works. I think that £35,000 was used for the purpose and when this large amount was spent the people were no better off and were still unemployed. That system of relief works was carried on by the late Government until we came into office, but the result of the present Government’s policy was that the 11,000 persons on relief works were reduced after a year to 4,000. The people were taken from the roads and from the relief works and sent back to the farms where they ought to be. Now I come to the second statement of the hon. member for Yeoville, viz., that the late Government did actually follow the policy of taking the people back to the farms. I want to examine this statement in detail because “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” The number of persons who went from the farms to the towns between 1911 and 1921 was no less than 70,000.

Where do you get the figure from

In the Year Book just out. And the hon. member will also be able to find it there if he will take the trouble. The late Government therefore turned 70,000 people into tramps. Yet the hon. member for Yeoville states that the late Government pursued the policy of taking the people back to the farms. If that is the result of their efforts then may heaven save us from such attempts, because the result was that 70,000 people left the farms and that natives took their place. The districts that lost the 70,000 white men obtained 78,000 natives in their stead. That was the result of the late Government’s policy. The present Government has, however, in the short time it has been in office taken 18,000 people to the farms. Much has been done for the poor people who possess nothing, and much has also been done for those who have a little, and can pay l/10th of the purchase price. £30,000 was lent to byowners alone who had no ground for the purpose of getting oxen so that they could stop on the farms. There is, however, still a missing link because I do not merely want to approve but also to point out mistakes and shortcomings. There is a large section of our farmers who will have to sink to the condition of poor whites if they are not assisted. That is the result of our history and of our system of succession. On one farm that I could mention there originally lived three voortrekker families, but the families increased so that today there are between 20 and 30 farmers on the same farm. I can give instances where a farmer has only 1 morgen or ½ a morgen under irrigation. Our soil is not fertile and even if it was very fertile then very few of the pieces of ground are large enough to make a living on. Now I think that the Government can widen its circle of assistance to also assist those people under Section 11 so that they, also, can obtain ground. I have made an attempt at Nooitgedacht in my own constituency and the Minister of Agriculture has lent one of the officials of the development department to co-operate with me. Success has provisionally been attained and I think that the Government ought to assist people who have not sufficient ground to live on to get sufficient ground for that purpose, and to be able to provide for their wives and children. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the country required more immigrants. I also am in favour of immigration, but not like the hon. member for Standerton, who proposed last year to spend a million pounds to import immigrants while our own people could leave for the towns as was done between 1911 and 1921. Then he wants to introduce immigrants to put them on the farms.

Where do you come from?

I have one country. South Africa, and that is the country for which I did my duty. Can the hon. member say that of himself?

Ask him where most hon. members opposite were born.

How long have you been a citizen of this country?

I was a citizen before the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) ever saw the Transvaal. The immigration question is receiving the attention of the Government, and I also studied it during my recent visit abroad, and I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they are dissatisfied. A commission was sent here from Holland and we hope that many immigrants will come out. Those people who come into the country have exactly the same privileges as citizens of the country and is not that sufficient? If suitable farmers come out as immigrants from England, or any other country, then they can be assisted under Section 11 by the Minister of Lands just like the citizens of this country. I want to ask the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) if he approves of what the hon. member for Standerton suggested, viz., that £1,000,000 should be used for bringing immigrants to South Africa. I should much like to know whether he wants the poor people in his district to sink lower and that every year £1,000,000 should be spent in importing people from overseas. There are various other points which I had noted but other hon. members also wish to speak. I just want to add a few words in connection with Moscow. I notice that hon. members opposite are startled. They have cause to be a little frightened. Does the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) not know that in Europe and especially in England there is at the moment a war of psychosis at work? What did the great war originate from? Small wars arose from lust, great wars from fear. The world war started through fear of Germany. We now see that in England, and also in America, there is a strong party, people of authority and endued with responsibility who to-day frankly state that England and other capitalistic countries are practically in a state of war with Russia. This applies particularly to England which is regarded by Russia as the most capatilistic country. The view is that inasmuch as England has so many coloured subjects Russia in consequence can easily make an attack on England. The fear of the Bolshevists as I see the position will lead to a world war. I hope that I am wrong, but I see the danger. If we look at China we also see there signs of the position. If England were to-day to attack the American Embassy in Brussels as the Russian Embassy was attacked in Peking it would be regarded as an act of war. Everything points clearly to a war spirit arising out of fear in the various capitalistic countries, and primarily in England. Of course there is great concern about the chief connecting link between England and India, viz., the Suez Canal. If through Russian influence in Turkey and even in India that canal is blocked it means that the sea route will be via South Africa and South Africa will again become the centre of a great world conflict. What will hon. members opposite then do? Will they, as we were prepared to do in 1914, defend the borders against any enemy that wants to come in. If it is so I shall be glad. I hope the Minister of Defence will give his earnest attention to the point. Our coast undoubtedly requires stronger protection than it has at present. Our forts and old guns will be shot to pieces by big ships like the Hood without our being able to see them. It is necessary to protect the interior but the protection of the coast is essential. I am not a soldier but as I view the matter the only solution is to strengthen the air force, especially with seaplanes so that the torpedoes of the seaplanes can destroy the ships. If we do not do this I fear we shall be neglecting our duty. The protection of the Royal Navy has been mentioned, but we want to be ourselves and to defend our present independence at all costs. I want to ask the Minister of Defence to think especially of two things. In the first place that the old burgher of the country, who in any case in the last resort will have to bear the brunt, should be properly armed, and in the second place that projecting aeroplanes should be obtained. We still have merely the old aeroplanes which England presented us with in 1918.

They have been completely put into order on modern lines.

I cannot imagine that the Hupp motor model 1914 is as up-to-date as the 1927 model, and just as little can the old aeroplanes which we possess be converted into modern machines. We have an efficient staff available but we require the aeroplanes. We must do our duty as a Government so that in time of danger when we shall, I hope, all stand by each other, we shall have the necessary means to protect ourselves. It is the duty of the Government to see to that.

At the outset I would like to make it quite clear that I differ from certain sentiments which have been expressed from these benches during the Budget debate. For instance, I believe that all persons should contribute through the income tax to the cost of the maintenance of the State. On the other hand, there should be an exemption up to £100 a year for each child. Then the Minister of Finance should bring in an old age pension scheme without any delay. I thoroughly endorse the fiscal policy of the Treasury, for I believe it is based on both equity and justice. We must realize that in producing commodities 50 per cent. of the cost is represented by wages. The result is that if we manufacture our own commodities, even if they cost more, half the value of the output remains in the country to the benefit of the community at large. My main object in speaking, however, is to protest against the Government’s policy in reducing the police vote on the Estimates as it will be detrimental to the people. An efficient police force is the best insurance any country can carry. In fact, without an efficient police force we shall have not only disorders but each Government department will have to increase its staff in order to perform work that is now done for them by the police. I will quote a few facts to show that the police force can be strengthened by curtailing the expenditure on the defence force. Our police cost the white and coloured community roughly 19s. 11d. per head and the native community 10¾d. per head. We are paving for our police (which are the first line of defence) and the defence force, a sum far in excess of even that paid by Great Britain or Germany prior to the great war. The police cost this country 11 per cent. of the total revenue derived from taxation, while the defence force cost 4.11 per cent. of that income. Taking, however, the capital expended in buildings and the cost of equipping the defence force its upkeep involves the outlay of 19 per cent. of our taxation revenue or roughly 29s. per head of the white and coloured population. Although I acknowledge the high cost I protest against the police force being reduced. In discussing the cost of the police force, let us clearly realize the tremendous amount of work it does for the different State departments. The other different departments of the State in every day of eight hours use a total of 517 policemen—

On the whole it is beneficial that the police should render service to other departments, because whilst they are patrolling the districts they are, at the same time, acting as an insurance for the well-being of the community. The taxpayers ought to be aware of the fact. They ought to know something of the enormous work done by the police for the other departments. It is true the police of this country cost a larger amount, taking into consideration the limited European and coloured population, than in any other country. But the additional duties they perform for the other departments warrants us in not reducing the expenditure on the police, but in increasing it. Not only are the police the first line of defence, but they are the controllers of the destinies of the European population. I agree we ought not to spend more on the police if it can be arranged otherwise. Instead of reducing the vote on the police force, we should save money on the defence vote by reducing our expenditure on other than the air force, the technical force, and the coast line defence, could we not give greater security from the defence point of view by training boys in Government-aided schools as cadets, by giving subsidies to the volunteers, grants to the rifle clubs, and by creating a paid police reserve. The police are capable, at the present time, of performing staff officers work, the amount of extra duty devolving upon them by that would be very small. Let me show an instance of the wastage of money. It is a case where a staff officer and an instructor went on a round of inspection of cadets in the different schools. They left Kimberley at 10.20 a.m. and arrived at De Aar at 5.40, they left De Aar at 9.20 and reached Kenhardt at 9 o’clock, and then went right through and visited Carnarvon. Now there was a police officer there who could have inspected the 20 or 30 cadets at that school, yet it cost the State almost £50 for the staff officer and instructor to do the work. That is a small item, but it is happening all over the country. The police are capable of attending to any instruction required. We have had the evidence of judges, among whom was Sir Thomas Graham, magistrates, especially Mr. Welsh, chief Magistrate of the Transkei, members of the defence force, in Mr. Trollope, and Col. Strachan and other mayors, farmers, councillors, who have proved that the police force, augmented by a police reserve and the volunteer regiments, with the police officer commanding the particular area in charge, would be able to attend to any industrial trouble or native trouble that might arise. We have had evidence in the past that the citizen army, when it had to deal with industrial trouble (to a great extent) because of their lack of experience, not only intensified the trouble, but did harm which cannot be undone. We have evidence that the police, men of mature age and efficiently, can cope with matters much more beneficially to all concerned. I think it would astonish many hon. members that the police force of this country have always had a mobilization scheme. They have always been acknowledged to be the first line of defence. Therefore I would like the Government to consider the advisability of reducing the defence vote by roughly £211,000 and utilizing that money as follows: Subsidies to volunteers and rifle clubs, £82,000; increase of police, £110,000; and police reserve, £19,000. I am convinced that if effect were given to this not only would the police force be more efficient, but with an increased police force it would be possible to reduce the expenditure in other departments by assigning to the police further work on half of those departments. It is true that they are doing a great deal in that direction at the present time. We must remember that in the police force the men are working all the time while the men in the defence force are preparing for some time. From an economic point of view I think it would be beneficial if you could get efficiency in a body of men who in time of peace can be of service to the community. The defence force is only based on the assumption of internal disorder. We know full well that that force would be ridiculous if required to defend this country in the event of an attack by a European nation or an Asiatic nation.

But the police could doit you say.

No, but if you had a larger police force you would have men who would be there all the time, efficient and capable of contending with anything that may happen in this country, the nucleus in time of war to extend and embrace other forces. I believe that the old volunteer corps in the past made better soldiers than the boys who are now called upon to join the defence force. Unfortunately, when they go to register, facts are misrepresented to such an extent that they sign to serve in a particular regiment, not knowing that it is not compulsory for them to do so.

Are you sure of that?

Yes, I have had numerous letters from persons pointing out that that is so. I do believe that, since it is impossible to have two efficient forces in this country, we should have one efficient force, and that should be an efficient police force. It is the best insurance that this country can have, both from an internal and an external point of view. If it were possible to have two efficient forces, then I would not oppose any expenditure in that direction, but, realizing that the police and defence cost 29s. per head of Europeans and coloured, and 1s. 6d. per head of natives per annum, I think it is not fair to ask the Government to vote further money for the police unless we suggest some way in which economies can be effected. Col. Beer acknowledged that if at the time of the Bloemfontein riot he had had complete charge of the area and could have sworn his special force, members of the volunteer force and the defence force, that disturbance would not have happened. We also had evidence from members of the defence force in the Transkei that if the force had been under the charge of the head of police the last trouble that occurred there could have been nipped in the bud. As I have stated previously, it was acknowledged by 99 per cent. of the witnesses before the Police Commission, including judges, magistrates and farmers, that the police and defence should be under one head, naturally with the exemption of the coast line defence, the air force and technical forces realizing that these arms should be under a technical head. These gentlemen, along with the farmers in Zululand, the deputy commissioners of police, lieutenant-colonels in the defence force all approve of that scheme, that this country would be more adaptable to having one force comprising police and ordinary defence than the present system with the enormous waste that occurs, with the inefficiency of the police, and the inefficiency of the defence force, for with a larger amount spent on one force it could be made efficient and be of greater benefit to the community. I have nothing to say against the members of the defence force. I believe that a large number of them are imbued with a patriotic desire to do their duty to the country of which they are citizens, but as a member of Parliament, I have to look at the question from the point of view, net merely of sentiment, but of practicability, and I realize that the taxation of this country cannot stand much further increase for the efficiency of those bodies. Not only would it be beneficial to the State, but it would have a tendency to do away with a certain amount of unrest among the farming community if you had an efficient police force. The “Cape Times,” the “Argus,” and other newspapers in this country, have been publishing statements to the effect that we want more police, in fact, everybody is asking for more police. Is it fair that the taxation of this country should be increased to supply more police? I say no. I say that the police should be increased, and if you care to increase the force to an even larger extent than I suggested, it would have my cordial support. I believe in the light of experience in Canada, in the earlier days of the United States of America and in Australia, that in sparsely-populated areas you require a proportionately larger force of police than you do in densely-populated areas. I realize that our police are doing their best, and I was agreeably surprised at their ability and efficiency, but when you have such enormous areas under the control of extremely small bodies of men it is impossible for them to cope with the needs of those areas in so far as crime is concerned. Therefore, I ask this House to consider the advisability not of doing away with the defence force altogether, but of keeping a small efficient force, especially the technical arms, the air force and the coast line defence, but as regards the other arms, let us revert back to the old volunteer system which only broke down owing to the fact that it was not financially supported by the State. I feel that if you were to revert to the volunteer system, increase the police force and curtail the defence force, it would ultimately redound to the benefit and advancement of the Union.

I rise to briefly support the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). We are now engaged in debating the finances of the country, and I regard this as one of the chief parts of our State economy. It directly affects the people. Every business, private undertakings, and every development in the country is dependent on the country’s finances. If the Minister of Finance lays down a certain financial policy, then all private undertakings and businesses are governed by it. Therefore, it is our duty when we annually discuss the finances to thoroughly study the subject and to offer criticism. It need not be destructive, and should not be unfair, but it should be strong and constructive, and where necessary, condemnatory. We should. I admit, advise the Minister constructively with regard to the government of the country. If there is one thing which will hamper the development of the country, the businesses, and all other development, then, in my opinion, it is the extension of State control over the business concerns of the country. It will eventually greatly hamper the development of the country, and I fear we have taken a turn in the economic life to apply State control more and more to private business enterprises in South Africa. I regard this as a wrong step, and I consider criticism in this connection constructive. It is wrong for a young country like South Africa, because, in the first place, it does not agree with the feeling of the great majority of the people. In most old countries of the world we find that there is now a lack of economic stability, and the reason is that in those countries the class of people who stand for upsetting the existing economic system for the upsetting of private enterprise and a development on business lines are increasing more and more. They are gradually getting a majority there. I always thought that South Africa, at any rate, for many years, would still be free of that spirit because the population of our country is so constituted that we have the political power in the country to abide by a pure and sound economic basis. After thinking about the matter a long time, I came to the conclusion that no other country in the world was better able to follow a safe conservative policy in economic matters. But then one thing must take place, and that is that the people who are agreed upon the development of the country through private capital and enterprise should stand together and govern the country on sound lines. I ask the Ministers of-Finance and Railways if they do not think that that is the method to be followed in South Africa? I know that as worthy sons of South Africa they agree with me, but if I ask whether they are sure of it that the desirable way should be followed, then I fear the Ministers will have to admit that we are commencing to depart from the desirable economic method in South Africa. A number of Acts have been passed by the Pact Government which the Minister of Finance has to father which would never have come into existence were it not for the Pact. Many of the Acts which in the long run will come back on the finances of the country, and the Minister will have to bear the consequences. The Pact is still partly a secret to the country, but I think the Minister of Finance would never have allowed the country to be saddled with certain legislation if it were not that the Pact had made him agree to it. I think the legislation is against the principles of the Minister of Finance, as well as the Minister of Railways. But it seems to be as if the Minister of Finance has recently commenced to swallow this kind of legislation easier. We expected him to remain by the old traditions of our people, and we are disappointed. I will mention what legislation we have been saddled with which would never have come on the statute book if it were not for the support of the Labour party of the Government, and this strengthens my argument against more and more State control. There is the Diamond Control Act.

Has that not had a very good effect?

Can the Minister administer the law?

The mere fact that it is on the statute book already does a great deal.

Yes, but it is an interference with the private life of business people. Then there is the Wages Act and the Export of Fruit Control Act.

That is one of the best Acts our farmers have.

The State controls it, but the farmers ought to have the control themselves. The farmers ought to be the masters of their own produce. What business has the State to poke its nose into the export of farm produce?

Before the State intervened the farmers had already made a mess of it.

Would hon. members opposite have voted for it if it were not for the sjambok of hon. members of the cross-benches. The eleventh Minister to-day means 177 clerks, and an expenditure of £140,000 per annum. The Iron and Steel Bill, which has not yet been passed, is also a sign of the influence of the Labour party. The Act to limit the rights of, and to smother the press did not originate in the feeling of freedom of the people and of the Nationalist party. No, that is another of the Acts for which the Labour party must be held responsible.

It has had a good effect.

The appointment of ultra socialists to high Government posts where they will have an opportunity of forcing their opinions on the administration of the country is another sign that we are going wrong economically. I am not surprised that we have reached a stage that a man who has made a success of his life financially and economically is, now-a-days, looked down upon with a kind of contempt. Capital is despised and abused on public platforms, but if it were not for the investment of private capital in the mines, then the Minister of Finance would not have had a surplus of £1,250,000. It is the investment of private money which has laid the golden egg.

It is the richness of the ground in the Transvaal which was the cause.

Agriculture must be the backbone of the country, but the position is that agricultural production in comparison with last year has gone back by more than £8,000,000, and according to the budget speech, there was a decreased export of agricultural produce to that amount. Agriculture, as the backbone of the country, ought to have contributed to the Minister’s surplus, but was not able to do so, because it went back during the past year.

The drought was responsible for that.

Then I want to further point out that the protection policy of the Government is, to a great extent, smothered by the application of uneconomic high wages in the industries. During the recess we saw how it was tried to apply higher wages in certain industries. And we heard the protests of the manufacturers against it. They said that if the higher wages were applied, then they would be obliged to discharge hundreds of people from the factories. The Minister was obliged to refer back many of the wage proposals of the Wage Board, and the board is still sitting on them. Other proposals were referred to the Conciliation Board, and that also is still deliberating. In the meantime, however, it creates a spirit of uncertainty in the development of our industries in South Africa.

Notwithstanding that factories are still being started every day.

If the hon. member will look at the recommendations regarding the furniture, sweets and clothing factories and tanneries, then he will see that the Minister was obliged to refer back the wage recommendations, because it was stated that the enforcement of them would put hundreds of workers on the streets.

The point is that the wage recommendations are not being applied.

It causes, however, a spirit of uncertainty in our economic life if we have outside interference by the State in the business of the country.

I suppose that is the reason why we have more factories in the country.

The hon. member wants higher wages, and now he supports increased protection.

I never said that.

Is the hon. member then against protection?

I was always against it.

Then the hon. member is not in favour of the establishment of factories, and he is opposed to the policy of the Minister. The support which hon. members on the crossbenches give to the policy of protection is not for the purpose of developing the factories and industries in the country, but at the back of their heads there is the idea to use them to get higher wages for their friends. The object of the assistance which they are giving to the Government is in order to give uneconomic wages. The work of the Wages Board his not only had a bad influence on industries, but also on the application of the Industrial Conciliation Act. The Conciliation Board meets and the employers on it accept uneconomic wages, because they are afraid of the Wages Board. They are afraid of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Some time ago the Industrial Board met in Port Elizabeth and wages in the tanneries there were fixed. I met one of the manufacturers who came from there and he said to me—

The result is that the Wages Board will have a deadening effect on the healthy machinery of mutual agreement between the employers and employees. All of us are in favour of protection and of the development of our industry, but as things are to-day, we are building up industries and finding work for people, but are fixing such high wages that the industries cannot pay them, and the result is that the very manufacturers who have already received protection come to Parliament to ask for increased protection. This means that we are placed in a peculiar circle, and the consumers will ultimately have to pay the piper.

Are you a supporter of protection?

Yes, I am a strong supporter of protection, but I am busy dealing with the question of higher wages. The higher wages which are now laid down as the result of the work of the Wages Board will kill the satisfactory protection the Minister grants. The Minister’s object is a good one, and the majority of the House and I, myself, stand by him, but all the good work which is being done to advance the establishment of industries is being killed by the high and uneconomic wages.

To which of the industries are the high wages being applied?

If the hon. member will follow a little what is going on in the industrial world he will know that.

Answer my question.

I have already mentioned the sweets, clothing, tanneries and furniture industries, and any industry the Wages Board likes to fix can be put under the regulation of wages.

I thought that the Minister had rejected the wage recommendations?

Amid all the confusion about wages, it is said that agriculture stands outside, and that the farmers are not affected. Hon. members opposite will, however, admit that the economic life of the whole country hangs together, and that an injury to one part affects the whole. It is not possible to injure one part of the economic life and not another. I am speaking here from the point of view of a farmer in the Western Province. My father was a father outside Stellenbosch. Take the case of the Paarl. The farmers practically all live inside of the village, and if high and uneconomic wages are to be applied there to-day in the Paarl factories and jam factories, then it will undoubtedly have a reaction on the farms. Moreover, if costs of production are raised, then we must take account of the fact that the farmers have to buy the products front the factories. One cannot get away from it that the farmers, like the other consumers, will come under the high wages and uneconomic wages which are now being applied in South Africa. If we allow the protection policy to be coupled with uneconomic wages, then the farmers in the long run will suffer the most. The economic history of the world teaches us this. There is enormous protection of industries in America to-day, but that does not assist the farmers. All the prices are going up, but the prices of agricultural produce have dropped 25 per cent. I say that our farmers will, in the long run, suffer the most, because, their chief produce has to be exported and to compete on the world market with other countries. There they get no protection. The only protection which they get outside South Africa is on the London market through the preference which England gives to our dried fruits and wines. As for wool, maize, fresh fruit and other products, our farmers have to compete on the world market, so that the high and uneconomic wages will, in the long run bear heaviest on them. We cannot say that they will not be affected by them.

Do not the farmers also sell produce in South Africa?

If the hon. member cannot understand the position, then I hope that his farming friends will explain it to him. If we continue this policy for a few years more the farmers will really feel it. I say that our people, and I do not say it out of a party spirit, but from sorrow, are taking an economic course which will not be for the good of the people. I do not accuse the Minister. I know that the Minister in his heart is right. The Minister speaks of industrial development in his budget speech. It has often been said on the countryside that the South African party have done nothing for industrial development.

Very little.

I hope that when the Pact Government leaves the treasury benches they will be able to look back upon a similar measure of development as that existed when the South African party Government left office. I want to point out in connection with the Year Book issued by the Government itself, and just placed in our hands, what the South African party Government did for the development of our industry. I want to point out that when the South African party Government came into office there were 2,400 factories in the country.

That was during the war.

I am now speaking of 1910. When the Government resigned in 1924 the number was 7,100.

That was in consequence of the war.

I am speaking of six years after the end of the war. At that time the number of workmen in the factories had increased from 65,000 to 180,000, and the wages paid in the factories had increased from £9,000,000 to £20,500,000 per annum.

What is it now?

I cannot say. The Minister himself has not yet got the data. I am only pointing out what the South African party did for the development of industries in the country. The value of the production was increased from £20,000,000 to £80,000,000. I hope that this will bring the opposite side to a different frame of mind. I want to add a few words about unproductive debt. Last year the Minister, in his budget speech on the 31st March, said that the unproductive debt was £55,000,000. Three-and-a-half months later he held a meeting with the public debt commissioners, and a report was issued signed by the Minister as chairman, in which the unproductive debt was shown as more than £60,000,000. This year the Minister says that it is £49,500,000. I hope that the Minister is right, but after last year’s experience with the figures one becomes a little doubtful.

It is only a matter of the method of calculation which differs.

The Minister of Finance stated during the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), by way of interjection, that he had reduced the unproductive debt by payment into the loan fund. I cannot understand how unproductive debt can be redeemed if it is not done by actual direct redemption. In this connection I want to suggest to the Minister to follow the good policy of the late Government. The late Government followed the policy of using the revenue from mining leases for loan purposes for capital works. Let the Minister also apply the £500,000 or £600,000 in that way. The share which the Government has in the Premier mines is a great asset to the country, and will, in this way, be used for the development of the country.

Did you so use it? or was it only a commencement.

The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) knows quite well Flow many millions the late Government paid in to the loan funds during its period of office.

And how much did it take out again?

What do we understand by unproductive debt? I always thought that it was the amount which did not produce interest, and I agree with the Minister of Finance that the unproductive debt increases or becomes less according as the State collects interest during a financial year. If the State collects its interest, well, then the unproductive debt will drop, but if the people pay their interest badly, then the unproductive debt increases. For years the people have been told by hon. members opposite that the South African party Government, during its regime, created an unproductive debt of from £60,000,000 to £80,000,000 in respect of which it has no assets. That was told to the country.

It is true. I repeat it.

I am glad that the hon. member who was until a short while ago, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, says so. I will at once point out that that statement is not only dishonest, but is also false. It is false to mislead the people in that way.

What about the money spent in the war?

I will show the untruth of that accusation. The Minister himself admits it. During the past year the Minister was good enough to send members of Parliament a memorandum showing the position of the debt at 31st March, 1926. I have it here. The Minister clearly shows in it that the public debt at the end of March, 1926, was £222,000,000, but then he goes further and says in the memorandum that over against the debt the land has the following assets, and then a long list is given which I do not want to quote in its entirety, but which he values at a total of £209,000,000. But he says that that is not all. Besides this, £17,000,000 has been put aside in the amortization fund for redemption of the debt. If you add this to the £209,000,000 you get £226,000,000 as the assets over against the debt of £222,000,000 at 31st March, 1926. Where then, in view of this surplus of £4,000,000, does the accusation of the Government come in that the late Government increased the unproductive debt by £60,000,000? Nobody can contradict the figures. To whom is this favourable position due?

To the South African party.

Did not the South African party build up the amortization fund of £17,000,000? Did not the late Government see that there were fixed assets of £209,000,000. That is due to the sensible policy of the party that sits here. In the 14 years the South African party was in power, £12,800,000 was paid off the public debt, and at the same time the amortization fund was strengthened by £9,800,000.

The pension funds were weakened.

During the regime of the South African party there was, therefore, paid off the debt almost £23,000,000, which was added to the amortization fund. I appeal to the Minister of Finance, who will admit that the figures are correct.

The Minister said that the unproductive debt on the resignation of the South African party was £61,000,000.

If the hon. member is so deaf that he cannot understand my explanation of the position of the unproductive debt then he is hopeless. The redemption of debt and the addition to the amortization fund of an amount of nearly £23,000,000 works out at an annual sum of £1,400,000. At the same time the late Government paid £14,750,000 to the credit of the loan account.

How much was kept out and not paid?

I take the actual amount. Will the Minister contradict it?

I cannot now control the figures, but account must be kept of the amount which was not paid in.

If that amount were paid in then we should only have had to borrow more. It is unpleasant to hon. members opposite to hear these figures, because they would like to make the country believe that the late Government did not do its duty. That was, however, done under the most difficult world conditions, and I doubt whether there is any party of the world concerned in the war which can show such a position as the late Government did. A great responsibility rests on the present Government with reference to the public expenditure. Important promises were made to the people, and for years together false accusations have been made against us. The promise was made that if the country trusted the present Government, and put it into power, they would show how to effect economy, and that the position of the country would be brought into the state it should be in.

We have done so.

The position to-day is that the expenditure is more than in any financial year since the commencement of the Union.

Do you want us to remain stationary where we are?

I am speaking of the promises made by hon. members opposite. The highest expenditure under the South African party Government was in 1921-’22, and that included the war bonuses to public service. If we deduct the interest which the Railway Administration have paid then there was an expenditure of £25,800,000. The expenditure for this financial year is, however, £27,400,000, an increase if £1,600,000. In 1923-’24 the last complete financial year under the South African party Government, the public expenditure was brought down in round figures to £24,000,000. and in comparison therewith the expenditure for this year is, therefore, an increase of £3,400,000. Not only is the expenditure more than ever in the history of South Africa, but our taxation exceeds any figure in the history of our system of taxation.

That is a very good sign.

Last year it was almost £21,000,000. Our railways and our general expenditure to-day are, taken together, £9,150,000 more than when the South African party Government resigned. The Minister appreciates his responsibility, but I want to tell him that we on this side put the country first and party second. If the Minister takes proper steps to go in for economy and reduction of taxation—the country requires it—then he will have the support of all well-disposed persons on this side of the House. Taxation can only be reduced if the expenditure is reduced, and there ought, therefore, to be healthy retrenchment in expenditure. I hope that the country’s position in connection with expenditure and taxation will be seriously considered by him.

Finance is a wonderful thing when one listens to the speeches on both sides of the House, but notwithstanding the criticism of the Opposition, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his surplus, and to state to the House that he is the best Minister of Finance we have had since Union. The surplus indicates his careful work and I challenge hon. members opposite to show the same figures during their government. The hon. Minister now comes with a surplus of £1,150,000, but hon. members opposite quibble about it, like the hon. member for Caledon, who wants to show how the S.A.P. Government dealt with the finances. Their work is all on record. Let us see what the S.A.P. Government did during its regime. At the commencement of Union in 1910 we had a public debt of £116,000,000 and during their fourteen years of office it increased to £208,000,000. The increase in public debt was therefore £92,000,000 in the fourteen years.

What about the influence of the war?

Now comes the question how the money was spent, because the Opposition is now criticizing the Government of wrongly spending money. Included in the debt which the S.A.P. Government had accumulated at the end of its regime there was unproductive debt up to £61,000,000. Hon. members opposite have asked what unproductive debt is, but I may tell them that it was money which was wasted in the war and which we shall not be able to recover. It is money which does not bear interest. Of the £92,000,000 added to the public debt by the S.A.P., £61,000,000 was spent in such a way that it is absolutely unproductive. How does that look? If the Opposition could criticize the Minister of Finance and say that he had borrowed money and spent it in an undesirable manner, then there would be something to say for their criticism, but if the money borrowed has produced interest, and the capital is recoverable then the Opposition criticism amounts to nothing. They merely say that the public expenditure has increased terribly, and that taxation is too high. Are they not the people, however, who said during the war period—

Now that their debts have to be paid they must now shout and make a noise. We are not making a noise now about their debts and are willing to assist in paying them, but they must stop shouting. The Minister has taken the right course.

What did the rebellion cost?

Who was the cause of that? Don’t refer to that. That was one of your blood lettings when you shot down the people. No, the Opposition criticism is weak. Now that the Minister makes provision with regard to money that they wasted and spent on the war because there are to-day still thousands of pounds for which the receipts have not yet come in—

One million.

Now that the Minister wants to pay their debts they shout and criticize. In 1921 the combination opposite came together because they are the Unionist S.A.P. pact, and they went to the country and returned to the House with a large majority. They thought that they would govern for ever, and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) shouted—

After three years, however, he had to raise the white flag and resign and the result was that he became an ordinary citizen, because he was not even elected a member of this House. What was the cause? In the first place the country was in a solvent position.

You mean insolvent.

No, I mean solvent. Take, e.g., the valueless paper money. The gold currency of the country went overseas and the Government guaranteed the banks’ note issue, and they speculated on the Government’s credit. The late Government could not even pay the current expenditure of the country. During the last year it was in office, 1924, it had to take £500,000 out of loan funds to pay the current expenditure, but even in that way it could not balance matters. The pension funds were bankrupt and the country retrogressed. Now they are the people to speak of expenditure and to teach us how to govern the country and regulate financial matters, and this when they had brought the country to the depths of bankruptcy. What was the country’s position? Famine, bankruptcy, murder and shooting down. I see to my amazement that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said at Malmesbury that the people’s eyes were opening and that they were steadily coming over to the S.A.P. I cannot for a moment imagine that the people want to have that reign of terror back again. Does the hon. member for Standerton really think that the people are so stupid? How many of the old S.A.P. members are still on the Opposition benches? Only twelve. Who are sitting there to-day? The Unionists. This shows the policy which they are advocating. I just want to mention one point. The leader of the Opposition said that the Labour party had been beaten to bits. He said this with reference to the recent provincial elections. I just want to ask him what has become of his own party. The old S.A.P. has been entirely swallowed up by the Unionists. Gen. Smuts is the leader but he is leader of the Unionists. The people will no longer allow him to hoodwink them. They are wide awake. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) yesterday spoke about immigration. He wants to encourage immigration. Presumably just like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who wants to spend £1,000,000 per annum to introduce immigrants from overseas. Is that the policy of the Opposition? What of the people of South Africa who have to be found work here in thousands? This Government has fortunately tackled the matter and I think has put between 5,000 and 6,000 on the land; unemployed people under the late Government, But I admit that some of the people are not suited to agriculture and they must find work in the factories. The late Government, however, imported people for the factories and for the public service from overseas. Our own sons were not given an opportunity, but pals were brought from overseas. The eyes of the people have now been opened, and it will never occur again. “South Africa first” is the accepted slogan of the whole country. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has a great task to perform. He has a deficit of £146,000 but it is a very small one, and he set aside £450,000 last year from which he can pay this year’s deficit. The Minister, of course, would also have had a nice surplus had it not been for the failure of last year’s maize harvest. But I believe that the whole people are grateful to the Minister for the excellent way he controls the railway. The hon. member for Standerton said that there was no discipline in the railway service. I believe we have the most competent railway staff in the world. I have two large depots in my constituency and the men work day and night and very hard. I have never seen what the hon. member for Standerton states, but I think it is false. It is nothing but an attack on the civilized labour policy of this Government. The hon. member for Standerton said on the other hand that he originated it, but then I am surprised that under his administration there were almost 30,000 white unemployed in the country. The policy of the late Government was not to help people on, but to deprive them of work. This Government came into office under very difficult circumstances, but did not hesitate to tackle the question of unemployment. The late Government borrowed money and put the people on relief works. Even in 1923 this House voted about £700,000 for unemployment and the next year things were worse than ever. This Government dealt with the matter immediately, and I think that altogether they have already assisted 20,000 people by putting them on the land and finding them other ways of earning their living. How the Opposition can have the impertinence to criticize this Government I cannot understand. If they had any self-respect they should rather have remained silent. We welcome a healthy Opposition, because it is necessary in the country, but an Opposition of that sort is useless. It is nothing but chaff.

I do not want on this occasion to make a political speech. I want rather to make a speech on the economic policy of the country, apart from party, and I hope, in anything I am going to say, that the House will believe. I am speaking alter a study of the facts, and with a desire to approach the situation from an impartial point of view. Although a protectionist, I am not to be stamped as one of those who will protect at all costs. I wish to see only those industries which are likely to be of value to the country given the necessary protection which will enable them to win out. I am not in favour of protecting industries of no national value. First of all, I want to controvert some of the things that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said. Free trade philosophy is, from my standpoint, an unnational philosophy. It is divorced altogether from the psychology of a people. It deals only with crude economics from the financial standpoint, without regard to national welfare. That is why the world has all over rejected free trade in principle. The free trader always deals in superficialities. He stresses the point of the increased cost of commodities to the consumer. He assumes always that that is the case. That is the principal string upon which he always harks. The cost of living has gone up, the price of bread is rising, meat is on the up-grade, sugar is rising—

Hear, hear.

That is the plea that the lawyer from Johannesburg would advance to the wives of the Rand. That is the free trade appeal on which my friend proposes to conduct the affairs of the country. It is always a telling appeal, whether based on fact or fiction. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has made that usual appeal about the rising cost of commodities to the consumer, which he always assumes that protection inevitably brought about, in his budget speech. We had last year, never sufficiently answered, but often referred to in the country since, the statement made by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) that the burden to the consumer on account of protective duties was something like £50 a year. This erroneous assumption is the burden of every free trader’s song. In the past we have had the Labour party ringing the changes on these rising costs of living. It is a good electioneering cry. We know that in 1920 they came back to this House 21 strong to hang every profiteer on the lamp post. Yet we know that during that period, when they were raving against the rising cost of living, South Africa was more prosperous than ever in its history. The prices of our commodities oversea were higher than ever they had been. Sugar was fetching £100 a ton, and beef reached its highest volume of export from this country, while to-day it has fallen off to practically nothing. In those days the Labour party were stumping the country about the rising cost of living.

To prevent profiteering.

No, you were playing on the old string. Playing on the prejudices and ignorance of the housewives. The Labour party was taking its tone from overseas, as it always does. What was gospel overseas in the mistaken view of many people there was translated into action in South Africa. We know the result. The outcry in this country forced the Government of the day to take action, and it set about bringing down the cost of living, and it brought it down by spreading bankruptcy all over the country and by creating depression. There were very earnest students of economics who were warning the world of what was going to happen; even the Economic Conference of the League of Nations warned the statesmen of the world what would happen if they went on with a policy of deflation. But there were too many politicians, too many housewives in the country whose prejudices could be played upon, for any sane statesmanship to give the lead to the world. We brought down the cost of living, and the workmen imagined that when the cost of living came down wages were going to remain up, and that they were going to get much more of the commodities of the world than they had obtained previously. We brought down the cost of living by the simple expedient of reducing the price of gold. We reduced the price of commodities, and as a necessary consequence we reduced wages and destroyed confidence. In bringing down this cost of living, the world, also on the same tack, spread bankruptcy everywhere and destroyed our markets, markets which we have never since regained on anything like the same scale. The world of business and production destroyed its confidence in each other. We borrowed money. Everybody in this country who borrowed money in those days at 12s. in the £ is to-day paying it back at 20s. to the £. We raised the national debt during those years when the sovereign was only 12s. to the £; to-day we are paying it back with our maize and our wool and our other products at the rate of the cost of Jiving which many of my friends desire. That is not all. It brought in its train the 1922 revolution. The 1922 revolution was brought, about, as everybody knows, by this same demand to get back to normal, which the members of the Labour benches were so insistent upon in those days. It was not the Chamber of Mines which was responsible. It was the clamour of the Labour party to get back to normal. In 1922, when the gold premium began to disappear, and it became apparent to everybody that the cost of production on the mines had to be brought down, we had the aftermath of the revolution. That was the price which this country paid in getting down the cost of living, and the greatest sinners were undoubtedly the Labourites in those days. Since then Labour, not only in South Africa, but elsewhere, have become protectionists. They were rabid free traders in those days.

They always were protectionists.

No, you were not. Some of you preach free trade to-day. My hon. friend was not in the House then. Anyway, they have become converted. They are now ardent protectionists. But we have other unregenerates on our own benches

Quite unrepentant

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was one of those who wanted to get back to the gold standard, back to normal. He has seen the result of it. He saw the 1922 revolution.

We have got back to the gold standard.

Yes, and the price this country has paid has been a pretty heavy one. Blood and tears do not matter in getting down to the gold standard!

Did you want us always to live on the 1920-’21 level?

I wanted you to live on that level where you could produce the greatest amount of commodities. My hon. friend does not see that money is only a counter. He thinks in terms of money always. But money is not wealth—it is only a convenient medium for exchanging wealth of production or service. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) remains utterly unrepentant, despite all the lessons of the past few years. So we get on the old string of the cost of living— the cost of living is going up; if it is not going up, it is remaining where it is, and it ought to have come down—that is the argument. I say the chief factor is not the cost of living; it is the actual production of wealth in the country. That is your measure. The cost of living is no measure at all in comparison with the measure of your national income. Whether bread is going up or going down matters nothing at all. The great question is whether you are getting more of these commodities than you were getting previously. As a matter of fact, however, the cost of living under protection has not gone up. The Minister, in his budget statement, told us what the position was regarding the cost of living figures, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) agrees with that. That was that in April, 1925, the index figure stood at 1464, and in January, 1927, it was 1420, a fall of three per cent. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) says—

It would have done but for the tariff.

Precisely; that is what I have to complain of—this satisfied assumption that the tariff has kept up prices. If we had not had that protective tariff on, say the free traders, prices would have come down much lower, and as evidence of that the hon. member says it has fallen 15½ per cent. in England, 7½ per cent. in Canada, and 6½ per cent. in Australia, and only 3 per cent. in South Africa. I wonder if the hon. member has ever heard of the Newtonian principle that falling bodies come down to earth with a rapidity in inverse ratio to the square of their distance. The truth is the prices have not so far to fall in South Africa as in other countries. I would like to illustrate this because, after all, it is a great tribute to the South African party Government. It is a thing upon which, in my opinion, stress has never been sufficiently laid. In the report by Mr. Kemmerer and Mr. Vissering on the resumption of the gold standard, they said—

Here follows the table. Let me emphasize this, because it is really very important. It shows that in 1924 the South African index figure was 133, the Netherlands 148, United States 149, Canada 159, and so on, constantly rising until Czecko-Slovakia is reached at 997, the South African being the lowest in the world. To-day’s figures, according to the “Economist,” the latest number, are—South Africa being still the lowest—the United Kingdom 146, Belgium 147, Holland 164, Australia 161, Canada 151, U.S.A. 148, and South Africa 126.5. It is still going down. My free trade friends never deal in these facts. Let us come to the retail figures, and we find the same state of affairs. In the last monthly bulletin of Union statistics, it is stated that the food retail prices in 1925 were 20 per cent. above pre war prices, and on 16th January, 1927, they were only 16 per cent. above prewar prices. So they are coming down. What becomes of the protectionist argument then? Against that for the relative years 1925-’26, you have: United Kingdom 67.67, Irish Free State 88.87, Australia 56.55, Canada 41.48, New Zealand 51.48, India 52.54, Mauritius 42.45, and the United States 59.64. That to me demonstrates that whatever may be said about the condition of South Africa, the S.A.P. Government and the present administration are keeping our prices in favourable comparison with the rest of the world. What, then, becomes of the argument against protection, when we have the lowest wholesale index and retail index in the world?

Foodstuffs do not come in the index.

They come in the retail index which I have just quoted.

The cost of living is affected by the retail prices, not the wholesale.

I want to take the other aspect of this argument—our national wealth— which, after all, is the real test of the whole position. There are no comparable figures to test the increase of our national wealth, and how we stand to-day. It needs very careful investigation, and our own departments do not give the comparisons. In 1917 we had the estimates made by Dr. Lehfeldt, and the Economic Commission made another in 1923. There are several comparisons of our increase in wealth which can be made. The Economic Commission’s report says that the gross figure of our mineral production in that year was £52,633,000 worth. The budget statement shows £58,609,000, or an increase of nearly £6,000,000 since the Economic Commission sat.

It may be diamonds.

It may be, but there is an increase in other minerals. Take our manufactures—I am taking the gross figures; the Economic Commission showed that in 1923-’24 the production was £74,486,000. The last census showed, in this last Year Book which was issued the day before yesterday, £79,789,000, or an increase in one year of £5,300,000. There are no statistics for 1925, so I cannot arrive at what they were, but we have some indication from the budget figures. The gross value of manufacturing production per head was £433, and the Minister showed that there were 1,459 new workers during the last 17 months. At that rate, we have a gross added value of £636,747, but it must be more than that, because these figures are taken only in selected industries, and others are not considered. I know that the sugar production is 30,000 to 40,000 tons more. We arrive at the fact that at least £1,000,000 was added to our gross manufactures last year, bringing the gross total to £81,000,000 approximately. The inference I draw from these figures is that our national wealth production is going up. It has gone up something like £12,500,000 since the Economic Commission sat. In supporting the Government’s policy of protection I am not arguing that the Government is right in its taxation measures. Supposing we take 50 per cent. of the £12,500,000 for the cost of production, to reduce the amount to the value added in process of manufacture. Suppose the total added value is placed at £6,250,000, we find the Government has taken 50 per cent. of that in taxation, or increased the taxation £3,500,000.

But that is also redistributed.

But if that had gone back into industry, they would have been able to produce more. I want to emphasize this point of view of our total wealth production, because it is very necessary that the country should not be misled regarding—

to this country. They have had it dinned into their ears that protection is raising the price of commodities, which I have shown is not the case, and the other side of the picture, our increasing national dividend owing to protection, is lost sight of. I find during the last year we constantly heard in this House that Australia is a standing example of the evils of protection, that protection is proceeding to great heights there, and the consequence is it is paralyzing all the production.

No, the farmers.

I am going to prove to my hon. friend it is doing nothing of the kind. I have here the latest figures available from the commonwealth statistician. It appears that the total value of the national production in Australia in 1912 was £208,404,000, or £43 18s. 2d. per head. There was a steady progressive rise in production from that year until the last year quoted, 1925. In 1925 the figure rose to £449,000,000, or £76 9s. 5d. per head. I will quote comparable figures of production for the past three years to show the progressive increase in wealth under protection. In 1922-’23 the pastoral production was worth £90,535,000.

A wool boom.

In 1924-’25, when I suppose there was no wool boom, the pastoral production was £121,000,000. Agriculture in 1922-’1923 produced £81,000,000 and in 1924-’25 £107,096,000; mining produced in 1922-’23 £20,000,000 and in 1924-’25 £24,646,000; dairying produced in 1922-’23 £43,500,000 and in 1924-’25 £45,000,000 while forestry and fisheries produced £11,000,000 and £12,000,000 for the two years. Manufactures produced £123,188,000 in 1922-’23, and £137,977,000 in 1924-’25. What, therefore, becomes of the argument that Australian industries are going down under protection?

Ask the Australian farmer what he thinks of it.

My hon. friend argues from the general to a particular instance. The farmer sees the worker in the town is constantly having a higher standard of living, and immediately draws a comparison between his position and that of the town dweller. He does not draw the true comparison, because while the position of the man in the town has improved the position of the farmer is also improving, and farmers in most countries are better off to-day than they were ten years ago.

That is very doubtful—take the United States.

I do not suppose I shall be able to shake the hon. member’s free trade convictions. I will now come to one particular instance of this free trade misstatement of fact. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) told us that the protective tariff on sugar was penalizing the jam industry, which would be unable to expand because it was paying a very heavy duty on sugar and therefore could not export its products. I knew that could not be true so I wired to the refineries and have received a telegram stating that when the duty was only 4s. 6d., including a shilling excise, the sugar industry refunded to the manufacturers 3s. 6d. on sugar used in the manufacture of goods for export. That was the practice before the new tariff of last year. The sugar industry undertook as one of the conditions of the new increased duty—

That was part of the condition on which I gave protection. The jam manufacturers received the benefit of the agreement.

In the case of the sugar industry it has undertaken as one of the conditions of the new increased duty to supply manufacturers at prices competing with the world’s c.i.f. value, plus old duty of 4s. 6d., at the same time undertaking to continue the refund of 3s. 6d. on sugar used in goods exported. The result is that the jam manufacturers now receive back the full duty on sugar they use on goods exported, excepting the one shilling which Government has so far refused to rebate. The jam industry is in an infinitely better position to-day than it would be if there were no South African industry. If the jam makers had to purchase sugar from overseas they would have to lay out a considerable portion of capital for such purchases, but they need not do that now as they can obtain stocks of sugar in South Africa from day to day according to their requirements. They thus save themselves a large working capital on which interest would have to be paid—and they get one of the finest sugars in the world at world’s prices. The sugar industry is of enormous value to the jam makers. There is nothing to prevent our jam industry expanding and sending its products all over the world in competition with the world, and if it cannot do that it should not lay the blame on the sugar industry which is its greatest safeguard, but on its own inefficiency. This is an excellent illustration of the hollowness of the free trade argument that the industry is crippled because of the exactions of the sugar industry. Sugar is also an excellent illustration of the hollowness of argument regarding the price to the consumer. Sugar is a commodity which is universally used; it is really equal to gold in its exchange value, as it can be carried from one end of the world to the other without deterioration. It is very costly to purchase.

You dump it into other countries when you cannot consume it here.

So does every other country in the world. I will answer the questions as I go along. Sugar is very costly and every grocer in Europe and elsewhere retails it at a very small profit indeed. These are the facts, which my hon. friend knows. No distributor could afford, if we had no sugar industry in the country, to distribute sugar at the price we do to-day. If it had to be imported from abroad much money would be locked up and the importation would be in very few hands. They would charge a large rate of interest for the money locked up, and by the time the sugar reached the consumer it would be higher than if we had no duties at all, and consequently no sugar industry. In this country of great distances the cost of distribution is higher than in others. Therefore, the easy assumption that the existence of an industry under a protective duty means a higher price to the consumer is false. That leads me to the argument of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) last year, when the hon. member argued that the average consumer in this country pays £50 annually because of the protective duties. He also proceeded on the easy assumption that protective duties meant increased cost to the consumer. I have taken the trouble to find out what the argument is, and the argument is this. There is a 4s. duty per bag on maize entering into this country, and the hon. member for Kimberley estimates that everyone who consumes a bag of mealies pays that 4s. because if there was not the 4s. duty on the maize he would have bought it 4s. cheaper. My hon. friend shakes his head.

Of course, I shake my head.

That is the argument.

It is not the argument.

Every native who consumes one bag a month, or 12 bags a year, pays £2 8s. because of the protective duty on maize.

That is nonsense

That is interesting, because I was never able to find the basis.

That is the basis upon which the figures were arrived at. The mechanic who pays this extraordinary duty eats, let us say, one pound of meat a day oil which there is 1¼d. a pound duty, and on the meat he consumes over the year he is debited with £1 18s. a year in duty, so, applying the same principle upon all articles which bear a duty, we arrive at £50 a year. I have tried to show the fallacy in the case of sugar, but how much greater is the fallacy when applied to meat in this country. If we had no cattle or maize in the country we should be paying more for these things than we do to-day.

We should probably have better meat, though.

These arguments are by the way. The balancing of greater production against the alleged increased cost to the consumer which protection is supposed to bring will always be a matter for argument. To me they are merely ebullitions of those people who have predilections, one way or the other, and they are not worth a farthing to me or those who consider the interests of this country. The whole question has much more serious aspects than can be gathered from these economic or rather mercantile arguments. In my own opinion I have satisfactorily demolished the arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

If that is the best you can do it is a poor demolition.

If these were the only arguments in favour of protection I should not care two pence about it. I would not argue it. The free trade argument is incontestible in many ways. If this country is destined to be solely a primary producing country, and we are to concentrate on our mines and agriculture which have to compete in the world’s market, it is madness to have any protection whatever. It is really not worth arguing about. The trouble with my hon. friend is that he cannot see any further than that. It is a purely financial argument, but let us come down to a real national argument, and let protectionism stand on a national basis and not any economic basis. This is the question which every thinking man ought to ask himself in the country. Does he wish to see South Africa solely a primary producing country or not?

What about the Argentine?

What about it? Is the Argentine at the shank end of a blank continent.

What has that to do with it? That has nothing to do with it.

Nothing. That is the whole question. Nothing whatever, according to my hon. friend. Yet it is precisely a different realization of our position on the shank end of Africa which is responsible for our different outlooks. We are not the Argentine. What is our exact position on this continent? Here we have a limited population of one-and-a-half million whites a considerable portion of which is sinking lower and lower because we cannot raise them above their present living standard. We shall be dependent entirely on agriculture if we go in solely for primary production. Many people say we should be careful in speaking of South Africa that we don’t cry “stinking fish.” It will be better to face the real truth of our production in South Africa. Agriculture in South Africa can support only a very small population. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) last night spoke of getting back to the land and pushing forward the agricultural policy, and that that was the way to proceed. I live on the land, and have been connected with putting settlers on the land, and I have seen dozens of young fellows put every farthing they have into the land, and to-day they are walking the streets. All these sweet words about getting back to the land are moonshine. [Cheers from Government benches.] These cheers are rather embarrassing. I don’t want to raise the cheers of the Government. The truth is in this House we are divided on political lines, and we have people who believe, like I do, on all sides, and if we could get away from politics we could argue on economic lines, but because I stand up for my own economic conviction I get the cheers of the Government.

That shows you are on the wrong side.

Here in South Africa we are mostly producing minerals and agricultural products. We have been warned by all the experts in this country that thirty years hence our gold output will have diminished so much as to support only a fraction of those employed to-day. We know if the gold industry does diminish to that proportion our internal markets will disappear, unless we build up something to take their place. If the gold industry is diminished what will happen to our railways? Will not the rates be extraordinarily excessive and put a further burden on agriculture, which it will be difficult for it to carry? Meanwhile, what is happening elsewhere on the Continent? The world is busy exploiting the almost fabulous wealth just over our borders. The rich valleys of the Congo and the fertile lands of East Africa are infinitely more productive and richer than South Africa, and these districts are being developed at a very fast rate. And with all this development is going on the evolution of the native. The exploitation of the millions of natives is going on apace there’ right on the north of our borders. With that economic evolution going on in these states above the Union, is it going to have no effect upon this population here? Dare we think in terms only of primary production? With our vanishing gold industry, with our agriculture very largely crippled, because of the loss of internal markets, with the rising tide of colour all round us—well, South Africa will be a poor place if it does not do something to provide for those days. Erom an economic point of view, it appears to me that it would be rank suicide to go in for free trade. In order to live we must have population, and that, I think, everybody will be agreed upon. We must recruit our strength from the virile races of Europe, or we must visualize a very speedy eclipse. Concentration upon primary production means stagnation. Consider a country like India, where 90 per cent. of its 320,000,000 is living on the land. No one can say that the Indian is not a good cultivator. He is in request in many parts of the world simply because he has that inherited skill in agriculture. The total average wealth produced in India is £5 per head per year, in China it is a little lower, while in the United States it is something like £72 a year. Why is this? The reason is that men working with their bare hands, tilling the soil, can only produce a very meagre livelihood anywhere in the world. There is no farmer anywhere in the world who has been able to make anything but a very bare living with his own labour.

You want to make the position worse in this country.

My hon. friend has never worked on a farm. People talk, especially people from the cities, about better methods. We should adopt better methods of agriculture, we should adopt different fertilizing agencies, we should show more skill altogether, and we should then be infinitely better off; but they don’t know the heart-breaking wait for rain winch takes place just after your crop has been planted, and you have spent all you have in weeding it and bringing it almost up to maturity. No rain falls and everything is withering in front of you. That is a common enough experience in South Africa. Mr. Ford, in his latest book, says that no farmer in the world has been able yet to make a civilized living in comparison with what the man in industry can do. I want to give a few instances of the static condition of agriculture in this country. I find, on reference to the last year book, at page 381, that we have a fine illustration of the static condition of agriculture. The only thing which apparently has gone up is cattle, which went up a million and a half from 1918. I refer to European-owned cattle. The native increase has been 1¼ millions, and so there has been no market at all for stock owing to the enormous increase and the cutting off of all export overseas. Take the other products in 1924, as shown in this year book. You have fewer horses than in 1920, fewer mules than in 1904, fewer asses than in 1912. There were fewer woolled sheep in the Union than there were in 1912, although the yield per sheep in wool has gone up. The other sheep were the same as in 1904, but there were fewer Angora goats than in 1904, and fewer other goats than in 1904. Take the principal agricultural crops. In 1924 there was less wheat, less barley, and less oats than in 1918 and less potatoes, less tobacco and less tea than in 1918.

Is that quantity or value?

Quantity. That is the real test. There was an increase in sugar cane, and also an increase in fruit. In 1922-’23 we lost 750,000 cattle from drought and 7,000,000 small stock owing to those causes. In 1923-’24 we lost 750,000 cattle from drought and disease, and 4,750,000 small stock from those causes. Yet we are told that if you only exercise greater skill and intelligence you would avoid all these troubles. The only chance we have on the land of making a living according to civilized standards is by the use of our native labour. What will happen to us with this fuller development which is going on in further Africa if we concentrate entirely upon primary production? We have already faced during the past six years a 100 per cent. rise in native wages and, if that is continued without any increase in production, it is inevitable that we have come to the parting of the ways. If that increased exploitation is going to continue in those countries north of the Union, the inevitable result will be its reaction on the natives of the Union, and the curtailment of our wealth-creating capacity in agriculture. The wealth of the world has been created by the machines of industry. The free trader says you shall not use those machines; you shall continue with your bare hands on your farms and in your mines.

What non-sense!

That is the whole argument of free trade. You must not put any protective tariff at all on any commodity which will enable you to bring any machine into this country that will create wealth.

made an interjection.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) ought to be sitting with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

He probably is on this question.

I have a book here by Mr. Ford, who, whatever we may think of him, is a gentleman who is employing a population practically equal to the European population of the Union. He does not only engage in motor-cars; he is a farmer amongst other things, and a manufacturer of many commodities, and this is what he says—

Although the farmer in this country, as in other countries, works harder than the mechanic does, there is a good deal of sweat about it, and he does not get the results, and that is why farming in South Africa, not being able to give the results, cannot employ a larger population. It is white population I am pleading for. If we do not take the machine, if we do not develop our industrial life, we cannot have a population, and if we have not that population it must be evident to everybody that our position on this continent becomes very difficult. That is the difference between ourselves and the Argentine. I want to say a word or two about that old bogey of no markets. We are told that if we go in for industrial development there is no market in which we can sell our goods. I want to quote Mr. Ford on that—

Everywhere in the world, says Mr. Ford, the home market can be built up. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) always says that we have no markets, but we have a larger population in the continent of Africa than the United States of America have, and they are increasing in their purchasing power every year. And that is our home market.

And they can buy cheaper from Great Britain. I have tried it.

My friend looks to today. I look to to-morrow. I look upon this continent of Africa, or the Bantu portion of it as a potential United States, a country which cannot put up its tariff walls against us, and I say we have potential markets, and if we cannot seize those markets, if we are so utterly incapable of formulating an industrial policy to seize those markets, then we do not deserve to develop as a nation. I want to touch on a slightly different subject, and I want to say a few words on the policy of the Labour party as enunciated the other night by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), because I take it he was speaking for the Labour party and setting forward their policy to the country. The first plank in his platform was to expel every native from employment who is not a subject of the Union, a plank which was enlarged upon by the Minister of Defence last night. In the latest bulletin of Union statistics, it is rather extraordinary to find that on the 31st December, 1926, there were 321,888 natives working on the mines in this country, of whom 185,178 were Union natives, and the remainder from outside the Union. The Labour policy is that we should get rid of these people, that we should not employ them. So if that policy could be put into practice to-morrow, it would mean that there would be 40 per cent. fewer natives working on the mines than there are to-day. It would mean a sudden drop of £23,000,000 in our mining production. I ask the House to consider what a sudden drop like that would mean in this country. What would it mean to Johannesburg alone? It would mean business depression, a falling in prices of all property round about, and it would mean universal unemployment. Many of the markets inside the Union would be destroyed; civil servants would have to be reduced, and the railways would be very largely impoverished. They argue that this might not be necessary, because if you pay higher wages and employ white men production would increase. But we know that the Rand mines are the most efficiently conducted mines in the world. We know that nowhere has such ingenuity been put into practice as in Johannesburg, and that if these mines were in America, for instance, none of them, or very few, would be worked. Supposing the Government said—

what would be the result? It would mean that 136,000 natives drawn from our agricultural pursuits would put every farmer in the bankruptcy court. The wattle industry would vanish, and the sugar industry would certainly cease to exist. This policy of labour is utterly divorced from practical life, and yet its mere statement is influencing the Government. The second plank in their platform is that we must pay high wages, that high wages bring about increased production. I would like to know how high wages are going to bring about increased production in our low-grade mines, and in agriculture. What amount of high wages will produce better results when crops are killed by drought? You have only to ask the question to see the fallacy of that argument when applied to primary production. This doctrine comes from America, where there are very few trade unions, and it is translated to Great Britain to till against the trade union doctrine as much as at the capitalistic employer. The object is to instil into the mind of the worker that if he will only work harder, if he will only give his best to the employer, and the employer his best to the employee, both will benefit, and it will result in greater production. So it is really an argument against the canny policy which has been extensively adopted in Great Britain. To that extent it is an admirable doctrine, but, translated into primary production, it is an impossible conception. For wages can only be paid out of production, and agricultural production depends as much upon the elements as upon human labour. I am going to support the amendment of the right hon. member’ for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It does not deal in any way with the economic questions with which I have been dealing. It lays stress on the fact that our railway rates are extremely excessive, and I quite agree with that. It lays stress on the spreading of civilized labour at these high rates of wages in primary industries, where it is impossible to be borne.

What about your home market?

The surest way of killing your home market is to carry your products at excessive rates. If the railway rates are excessive, it is equally a tax on industry as free trade—

Yes, that is quite right; it would be more interesting to hear what you suggest—how to reduce them.

By cutting wages;

I want to deal with it in this way. I have no time for the white labour policy as applied. I want to create those industries in which the people you are manufacturing into white kaffirs on the railways would be employed as skilled mechanics.

What will you do with these people in the meantime, while you have not the industries you desire to build up?

Let them die.

I have already stated in the House what I would do. There are numerous ways in which they could be employed. Subsidize production instead of subsidizing non-production. I have never considered that the employment of white men in shifting sand on the railways is leading them to a higher level.

Do you want natives on the railways?

I am not ashamed of doing that. What you are doing is bringing the European down to the native level. It is possible for the Government to evolve a white labour policy which will mean white labour being involved in production instead of in non-production, and which will not involve keeping white men under the squalid conditions under which they live, and then expect them to rise to a higher level.

I am sure that the House has listened with much interest, as it always does, to the speech of the last speaker. He has given the House a good many figures and much information—much of it very interesting and informative. There are two things that always happen in the budget debate. One is that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will get up early in the debate and make a mass attack on the Government’s policy of protection, and just as sure as the hon. member does that, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) can be depended upon to follow him, and tear his argument to pieces—and to reply most effectively to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has said on the policy of protection. That goes without saying now. I congratulate the hon. member for Zululand on the painstaking and effective way in which he works up his case and knocks the bottom out of the case of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). But, with regard to the last portion of his speech, it seems to me that he is on dangerous and impossible ground. The hon. member for Zululand has definitely said that we ought to put all these white labourers who have been taken on in the railway service out of that service, and put them on to primary production and put natives in their place.

Not primary production.

And he said, substitute natives. I take it that is the policy of the leader of the Opposition and of the Opposition party, although they did not have the candour and frankness to say so, as the hon. member for Zululand did.

Absolutely wrong.

If the hon. member for Zululand said anything at all, he said these men had become—

on labouring work on the railways, and we should put them out. In the last two years over 5,000 of these labourers who were taken on in the railway service as labourers have proved themselves capable and efficient, and have earned promotion. They are to-day in graded posts, are rising in the scale, and probably will become stationmasters and guards, etc.

Have you read the report?

I have read the report. These men would not have had a chance unless they had come in on the ground floor and been labourers. There is a point that is frequently lost sight of in this country, and that is that there is a certain percentage—8 per cent.—in every country’s population which, according to international statistics, are suited and fit only for actual labouring, manual work. The trouble in the past has been that there have been no openings in South Africa for the white manual labourer, for whom there is an outlet as skilled navvies in other countries. The door has been closed to them here. We have spent thousands and thousands of pounds trying to put men who came from the land back on the land and making them farmers. The policy of the last Government was that men who were doing construction work and building a dam, because they were on that work as labourers, ipso facto were given first claim as settlers, whether they were fit for it or not. The country has spent thousands trying to place on the land men who are fitted only for labouring work. Now we have to make it possible for the white man to qualify as a skilled navvy. Amongst our poor whites we have some of the finest material for pick and shovel work that you can find in any part of the world. When these men are placed on piece work in this particular occupation at normal rates and working reasonable hours, they are able to earn from ten shillings to one pound a day. We must find openings for this class of men in pick and shovel work. I now want to touch on the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). As I listened to that speech. I thought he was one of those things which passeth all understanding.

Your understanding.

He had to deal in his criticisms with a surplus on the one hand and a deficit on the other, and he had to attack both. He started off by saying that it was scandalous to have a surplus like that shown by the Minister of Finance, adding that it would have been much better if there had been a deficit. In fact, I never heard deficits glorified as he glorified them. Having attacked this surplus of £1,250,000, I thought he would be very warm in his praise of the Minister of Railways, for he had a deficit. But I was amazed, for not only did he attack the Minister of Railways for having a deficit, but said the whole country hinged on this deficit, as it reflected the true position of South Africa. Socrates had to drink hemlock because he tried to make that which was wrong appear as if it were right. That being so, the leader of the Opposition should be severely punished.

Who drank the hemlock?

You are trying to be an intellectual snob.

When the facts are against the Opposition they say that the Government is lucky, but they did not tell the country in 1924 that this was going to be a lucky Government. No, they said it was going to ruin the country.

So you are.

Evidently this Government has been lucky in its first year of office and extraordinarily lucky in its second and third years. The luckiest thing of all, however, was that the country got rid of the South African party Government.

Have you read the last number of “Forward”? It does not seem to agree with you.

I am too busy doing my job. No, it is not luck which has brought about the industrial expansion, and has induced all these new factories to open at Port Elizabeth. Was it luck which enabled the Minister of Finance to raise money in London at cheaper rates than other countries were able to do? Sir Ernest Harvey, controller of the Bank of England, who should know all about orthodox finance, writes—

Is that luck? I suppose we shall be told that these people who control the money markets of the world have no idea of our financial position, and that is why they lend us as much money as we want on terms more favourable than those prevailing in the past? The real reason is that the Minister of Finance has utilized his surpluses for redeeming the public debt and consolidating our financial position. All this criticism from the Opposition about a bad financial position is not in accordance with the facts. Was it owing to luck that last year there were half the number of insolvencies than when the South African party was in office?

Were there fewer insolvencies because the Pact Government was in office?

Is it a matter of luck that employment has increased right throughout South Africa, within the last three years? Take the clothing industry, one of the industries which had protection. Since it had that protection, in eighteen months, from July, 1925, to December, 1926, the European employees have increased by 24 per cent. Not due to luck, but due to the scientific policy of protection we have laid down. Is it due to luck we have reduced our relief workers from 10,000 to 2,000? Is it due to luck we have had industrial peace in the country for three years? No, it is not good luck, it is good government. Good government in spite of all they say and in spite of all their press. It is because the country has been governed well and wisely during the last three years. These things could have happened under South African party government if they had had the same outlook and had done things in the same way. They allowed things to drift, and I heard quite recently, and I hope I will be corrected if I am wrong, that one of the famous sayings of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was—

That is indicative of allowing things to drift. Don’t grapple with them, but wait until something happens, then try and put it right and let things drift again. We had indemnity bills which used to be an annual occurrence to clean up the mess after each session. If it was not the coloured at Port Elizabeth it was the natives at Bulhoek.

Don’t boast too quickly, you might get it yourself yet.

It might happen, but it has not happened yet.

And it is not a regular part of the policy.

No, and it does not happen every year. My reason for getting up was to touch on that portion of the amendment dealing with—

I rose to deal with that point, The hon. member for Standerton, in the course of his speech, said the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act had been applied without mercy in the small villages and in the backveld. I challenge him on that. I ask him to quote a single case of a Wage Board determination or an Industrial Conciliation Act determination in which the farming community have suffered one iota in the backveld or anywhere else. He said it had been applied without mercy. Again, that is wrong. Because in the smaller centres they have different rates to the town rates. They have local committees set up to make special exemptions for the class of person the right hon. member referred to as half-efficient.

They’re very small. They make the exemptions on a very small scale.

I will tell you how many exemptions they have made in Cape Town. I have the figures. I am taking the two main points of the other side. The first is that the high rates in the town apply to the small country districts. I say they have their own rates in the country districts. "

What are the rates? I only read the rates that you published.

Then, I take the point about the men not able through not being fully qualified and efficient to earn the full rates, and at my request a special exemption clause was put in the agreement six months ago which was not in the original, and, as far as Cape Town is concerned, the local committee have granted 97 exemptions.

Is that all?

They might grant more.

And there are scores out of work in the suburbs of Cape Town to-day.

The local committees lay down the local rates, and where there are inefficients they grant exemption, and they have granted 97, which is a big number in the building trade locally. The other point is that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the effect of this has been to push up wages ail round, and that as a result of this industrial agreement and this pushing up of wages is making building impossible. I asked for the rates for the last six years from the department, the standard rates of pay in the building industry in Cape Town, and I am going to show you how the rates have been “pushed up.”

Give us the cost of construction.

And give me the figures for Upington, and not Cape Town.

I have not got them, but I can get them.

Will you get the figures for Britstown, too?

Does the hon. member not want me to read these rates? They are indicative of what happened in every other large town. I will show you how the wages have been “pushed up” by the Industrial Conciliation Act, as against what was done by the other Government. I will give the hourly rate and the official figures. Bricklayers and plasterers, 1920. 3s. 7½d.; 1921, 3s. 6d: 1922, 3s. 2d.; 1923, 2s. 9d.; 1924, 2s. 9d., and it has been 2s. 9d. ever since. It has come down from the days you were in power from 3s. 7½d. to 2s. 9d. Take carpenters, 3s. 7½d., 3s. 6d., 3s. 2d., 2s. 9d. and 2s. 9d—actually 10½d. an hour less to-day under this agreement than when the hon. members opposite were in office.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the House adjourned for dinner I was just dealing with a point which had been made by the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) in which he had emphasized that the wage agreement under the building industrial council had had the effect of pushing up wages in the building industry so high that it was impossible to build, and that this was on account of the influence of the Labour party in the Pact Government. Let me say, first of all, that the wages in the building industry have been laid down not by the Labour party, not by the trades unionists, but by the employers and employees sitting round the table, and arriving at an agreement as to what the wages and conditions in their industry shall be.

For particular areas.

Yes, I will come to the particular areas. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will remember that before the Conciliation Act was passed, the building industry had a voluntary agreement which operated in certain areas. They were giving effect to that on their own, exactly the same as the printing industry, and all that we did after the Act was passed was to legalize the wages laid down in the areas which had existed up to that time. How have the wages been increased by the building council, which is composed of employers and employees? I was reading out the wages of the bricklayers and plasterers. I will read out the others because I want to show this House that in regard to the charge that the wages have been pushed up through the influence of the Labour party working through the industrial council which represents nearly a thousand employers in the building trade, I want to show that we were in no way responsible for influencing the wages in one way or the other. They themselves fixed the wages without any interference, and they would resent any interference, and rightly so. I will read out the wages: Plasterers and bricklayers, 3s. 7½d. in 1920; 3s. 6d. in 1921, 3s. 2d. in 1922. 2s. 9d. in 1923. In 1924 the wages were stabilized at 2s. 9d., which they are to-day. What has been done is that the wages which existed at that time have been stabilized and legalized. Any talk of the Industrial Building Council pushing up wages to the detriment of the building trade is all moonshine, in view of the fact that the wages are not higher now than they were then. But there is this difference, under the old council they could not give legal effect to those wages, in other words, there was no protection for the good employer against the bad employer, who refused to agree to the voluntary arrangement. To-day the good employer who is willing to pay those wages is protected against unfair competition of the bad employer. Is that wrong?

Has there been a diminution of building activity?

No. In 1925 the value of building activities in South Africa was a record, £7,099,000. Last year, when this agreement was in full force and operation, the increase in the buildings actually constructed in South Africa was £1,400,000. the actual total being £8,489,000. That is in one year alone in this industry which is supposed to be crippled by the application of the wage agreement. The building industry was never more prosperous than it is to-day. Is that not a sign of confidence, of security, and of optimism? Are people going to build, whether it is houses, shops or stores, or whatever it is, if they have not got a feeling of security, a feeling of confidence, or a feeling that they are going to get a return on their money? There is no finer barometer of trade conditions in any country than the state of the building industry. The list goes on to show that carpenters’ wages in 1920 were 3s. 7½d. and are now 2s. 9d., and that plumbers’ wages were 3s. 5½d. and are now 2s. 9d.

You know that is not a fair comparison, because 1920 was an absolutely abnormal year.

It is a fair comparison. What is the charge? The charge is that this agreement has pushed up the wages of workers in the building industry, and that it has retarded building in South Africa. I am showing that wages have not been pushed up. They have been stabilized and legalized. There was one class whose wages were put up, and that is the painters. In 1922 their wages were 2s. 1d., and in 1923 1s. 10d., and they were stabilized at 2s. That is the only increase. Now we come to the areas, to the small towns. You have got bad builders and contractors, and good builders and contractors in the small towns. Are the good ones not entitled to protection against the bad or unscrupulous ones? Is not the good builder in the small town as much entitled to protection as the good builder in the large town? Of course he is. There is no difference whatever in principle. When it comes to farming we are on a different wicket. What happens there? The charge against myself in particular and against the Government is that we are applying this agreement to the farming industry and it was never so intended. I have asked the Opposition to give me one case of where it has been applied to the farming industry. What does the Act say? The very first clause says—

Either that means something—I did not pass the Act. It was passed by members on the other side—or it does not. Either that proviso has a legal interpretation and effect, or it has not if the farming industry is protected, which is the intention of that proviso, then nothing I can do can interfere with it. I ask any member whether I can by administrative action do something which will not be ultra vires which is going to get over that proviso which protects the farming industry. If on the other hand you say I am doing something which affects the farming industry, then one of two things has happened: either I am doing something which is ultra vires or your Act is defective and wants altering. You cannot have it both ways.

But you put a clause in the Government Gazette saying that all buildings on farms, the materials for which were over £400, came under the provisions of these wages.

The right hon. member has got hold of the wrong end of the stick as he usually does.

Read what you put in.

I will read it—

Yes, but if they exceed £400 they come under it.

They do not if your proviso in the Act holds good.

You took legal opinion first.

I am informed that the building of a house is part of the building industry. I am legally informed that the putting up of buildings anywhere is part of the building industry; it is not employment in agriculture. A case was decided in the Johannesburg courts where a boarding-housekeeper who was engaged in building a new wing on the house said—

But the court said—

and they made him come under the agreement. If the hon. member’s Act in Section 1 excludes all people on farms then no exemption of mine can affect the position.

Conversely you could have left them out of the regulations if you had liked.

Supposing I had not put that in. They would have been much worse off than they are with that in, for the simple reason that the hon. members’ proviso in their own Act evidently does not protect them the way they say it does. In order to try and protect them I got that put in up to a certain point and now they suggest I have acted ultra vires.

Why did you apply it to districts in the north-west, where it is utterly unsuitable?

If the right hon. member had been here when I started, he would have heard the answer to that very question.

I was here, and you have not made it clear yet.

We cannot both make speeches at the same time. The right hon. member makes a better speech standing up than when he is sitting down.

But standing up or sitting down, you cannot make that clear.

I think the building industry is entitled to the congratulations of the country, and it should be entitled to the assistance of this House for the way it has administered this agreement; it is spending £6,000 per year to do so. You cannot have a committee in every little village. With regard to the Wage’ Act, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) went round the country 12 months ago condemning the action of the Pact Government in applying the Wage Act.

We have heard all that.

Well, you will hear it again. It is a good thing that you should hear it again. The right hon. member went round the country attacking the Wage Act for the effects of the industrial Conciliation Act which he himself had passed, and it was only when the editor of the “Friend” sent him a wire asking him to stop condemning the Wage Act, which had not then been put into operation, that he stopped. This amendment which has been moved by the right hon. member refers to the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act. I say that the Wage Act has not been applied to any farming industry, and I challenge members on the other side to prove that it has. Before I finish I just want to say that the great charge of the Opposition during this debate has been that this Government should have reduced taxation. The right hon. member for Standerton himself admitted that we had reduced taxation by a net reduction of over half a million and a gross reduction of over a million. What has been happening to the surpluses? The surpluses have been applied to wiping off the public debt. If we had applied these surpluses to reducing taxation, they would have put up a much stronger case and said—

We have reduced taxation by over half a million. Hon. members know that we are spending a million pounds every year in putting the provincial councils in proper order. Would they prefer that that million should have been used to reduce taxation, and allow the provincial councils to go on in the unsatisfactory way they were going on when we took over office? The provincial councils would have had to impose taxation to put themselves on their feet; with the exception of Natal, they were running on deficits. In the Cape there was a very heavy deficit, and the Transvaal also. We could have turned our back on them, and we could have used that money for reducing taxation. Take the pension funds. Take the Cape pension fund. We have to pay £128,000 a year out of revenue for 26 years in order to try and make solvent a pension fund which was insolvent when the other side was in power. Take the Transvaal administrative and clerical fund, also a pension fund. From the very first surplus we had, half of it, £250,000, had to go towards making that fund solvent. We found that every one of these funds was insolvent. Strangely enough, the disclosure that these funds were insolvent just synchronized with our coming into office.

It synchronized with the S.A.P. going out.

Yes, the S.A.P. Government was a going concern, and it went. We could have had this money and used it for the reduction of taxation. Would that have been the honest, right and fair thing to do? Certainly not. Take the railway fund. These funds, railway and general administrative, were insolvent to the extent of something like £5,000,000. We are paying interest on that sum to try and make them solvent. We are paying £450,000 a year out of railway revenue and ordinary revenue. We have to pay £25,000 a year for the Natal pension fund. It is unfair criticism. If that Government had not left us such a mess to clear up, we might have had that money.

We left you £5,000,000 from the Enemy Custodian Fund.

Not a bit of it. You had nothing whatever to do with that. That was a windfall. This is an extraordinary Opposition, an amazing Opposition. If we use funds for* redeeming the debt, they say we ought to use it for reducing taxation. If we have a surplus they condemn us. They say we ought to have a deficit, and if we have a deficit, they say we ought to have a surplus. A more amazing case I have never heard in the 15 years I have been in Parliament. I am satisfied that if that party came into power again we would get back to the old repetition—an Indemnity Bill every year, and every year a deficit. According to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), all the white workers would be sacked from the railways and their place taken by natives. The Wage Act would not stand for five minutes, and the wage boards would go overboard tomorrow. The employees would be sweated to their employers’ content. The Industrial Conciliation Act would be emasculated, and we would have a repetition of strikes and all the old evils which we had before. I am not mentioning the loss of life. Everybody knows that, without rubbing it in.

Would that be because you would be in opposition?

All the apologies and excuses for deficits, and all the excuses for the other things I have mentioned would be repeated if they came into power again. I do not, however, think that they will get the chance.

The Minister of Finance advisedly proposes to increase the duty on malting barley. I think it is quite a good move, but I would like to ask him, through the Minister of Agriculture, whether the time has not arrived that barley should be graded similar to maize. The purchasing of barley is in the hands of one brewery—Ohlsson’s— which is practically a monopoly. The custom is that the farmer submits samples, which are graded first, second and third, and invariably they are second and third. If they were graded similarly to maize, it would be fair to the farmer, and he would get his just due, according to the quality. I have raised it before, and the matter should receive the earnest attention of the Government. Ohlssons, who are the sole purchasers, purchase for the remaining houses of the country. According to the latest agricultural statistics, it is estimated that we are going to have about 19,000,000 bags of maize. Our usual or average consumption will be in the neighbourhood of 12,000,000 bags, and we would be practically exporting something like 7,000,000 bags. In view of the contemplated visit of the Minister of Defence to Australia, I would ask him whether he would not take up the matter with the Australian Government, which last year increased the duty from 2s. to 7s. per bag. I think, if representations were made by the Minister of Defence, there is a likelihood that this reduction in the duty would take place. The Argentine anticipates a very bounteous crop, and is already quoting for June, July and August shipments at 28s. c.i.f. London, equivalent to a return of 11s. 8d. per bag c.i.f. London. To compete with the Argentine, we have to remember there are certain expenses, such as freight, 2s. 6d. a bag, bringing to the coast, 1s. 6d.; and may I say, incidentally, that I think the time is ripe for the Minister of Railways and Harbours to take into serious consideration that the railage on mealies should be reduced from the present rate of 15s. a ton to 10s. a ton; grain bags, 1s., and incidental expenses, 4d., making a total of 5s. 4d. This would leave a return of about 6s. 4d. per bag to the producer, a price which I am positive it is impossible for the farmer to produce at a profit. Only quite recently a large quantity of maize was shipped over to Australia. There is divided opinion about the reason for the Australian Government’s increasing their import duty. Some say it is due to the fact that we are employing black labour, and others say it is retaliation in so far as we have taken away the preference which was previously given to Great Britain. It is quite possible the Minister of Finance will be able to acquaint the House, in view of his visit overseas whilst attending the Imperial Conference. I do not know whether I can congratulate the Minister of Finance, but I can congratulate him on this fact, of having unprecedented good luck by having a surplus of one and a quarter millions, due, no doubt, to his miscalculations in his estimates from customs, income tax and mining. He anticipates that the final figures will mean an available surplus of nearly one and a quarter millions, and, assuming he is correct, he has unquestionably under estimated his income by over one and a half millions. During the year ended the 31st March, the taxpayers were called upon to pay no less than 21 millions in taxation. I submit that that sum is by far too much for the already overburdened taxpayer. This is most alarming, in view of the cry so persistently put forward by hon. members on the opposite side. On every platform they shouted “besuiniging,” and it was confidently expected by the electors of the platteland that the present Government was going to reduce taxation by economizing. Up to now there is not the slightest indication of economy. On the contrary, expenditure is going up by leaps and bounds, and there seems no hope for the taxpayers getting a remission. The customs duties were responsible for an increase of £800,000 over the Minister’s estimate. He told the House that the alteration would not make any difference to the existing tariffs. Surely that is also a serious miscalculation. The Minister said that the increase in customs returns was due to the increased importations, but on examining it, one finds that the increase in imports is about seven per cent., and the receipts from customs about 10 per cent. more than the Minister estimated. It is quite clear that the increase is due to the additional taxation, and not to the additional imports.

How do you make that out?

It is clear that the financial advisers of the Board of Trade acted in haste, and did not give the subject sufficient consideration. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé), who I see is not present, and other hon. members opposite, endeavoured to vindicate the Government from their sins of commission and omission. But while the hon. member for Pietersburg was speaking, I felt convinced his speech was of such a nature as one can expect from an election platform—seeking for votes—and not from one holding the responsible position of chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He referred to the public debt in 1924 being 208 millions, and being 229 millions to-day— practically an increase of 21 millions in so short a period as three years. He has given us no indication as chairman of that committee or enlightened the House how the “dooie skuld” has been reduced by 14 millions. Perhaps the information he had received was not complete. During his speech he never referred to the nest-egg the Government received from the enemy custodian fund of four millions. The Minister of Finance last night challenged the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in respect of the additional taxation of the mines, and if you will refer to the votes and proceedings of 1926, page 666, you will find several articles. You will see miners’ hand and bucket lamps, increase 5 per cent.; rock drills, increase 17 per cent.; pipes and tubes utilized for the supply of water pumping, 20 per cent. Wrought iron and steel pipes and tubes also had an increase. I am merely giving these few additional ones because the Minister of Finance challenged the hon. member for Yeoville. I certainly wish to congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours on his deficit of £146,000. To my mind, the result is a blessing in disguise, and may be the means of instilling into him and his department the economy and efficiency which is so sorely needed. We have heard so much about the civilized labour policy, and I wish to say frankly that the men who are employed on the line passing through my district, that is, relaying the line that used to be the New Cape Central line, are not, in my opinion, the right and proper men to do the work. That is what I say candidly, after seeing these men. To my mind, it is degrading to these men morally, intellectually and socially, and I think, seeing we are spending over half a million and more, this money could be better utilized in getting these men back to the land. They are of the farming type, and they could make good on the land. I deplore the fact that it is the intention of the department not to give us the result of the working of branch lines. These lines are similar to the branches attached to the big banks. Branch lines are feeders to the main lines. It is essential that the House should insist upon having returns showing the financial results of the working of branch railways. We, on this side of the House, have repeatedly asked for a reduction of railway rates. I think the time has arrived when through the exercise of more efficiency and economy these reductions can be brought into effect. We listened the other day to long speeches from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). I appeal to my hon. friends opposite, such as the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), to propound the policy of the hon. members for Troyeville and Brakpan on the platform of the Platteland. I am sure the hon. member for Riversdale dare not do it. The speeches of the two hon. gentlemen I have referred to were rank socialism of such a type that hon. members opposite could never subscribe to. The hon. member for Troyeville referred to various State enterprises, such as mining, shipping, banking, etc., in fact, the only thing he omitted to refer to was a land tax, though he certainly also omitted to refer to State children. I appeal to the Government to practise what they preached during the election, that is, economy and reduced taxation.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) said that he remembered my first speech in this House and that I said to the member on the cross benches that they were my brothers, and he said that I would not to-day say that they were still my brothers. Let me say that I feel more brotherly towards them than three years ago, because I feel that we have done much good work together for the people of South Africa. Anyone who has adopted South Africa as his fatherland and wants to assist us in developing and improving it, I am prepared to call ray brother, and any member opposite who comes over to us and wants to assist us in building up the people I am also prepared to call brother. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will be given a brotherly hand by me with great pleasure, because we all respect him. I do not wish to take up the time of the House to flatter the Minister of Finance unduly. The time is limited and there are other members waiting to speak. I will just tell the Minister that the people are grateful for the good work he did, and I am certain that if hon. members opposite had had such a capable Minister they would to-day still have been on the Government benches, but owing to our having the good fortune of possessing such a capable Minister of Finance, it will be many years yet before hon. members opposite will again sit on this side. I firmly believe that as a party they will never again sit here. I want first of all to thank the Government for its civilized labour policy. My object firstly is to thank the Government for its civilized labour policy. For that the Minister of Railways specially deserves praise. I can assure him that notwithstanding the attacks of hon. members opposite the people are behind the Government in this matter. Secondly, I want to thank the Government for protecting our industries. These two policies are pursued to solve the poor white question, and the Government has already done much to solve it. When I think of the time under the late Government, I remember how Ministers went round the country and said on every platform—

The Government appreciated the problem, tackled it, and we see that thousands of South Africans who had been ridiculed were taken into the service, have proved a success, and we are thankful for the manly attempts of the Government to solve this great question. It cannot be expected that this Government should solve the question in a few years, but the people will wait patiently if the Government preserveres in that good direction. While I talk about finances I am reminded of the prophecies during the recent general election. The Government would see blood and tears flow, bankruptcies and miseries would prevail, but instead thereof we see nothing but progress. The Minister of Finance has a surplus of £1,250,000 and when he announced it I carefully noticed the Opposition, and they made the impression of all, with a few exceptions, being much disappointed. When I saw that I asked myself if we were not carrying party politics too far. The Government has a large surplus, not for us, but for the country and the Opposition is disappointed. Is that party politics or patriotism or what is it? I am glad that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said this afternoon that patriotism came first with him and party second. From the criticism of the budget it does not look much like it. I think of the prophecy that Gen. Kemp would be Minister of Defence and that he would collect all the guns and rifles and go into rebellion. He became Minister of Agriculture, and brought his guns to bear on scab, locust and other pests.

What about East Coast fever?

He is busy with that. The late Government were struggling with it for fourteen years. Scab is practically eradicated. Furthermore, we heard a great deal of secession from the British Empire, and if there is one thing which separated South Africans in the past it was secession. The Prime Minister went to England. I do not wish to give him the honour he deserves but I believe that if he had not been there we should not have got any sovereign independence. We are free to-day and thankful that the Prime Minister tackled that great question, and has removed the cause of division and bitterness.

You were already free before that time.

To a certain extent. I, as an old republican, think of the freedom of the old Free State when I hear of sovereign independence. I should like to have that freedom again, but as a practical man I see that it is impossible and impracticable to-day. Therefore I am thankful for what the Prime Minister has done. I should like to ask the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) what keeps the conservative elements in South Africa apart to-day. What prevents the hon. member from taking our hand and saying that we will work together for the creation of a Great South Africa. Why does the leader of the Opposition think it necessary to introduce his amendment which is practically a motion of no-confidence, and to want to make out that this Government is applying the Industrial Conciliation Act on the countryside? I know why he thinks it necessary. The hon. member is afraid that after the causes of division on the countryside are removed the people on the countryside will stand together, and his amendment creates new causes for division. The hon. member knows that it is in the interests of the country that there should be harmony. We have great problems to solve, such as the native question, the Asiatic question and the poor white question, and in order to do so the people, who ought to stand together should take each other’s hands in order to reach a solution. The conservative elements in the country, the farmers on the countryside, must stand together. Party divisions as they exist to-day are unhealthy. It is unnatural that a man who belongs to the same church as I do, speaks the same language and who possibly is my brother, should belong to the S.A.P. while I am a Nationalist. The hon. leader of the Opposition tries to accentuate the division by preaching this sort of thing, but I hope the people will no longer take any notice of it. When we look at the budget then there are two things I do not like. The first is that our public debt is becoming very large because we pay interest on the debt to the amount of £4,668,000, and on railway loans £4,979,000, in all over £9,000,000. How long are we going on borrowing money? The House must clearly understand that I approve of borrowing money for building railways, telegraphs and telephone lines which produce interest and pay for themselves, but I want to give a warning that we must be careful in borrowing money for unproductive work, such as buildings. We must not always continue borrowing money to put into buildings. I understand the railway administration is building a station in Johannesburg at a cost of £500,000. Park Station, however, is one of the most beautiful station buildings we have in the country. I admit that here and there there are a few inconveniences, but with merely a few improvements the building could be made quite adequate.

You must not forget that it is not merely a station building, but is also intended for the head offices of the Railway Administration.

I welcome the correction, but I heard that a certain piece of ground had been bought for a new station, and did not notice that it was for head offices. If that is the case, then I do not mind so much. But if the new building is required, then I ask why the money for it should be borrowed. If we can take the money in cash and spend it on the building I can understand it, but I ask whether it is sensible to borrow money for such a purpose. Has the time not come when the people will say that we will not permit of more money being borrowed and being put into unproductive works? I shall be glad if the Government will take this into consideration, and tell the people that if they want nice buildings, whether in Pretoria, Johannesburg or even in Burghersdorp, then a scheme must be thought out to put a form of tax on the people for the purpose. When I speak here I do not speak in the interests of Burghersdorp only, but in the interests of the whole country. This policy of borrowing and borrowing and increasing the debt is undermining the capacity of the people, because it will not be able to bear the interest burden in the future If I as a farmer borrow money for jackal-proof fencing and for dams, it is sensible, but if I borrow it to build a nice residence or other buildings that do not produce interest, then I shall eventually become bankrupt. I am not speaking in a party spirit now, but as a representative of the people, and I think the Minister of Finance agrees with me. I am not a financier to go into figures, because I am a simple farmer, and too stupid to do that. Another matter, however, which I want to bring before the House is the pension question. This year again we have to spend £2,319,000 in pensions, and if we look into it we shall see how the amount increases annually. I have spoken about this matter before, but I feel compelled to do so again. I know that there are various Pension Acts which the Government has to administer, but we, as the people’s representatives, must look the matter in the face to see if we cannot make an alteration. I am sorry I have not got the number of people who draw pensions, but I know that comparatively young men are walking the streets of Cape Town who draw pensions of hundreds of pounds. Is it right towards the other section of the people and towards the countryside, which is subject to all kinds of afflictions and droughts? When people are old and sickly I can understand it, but is it right that the other people should receive pensions? I hope the Government will go into the matter to see if we cannot make a change. I should like to urge the Government to exempt our farmers from income tax. The hon. member for Standerton suggested it last year, and I should also have done it, but I did not feel the confidence because the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would then have said that we wanted to tax everybody except the farmer. The farming industry is called the backbone of the country, and the hon. member for Standerton said last year that the farmers are carrying on a business which the whole country is carrying on its back. On account of the farmers having to fight against so many droughts, and because farming does not pay, I suggest to the Government to relieve the farmers from income tax. Let me assure the Minister of Finance that the farming population will be very thankful if he adopts the suggestion of the hon. member for Standerton.

The other sections of the people will then always throw it at the heads of the farmers that they do not pay the tax.

I was afraid of that, but seeing that the leader of the Opposition has suggested it, I have expressed my view as well. There is another question about which people differ greatly, viz., the importation of natives from Portuguese territory. I fully appreciate the duty of the Government to control the import of natives, and to see that the country is not flooded with natives, but I want to plead with the Government to bear in mind that the Chamber of Mines is attracting the native workers from the countryside to the mines, and I, therefore, want to ask the Government if it will not consider the increase of the quota of 75,000 imported natives, in order, in this way, to provide workers for the farmers. All the farmers in the House know that a farmer cannot produce without labour, and my experience is that when you have good years then you have not sufficient labour to plough and to reap, and you have the greatest difficulties. Our farmers would gladly take off their coats, and even if there were drought for two years, then the farmers begin ploughing again immediately after the first rains. If, however, they have a good harvest and cannot get labour, and the harvest has to remain on the land, the farmers become discouraged. There is another thing in connection with the natives which I have mentioned before. I advocated that the tax on farm natives should be abolished, and I am sorry that the farmers of the Free State and Transvaal would not then support me. I wish, e.g., that natives who have worked for twelve months with a farmer and lived on the farm should be exempted from the tax. If that is done, then I think that it would encourage the natives to remain on the farms and assist the farmers, and in this way we shall get the increase in agricultural production which we all so much want to see. Then I should like to ask the Government, and especially the Minister of Agriculture, if it is not possible to reduce the rate of interest of the Land Bank, even if only by 1 per cent. The farmers have been severely tried by drought, and have to leave their farms and trek hundreds of miles with their stock, and it will greatly assist them if they can save some interest due to the Land Bank. I should also like to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs a question in connection with farm telephones. It seems to me that there are so many applications that we cannot keep up with the construction. I have received quite a number of petitions from my constituency, and, although I have taken a great deal of trouble, it looks as if they cannot be built. I have issued a warning against the increase of the burden of debt, but telephones produce interest. The building of telephones and the fencing of farms are matters which we should tackle. I want to ask the Minister if he cannot reduce the fees for telephones. Our farmers really have to pay very much. When you visit the towns you find that the people paid £2 or £3, but the farmers pay from £10 to £12. I think that I, myself, pay more than £11. I want to urge the Minister to assist the farmers in this connection. I am sorry that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) is not now in the House, because he said something about estate duty on which I want to ask a question. I will not now ask him why he is registered as a byowner, or as a “joint tenant,” but when he says that the estate duty should be reduced, because it presses heavily on the countryside, I want to ask him why he, too, does not express his gratitude to the Government for the reductions which have already been made. I agree that the estate duty should be reduced, but, on the other hand, he said that the public debt had been increased by us, notwithstanding his warning, by more than £9,000,000. The hon. member has by his silence about the fact that the Government has already reduced the estate duty represented to his constituents in Cradock that he is pleading for a reduction in taxation, and that this Government has as yet done nothing. As the hon. member is not now in the House, I will make it clear why he has done so. I was present at a meeting he held in his constituency, and he said that the Government had made many promises which they had not kept. He quoted Acts which had been passed by the Government, and in each case said that the Government had as yet done nothing, until I said to him to read the last section, and that he would there see that the first £7,500 was exempted from estate duty, while under the late Government it was £2,000. When criticism is made, the Government should get its due, and I want particularly to see that hon. members opposite who represent farmers will give the Government its due. They must not keep silent about matters and bring the people under a wrong impression. There is only one thing more about which I want to speak, and that is the representation of the hon. member for Standerton about the Conciliation Act. He wants to make out to the people on the countryside that we are wilfully applying the Conciliation Act there, and that the countryside is suffering under it. This, however, is legislation for which the South African party itself is responsible. The Minister of Labour stated that the Legal Advisers had told him that he was compelled to apply it, i.e., that he could not refuse to do it. Why, then, the misrepresentation by the hon. member? Again to frighten the countryside and to prevent harmony. The S.A. party is responsible for that Act, and we for the Wages Act. There were never any complaints yet from the countryside about the Wages Act. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said that he was glad that the Minister of Finance had applied the surplus to reduce the public debt, because on the back benches of this side of the House there were people sitting who wanted to get hold of the £1,250,000. What does he mean by that? We are nearly all farmers here, and we are not here to make money, but to look after the interests of the country, and therefore we approve of the Minister using the surplus in reducing the public debt which the late Government incurred.

We have now reached that stage in the Budget debate when it becomes increasingly difficult to present anything new, but I would like to say how cordially I agree with the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) when he said that the Labour Party, by accept a measure of governmental responsibility with the Nationalist party, has been able to influence legislation in the best interests of South Africa and its people.

Did he say that?

Yes, I was here to hear him. Of course he may have used somewhat different language, but that was what he meant. One can readily understand the burning desire of the South African party to get out of the cold shades of opposition, but surely it will be necessary for them to present some definite constructive policy to the country before that, to them, desirable change can be brought about, and not rely on any little blunders the Pact Government may have made or will make to achieve the wished for result. Micawberism and Coueism will not carry the South African or any other party very far. All the—

attitude will not satisfy the people of South Africa. So long as the ministers of the Pact Government—I would prefer to call it the people’s Government—produce surpluses to assist in reducing the national debt; so long as they refuse titles to the rich, and provide employment for the poor; so long will the good people of this country continue to give them their confidence. The Opposition benches may not present a very animated appearance at the moment, but I understand from the local press that some very remarkable speeches have been made from that quarter of the House during this debate; so much so, that should the office of Grand President of the Ancient Order of Political Froth blowers become vacant, it will I believe be necessary to conduct an exhaustive ballot on nominations submitted by the South African party before we can adequately fill the post. Personally, I would find it difficult to decide as to whether my vote should go to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) or the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The latter by the way received “a good press” in the morning newspaper of which—it is only a coincidence, of course—he happens to be managing director for the thought-compelling contribution he made on the Budget the other day. The Pact Government is labouring under one tremendous handicap; that is, they have and single press channel whereby the English-speaking people of this country can be made aware of what actually takes place in this House, and what the real intentions of the Government are. When the people rejoiced in 1924 at the bringing about of a change of Government for South Africa, they entirely overlooked the fact that they would have still the same old Unionist press. Headlines are now being cleverly used to influence public opinion in every direction against the present Government. I do not remember exactly who it was who said—

Nowadays “headlines” might almost be substituted for “ballads.” I would therefore like to ask the Government to take into consideration the advisability of obtaining the control and management of an up-to-date daily newspaper. There is a great deal more profit to be made in enterprises of this nature than, shall I say, in the production of iron and steel. In the first issue of this new Government paper I would like to insert one paragraph. It was found amongst the papers of Lord Milner, after his death. The paragraph is as follows—

This year’s Budget has been described in all manner of ways. It has been called “Everybody’s Budget,” and “Nobody’s Budget,” and the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) actually called it “A Gambler’s Budget.” Of course, everyone speaks about what he knows best! Perhaps sufficient has already been said on the civilized policy of the Government, but I really think the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) must now be genuinely sorry for having moved his tom-fool amendment.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “tom-fool.”

I will be unable to find a more suitable word. I also think he must be sorry for having libelled the workers on the railways. When one considers that he accused them of slackness and inefficiency and said there was a growing indiscipline and a growing slackness and great inefficiency in the railway service, one cannot help thinking that the railway men will be well advised to carefully consider the position before they send the South African party back—if they ever intend to do so—to power in this country. But the most unkindest cut of all was the remark by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) when he said that civilized labour was another name for civilized loafing. What a kindly way for a titled member to speak of his fellow South Africans whose circumstances have compelled them to seek employment on the railway at the miserable wage at present paid for this class of worker.

That is an entire travesty of what he said.

The definition given by the Minister of Railways is that the policy of civilized labour is to give to the civilized man, whether he be white or coloured, an opportunity to earn a wage which will enable him to live according to a civilized standard in South Africa. Well, I do hope the time is not far distant when the wage of the labourers on the railway will be raised to really permit of their living in accordance with a civilized standard. The whole question of the civilized labour policy on the railways was exhaustively dealt with by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours last year. Reports were sought from responsible officials as to what they thought of the working of the policy. Summed up, the Committee’s report was—

That is purely negative.

You can take it for what it is worth. One official reported—

Another official said—

The general manager—Sir William Hoy—on whose judgment the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) places so much reliance, and rightly so, was put through a long questionnaire by members of the Select Committee, and according to the report, in answer to Brig.-Gen. Byron, who asked—

The general manager’s reply was—

It may be information to the House to state that not a single native or Indian has been dismissed from the railway service in order that civilized labour may be employed. Out of 15,000 civilized labourers employed since 1924 60 per cent. have been promoted to higher grades, and 50 per cent. of the apprentices required by the Administration are recruited from the lad labourers. I think that disposes once and for all of the contention that this is a blind-alley occupation, as has been so frequently stated by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) Maj. B. G. van Zyl).

What does the Auditor-General say of the economic part of it?

The policy of a Government is always reflected in private employ, and the bad policy of the S.A. party Government was reflected so far as private employers were concerned. In the annual report of the chief inspector of factories for 1924 we read under the heading “Employment”—

But in the report of the chief factory inspector for 1925 we read under the heading “Employment”—

Thus we find the desirable policy of the Pact Government of employing civilized labour has also been carried out by private establishments. I wish to bring three other matters to the notice of the Government. One’s little criticisms must not be construed into being disloyal to one’s party, but I am very much dissatisfied with the Government’s attitude in connection with shop rents. To a question I put on the Order Paper recently the Minister of Finance replied to the effect that the Government was not satisfied that there was any necessity for legislation to give effect to the recommendation of the Shop Rents Commission. I would like to differ from the Minister, because the high rates charged for shop rents are responsible in a considerable measure for the cost of living being what it is to-day. The commissioner found many reasons why the Government should legislate in the direction desired. His report states various big properties, particularly in Johannesburg, are owned by private companies, many shareholders in which are resident overseas. I would like the Minister of Finance to bring business premises under the existing Rent Board. The second point has reference to the Indian question. The Government should realize that now South Africa is one country, all the Provinces should share in the sorrows as well as in the joys of Union. I would like to see the restriction upon the migration of Indians removed, so that the Indian problem may become South African, and not, as it is at present, purely a Natal problem.

No.

I know that view won’t be accepted by the majority of the members. Finally I would like the Government to expedite the report of the Old Age Pensions Commission in order that by this time next year we may see established at least a modified scheme of old age pensions. Rather than not have an old age pension scheme at all, I would prefer to see it started on a moderate scale, as was done in Australia and Great Britain. Ways and means must be found of relieving the sufferings of our old people, no matter what the cost may be. It is the Government’s duty to see that the old and frail do not starve in this rich country, as many of them do at present. We are often asked where the money is to come from. That is, of course, a question for the Government to decide, and they must find the money. The last Government was prepared to raise something in the neighbourhood of £7,000,000 to purchase Rhodesia. Surely it is not too much to ask the present Government to raise sufficient money to establish an old age pension scheme.

I represent a constituency which is engaged in the highest form of transportation we have, namely the harbours. I congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours in having a surplus, at any rate, as far as the harbours are concerned; what we object to, however, is that the surplus of the harbours should be utilized to cover up the deficit on the railway. With the tremendous proportion which our railways have assumed, we can reasonably anticipate that the day is not far distant when the Government should consider it necessary to have a separate administration for the harbours. While the harbours last year showed a return of 29.6 per cent. on the expenditure, the railways showed quite an appreciable deficit. In this year’s estimates we find that the Minister is budgeting for a deficit of £39,000, but again the deficit on the railways is being decreased at the expense of the harbours. I would ask the Minister if there is any intention to provide Durban with additional deep water berths. They are not only desirable, but most necessary. Durban harbour has developed tremendously within recent years, but the deep water accommodation has not been increased since 1910. Consequently when ships of between 12,000 and 15,000 tons go to deep water berths they have to be shifted by hand winches in order to make room for fully laden ships of the same tonnage. Surely this is not an up-to-date way of handling traffic. I hope, in view of the fact that the Minister has been able to secure a surplus on the harbours, that he will, at any rate, devote a portion of it to necessary harbours extensions. When we examine the railway statement we find, for some reason or other, that the increase in the staff is in the vicinity of 3,000, yet there is a decrease in the harbour staff of 386. It, seems ridiculous that the railways should be permitted to continue increasing their expenditure seeing that they are run at a loss, while the harbours, which do produce a surplus, should have their staffs reduced when actually they need more men. There is no question about it the harbours require an increase in staff to cover the traffic coming in. From time to time members have referred to the fact that the railways are giving employment to many Europeans in this country who cannot otherwise be employed. I think the time has now arrived in this country where the Government should seriously consider the creating of a board of transportation to deal with all forms of transport. I realize that the reply will be that they have not got the money. If you cannot afford to incur increased expenses on the railways surely you must be prepared to consider other forms where money can be spent in more productive manner. In 1925 the Government appointed a road and bridges committee and we know from developments in other countries how desirable it is for a country, particularly of this size, with a scattered population with markets far removed from the agricultural development areas, how necessary it is to give good inter-communication. The branch lines cannot supply the needs. They don’t pay. By Act 33 of 1924 the railways were authorized to spend £4,500,000 on the building of 949 miles of railway. I say, if the Government would only consider this very illuminating report and give effect to it, instead of having to spend money on that magnitude they could for £3,500,000 have given communication over 5,000 miles as against 949 miles which was effected by the expenditure of £4,500,000. It is desirable to read one or two extracts from this report. First of all the report says, quoting from the South African Journal of Industries, page 295, of May, 1924—

A reply was given for not putting this into effect and to-day we realize it would be impracticable for the Government to consider the development of more branch lines in view of the expenditure which, I presume, is to be incurred to carry on the traffic arrangements to-day, but it would be desirable for the Government to give effect to the report of this commission at the present time. The thing that appeals to me in this report is—

The central government can profitably enter the field of road construction to help to place the existing branch lines on a payable footing whilst helping, at the same time, the mines and other ventures. Roads undertaken by the Government would fall in the category of national roads. Another question raised is that a further object would be the increasing of fields of employment in the Union, and if the Committee’s recommendations are adopted the work will involve a large amount of local labour and will give encouragement to the rural population to remain on and develop the land and counteract the tendency to migrate to the town. We find from the general manager’s report of 1919, he says himself that good roads are essential and that the modern tendency was to regard them as adjuncts to the railway. I realize that the Railways and Harbours Department have embarked on a policy of road transportation, but they are beginning from the wrong end. They are starting to develop road transport, before putting the permanent way in order, through the districts where the railway department are running heavy vehicles at the cost of the community in those districts, and without attempting to contribute a penny to the upkeep of those road’s. They ought to come forward and put the roads in such a condition that the expenditure will not devolve too heavily on the people in the districts the transport is serving. The other point I wish to bring up is the question of the encouragement of coastal traffic trade. In Australia, and other countries, the respective governments have encouraged a coastal trade by giving preference to ships running between local ports and registered in the country. To-day we have nothing of that description. We have three or four ships trading between ports receiving no encouragement or advantage from the Government and all the money they spend in repairs and in carrying the traffic from port to port is being expended in the country, but with the present system it is going out of the country because it is captured and held by companies who sign their crews on from overseas and not from South Africa. Therefore, I do feel that these are matters to which the Government should give their earnest consideration, and that if they would do that, they would not only be profiting themselves and opening up avenues of employment, which we are all agreed are so much needed, but they would be producing something instead of, as far as one can see, simply allowing the railways, if I may say so, to be a philanthropic organization, rather than an organization which is being run strictly for the benefit of the nation. The only other point which I want to refer to is this question of aviation. It is a pet subject of mine. The hon. member for Pretoria District (North) (Mr. Dost) made reference to the desirability and necessity for reequipping, if possible, the South African air force. We all know that that is desirable, but at the same time I think very few realize what a heavy expenditure that would mean. The air force to-day are trying to meet that, and not only trying to meet it but they are meeting it in an extraordinarily efficient manner. The hon. member stated that the types of machine that are being used are out of date. There is no question that the types are out of date, but the types which they have are as efficient for the duties for which they are required, as any machines that could be imported. It was only in the course of conversation with the sergeant mechanic who came down with the director of the air force the other day, that I understood fully what is being done in regard to re-conditioning. He told me that they are importing their own material, which is required for the woodwork on the machines, they are importing all their fabric and they are seasoning their own wood, which is a very difficult matter, and every one of their machines is being stripped and rebuilt at their workshops in Pretoria. That is deserving of the very greatest credit, because it shows that we have in this country people who are capable and who are technically efficient so as to be able to conduct the entire construction of airplanes for the air service of this country. It is to be hoped that in the near future we shall see the internal development of civil aviation in this country. We know that there is a tendency to development towards South Africa in regard to airships, and I believe that South Africa, in the near future, will become a very important country from an air communication point of view. I would appeal to the Government to take very careful notice of developments in this matter in various parts of the world. There is no reason why this country should not become one of the greatest aviation countries in the world, and it only requires a little moral and financial aid from the Government to put South Africa on an equal basis in this regard to any country in the world.

Numbers of speakers in the course of this debate have taken exception to what the Minister of Finance has done in regard to his surplus. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am not at all surprised that he has dealt with the Budget in the way that he has done. To me he has always been a. Tory, naked and unashamed. I agree that his Budget will be accepted by financial people, landowners and others, as a sane, safe and serious budget. As far as I can see I consider it a rich man’s budget. It will not reduce the cost of living, nor will it assist, in any way, in raising the effective wage. Two years ago when the Government made it their policy to introduce a heavier protective tariff, I, for one, speaking for myself—because I believe I stood alone in the Labour party on this particular question—took exception to some of the duties that were put on. One was in regard to the native blankets. I was then told by the members of the Government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, that a big factory would be erected in Durban, where these native blankets would be made. I doubted it at the time, and I was right in doubting it. That factory has never been built and I know it never will be built. I always said it would not be built.

There are other factories.

Yes, other factories producing blankets which people, up to now, cannot wear. What has been the result of all this? That the native, who is the most poorly paid man in South Africa,. where he could buy two blankets before can, to-day, only buy one. Customs dues were paid on £400,000 worth of blankets brought into South Africa last year. Blankets are going to be made it is true.

They are made now.

They bought a mill, but can you tell me where these blankets are being sold? These blankets up to now have not been a great success. I go so far as to say this, that cotton waste is being imported from Belgium to make cotton blankets and they have not been a success.

The same waste is used in imported blankets.

I know, but one of the facts given by the Minister of Labour was that we must establish this particular thing to use our own products in this country. They are using waste from Belgium. I go so far as to say you will never make cotton blankets in this country. There are some things you cannot make in South Africa, and I am told it will never be a success. Anyway, shopkeepers tell me these blankets cannot be sold to-day; they are sending them back to the factories. In the meanwhile the native is suffering. I am going a long way with the Minister in his protective policy, but speaking from the Free State point of view, we people who live in the Free State live on primary productions, so we must not push protection too far, and we are pushing it a little too far. We are not getting anything out of it as a province. When I look at the figures I find that £800,000 has been paid for this? The working classes. And who for this? The working classes. And who are the people who make these clothes? The coloured people, not the whites.

There is 24 per cent. increase in the whites.

It means nothing. Your Wage Board has been sitting here lately on the clothing industry. Everybody who went into it on the side of the workers was coloured. It is a coloured industry, and we are paying for it. I would rather have a system whereby a factory started in South Africa should be given a bounty. Then we know where we are. Out of this £2,100,000, which has been received for customs, the Minister has, £1,000,000 is extra taxation of the people through the customs. The customs will bring up £10,000,000 next year.

The volume of trade is increasing.

Where does the volume of trade come from? It means that we are not manufacturing adequately in this country. Who is paying for it? The miners on the reef, and the farmers on the veld. Under the tariff system, as soon as it gets into the hands of the employer he again puts an extra price on it, and that duty becomes like a snowball, and it adds up and up. That is why it is better to give a bounty. Then the country controls it— we lose control in what we are not doing today. I am not against the policy of my hon. friend over there—the policy of trying to get work—but you should have scientific taxation. It is no new thing having a bounty. It was done in the iron and steel business, and can be done again. We are giving to these manufacturers and people in industries all this protection. Are they giving us the wages in return? No, they are not. They are grumbling, growling and grousing at the Government all the time about the Conciliation Act and the Wages Act. They thank you for the tariff on the one hand, and on the other hand they make South Africa stink in the nostrils of the rest of the world by saying that the wages are too high. The extra profit is going into their pockets, and the extra sixpence the Minister has given them now as clothing they pocket and do not pass on. It is not going to the workers. The Government must be very careful about this protection policy. I am considered in the Labour movement to be a free trader, but it is not so. I am not against moderate protection, but we must not go too far. My friends who are farmers should think how high protection is going to hit them, while the working classes are not going to get the benefit of such a protective policy. The duty paid on imported clothing was £860,000.

That shows that the protection is not sufficient.

That is the old cry “give us more.” The duty paid on hats and caps was £155,000, boots and shoes £330,000, cotton piece goods £330,000, blankets £400,000, haberdashery and drapery £280,000, and food and drink £1,000,000.

The duty paid three years ago on boots and shoes was nearly £1,000,000, but next year it will be wiped out.

Who are the bootmakers of South Africa? Are they white people? Our boots are made by American machinery worked to a large extent by coloured people.

Seventy per cent. of the workers at Port Elizabeth are white.

All that machinery belongs to the Americans. It is obtained on the hire purchase system. As we keep on turning out boots the Yanks are getting the profit out of the machinery. My hon. friend says the duty is not high enough, but that shows it is fruitless. Are my friends in the Labour party prepared to put a Chinese wall around this country, so that we shall have an absolute embargo on boots and things like that? I think not! There is the small farmer to be thought of— one day he is going to be the backbone of the Labour party. The miner has also to be thought of. You will find that this £3,487,000 is falling to-day on the backs of the people who support us. We should give a bounty on the manufacture of things that are needed by the people, for our present system is absolutely out of date. That system passes on everything to the consumers and unless we are very careful we are going to pass this heavy tax on to the people who support us. Then wages are coming down. The Minister has just told us, so in the case of the building trade.

I said that they had been stabilized.

Stabilized, yes, but at a low level. I am not blaming the Government, but I am pointing out that the sovereign is not worth what it was, and wages are going down. The sovereign of 1910 is to-day only worth 14s. 8d. The cost of living is going up in South Africa. The man who got £25 a month some time ago cannot live on the same standard to-day on £25 a month. The Minister does not agree, and shakes his head.

I certainly do not.

I read it in the Minister’s own book, but it is a little out of date, like the Minister himself, but I will give him the figures to show that the cost of living is going up, and the sovereign is worth less to-day than it was in 1910. If you are going to have high protective duties, the sovereign worth 14s. 8d., and wages going down, it means we are going to suffer a good deal. The Minister has made a profit of £1,150,000 mostly out of the new taxes. It is a lucky profit, and he knows it. He never expected the receipts from the customs duties to be so high. He expected the customs duty would allow things to be made in South Africa, and he never expected the people would import them. They did, and he got the surplus, and, therefore, he got a lucky budget. He has adopted the orthodox policy of taking the money and using it for the cancellation of debt. He has already budgeted to put £650,000 a year to the cancellation of debt.

That comes in next year.

Might I suggest to the Minister there is a man in this country who digs, works, sometimes he prays, he pays, yes he always pays, and that is the small farmer, and he is the forgotten man in South Africa. This man is carrying a good deal of South Africa on his back, a strained back with taut muscles, a man with a small income which is not as big as it might be. Might I suggest he thinks of that man, and all the men who have families in South Africa. We want to keep the white cradle full in South Africa, but we cannot do it, because the cost of living is too high, and people have to keep their families down.

The richest men in the country have got the smallest families.

We have the steamship and we have the cradle. We are using the steamship and the natives are using the cradle. The average size of our families to-day is three, and the native has six or seven. What is going to be the ultimate result in South Africa if that goes on? Western civilization will perish in this country. I want to appeal to the Minister to help the forgotten man in South Africa, the small man, the working man, who has great difficulties in bringing up a family. He did a thing last year which made him popular and the Government popular when he raised the abatement by £100. Cannot he do something in regard to an abatement in respect of every child between the ages of 7 and 18, say, of £100? I am not talking about the man who is receiving £100 or £200 a year, but the man with an income of £500 to £1,000. There are two types of men who are thought about in this House—the man who gets a salary of under £500, and the man who gets a salary of over £1,200. I am appealing for a certain class of men whom I know—reporters of newspapers, sub-managers in businesses, bank clerks, that type of man whom you may call the middle class type in South Africa. To-day that man is carrying an enormous burden on his shoulders and he ought to be helped. The man who is getting £700, £800 or £900 a year is the forgotten man in South Africa to-day. He has to dress better than the ordinary working man, because his job makes him dress better. You will find him in the civil service, in the railways, in the banks, or in the newspapers—you will find him everywhere. That is the man I am pleading for. If the Minister were to take his £1,200,000 and give these men something in respect of their children between the ages of 7 and 18, he would be assisting those people over their most difficult period. I know this would not meet the wishes of the South African party. What is the philosophy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), what have been his political ideas in regard to the poor for years? His philosophy has been that of Tennyson’s “Northern Farmer”—

The policy taken on the South African party side of the House has been one which has divided, or endeavoured to divide, white society in this country into two sections, on one side the exploiter and on the other the exploited, and the Opposition cannot complain when we make that charge against them, because that has been the outcome of their policy. Take a man like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He works like a slave, and when he is in charge of a department, or anything else, he acts like a slave-driver. The South African party is full of men like that, among their industrial leaders. There is no more difficult man to fight in the world. You cannot accuse that particular man of being a civilized loafer; he works like a slave, and he is a slave-driver when he deals with his people. The South African party have fought wage determination, and they are fighting it to this day; they sneer at the wage-earner and they sneer at the Wage Board. They go further, and they sneer at the personnel. They fight against better homes for the people. Within the last few days the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) sneered at Mr. Lucas of the Wage Board. He said—

He said that Mr. Lucas was in favour of site values and taxation of unimproved land values. He forgot that sitting beside him was the greatest sinner of all in that respect, the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who for years has been going up and down the country shouting for that policy. They sneer at the Wage Board, they fight against better homes for the people, and they exploit the kafir altogether. Their amendment is that we shall reduce taxation and we must not have wage determination in the countryside, which has been very effectively answered by the Minister of Labour. They fight civilized labour at every turn, and in a very bad way, and when you ask them to pay more wages, they say the industry cannot pay more. I hope that the Government will lay it down as a basis in future that if an industry cannot pay proper wages it should not exist in South Africa. If there were more effective wages there would be more productivity and more efficiency. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said about the railwaymen—

That is untrue—

I quote these words from the “Cape Times,” in which most reliable reports are given. I mean it when I say that the reports of the “Cape Times” of the right hon. member for Standerton are extraordinarily reliable. You can test them by “Hansard,” because they are the “Hansard” speeches cut about a little bit—but the actual speeches. I know what I am talking about. The right hon. member said—

After this Mad-Hatter statement, it is followed by the Dormouse at the tea party, who said—

to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) added—

Here you have three respected leaders of the South African party—three men who carry a good deal of weight in South Africa—and it is right that they should—and respected by all classes in South Africa, libelling the whole of the railway service of this country, who in times of danger and distress and at other times have stood loyally by the people of South Africa. The right hon. member for Standerton is not a Christian when he does a thing like that. He has already declared himself to be an atheist. Have you ever read his book? If you do you may not understand it, but let me tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who is an extremely good student of philosophy, perhaps, that the right hon. member for Standerton lays down this principle in his book—

If that man is not an atheist, I do not know who is.

interjected a remark.

It is no good my discussing holism with the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw). He might think I was discussing pumpkins, and would not have the slightest knowledge of what I was talking about. He would need a surgical operation to find out.

We do not want holism at 11 o’clock at night.

There is the mbongo of the right hon. member again. I want this to go down in “Hansard,” so that the people of the platteland can find out. When the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) attacked the railwaymen he did not act as a Christian, and he has declared himself to be an atheist in his book, for he says that, in his opinion, there is neither necessity nor room for God in the holistic universe.

Nor Arthur Barlow.

That may be; I am getting rather used to these Botany Bay manners. There is another point which the leader of the Opposition has spoken about. He said that if Mr. Lucas takes a particular view of a particular question in regard to the taxation of unimproved land values, then he has no right to sit as a judge. I ask the right hon. member if he were a judge to-morrow would he deport without a trial the first Labour man who came before him charged with, say, bigamy? He has deported people without a trial before to-day. Mr. Lucas is a judge and should be treated as one by hon. members. Our friends on the Opposition side say we must not extend the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act to the countryside. On my farm at Tempe there is a big brick-making business. Has a man who makes bricks on that farm a right to pay his men less wages because they work in the country than if they worked in a town? Some years ago, when I was at Nelsrust staying with Mr. Joseph Baynes he complained that the late Government had taken away his dual vote and had extended the Factory Act to his farm. That was extending industrial legislation to the platteland. Under the South African party Government the fair wage clause was put into every contract for schools built on the platteland, but not in the Cape, which has always been behindhand. The piebald Cape cannot compete with the vigorous north. In the old days in the Free State the standard rate of wages was invariably paid for the construction of public buildings. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), who was a member of the Free State legislature, urged for a standard rate of wage, and he and I used to go up and down the country together roaring for this. The right hon. member for Standerton when speaking on figures is always unconsciously funny. His figures are always upside down. You remember Humpty-Dumpty and Alice in “Through the Looking Glass,” when Alice did a sum, Humpty-Dumpty turned the glass upside down and said they were right, and Alice said—

and Humpty-Dumpty replied—

We have heard, too, of the Red Queen who showed how to divide a loaf from a knife and how to subtract a bone from a dog. When you subtract a bone from a dog you always leave something and that is the dog’s temper. That is the way the right hon. the member for Standerton argues. If the hon. member knew how funny he was on figures he would leave figures alone. I will leave the Minister to reply to him; he will flay him. Before I close I must give this to the country. These Imperialists who are always giving trouble in the country gave a luncheon at Vryburg to the right hon. member for Standerton the other day. There were a lot of Dutch-speaking people present and they put the menu in English and this is the menu—

To be followed by—

Then they had a joint—

If that does not really describe the hon. member for Caledon I would like to know what does. We hear in this House a good deal of that cold ox tongue—

Have you ever seen a better cauliflower?—