I move—

seconded.

I rise at once as I did on a similar occasion last year to voice the protest of hon. members in this side of the House against the procedure which is being adopted by the Government in regard to this matter. The Government cannot be unaware of the deep feelings which are moving in this country on this matter. There is a good deal of vocal expression, but there is far more suppressed anxiety in this country over what is happening and there is the danger that passions may rise and feelings may get excited and in the end a state of affairs may be brought about in this country such as nobody can foresee and nobody can desire. The Government must surely be aware of the situation, and I am surprised and we on this side are surprised that in spite of all this feeling, in spite of the dangers ahead, in spite of the rocks ahead, the Government is pushing forward with this legislation, in the absence of all agreement among the people of this country. More than a year ago the Prime Minister in referring to secession said that any attempt at secession in this country would be a flagrant mistake and a calamity. I apply those terms to what has happened to-day. The step the Government is taking to-day is a grave mistake, a dire calamity, and it may produce disaster in this country. Last year the Government began their flag legislation by an attempt at negotiation between the parties. The Prime Minister did me the honour to consult me then and I suggested to him that we should, as parties, come together and that he and I should nominate a committee that might try to reach some agreement on this profoundly difficult matter. We appointed a committee; the committee sat; the committee explored the subject in all directions and the committee failed to agree. In spite of that failure the Government introduced their measure into this House. We raised a protest in this House; all over the country a voice of protest was heard, with the result that the Government drew in their horns and the Bill was not proceeded with. On that occasion, let me add, the Minister of the Interior insinuated that in some way I was responsible for that failure. Yes, I am generally responsible for whatever goes wrong in this country! I was wrong when I sat there, and I am still wrong and I am still responsible when I sit here, and I suppose in the opinion of members opposite I shall be wrong to the end of time. The Minister insinuated that I was responsible, and in the efforts to such agreement that were made after the session, the South African party was cut out, so to say. We were not consulted; the Government adopted their own counsels and followed their own course in trying to come to an agreement. They appointed a Flag Commission. I am not going to make any remarks about that commission. There were some distinguished people on it, but as a whole I am voicing the opinion of every sensible person in this country when I say that commission was a joke—it was the laughing-stock of this country. And what is more, that commission was bound from the very start by an instruction from the Government which made its work impossible. The Government proved adamant on the one and only issue by which an agreement might have been reached and a national flag settled. No wonder there was failure once more; no wonder we have had to come together again to-day without an agreement. After these repeated failures the Government is going to take steps to force through this measure. I say this: it is the first time since Union that on a matter of grave national concern such as this, the Government is going to apply force, and to apply the majority behind it and the majority which it thinks it has in the country to force a measure like this on the people of this country. It is an entirely new departure. Ever since Union on matters of great national concern, on grave national issues, we have tried to come to an agreement. Hon. members will remember that shortly after Union, when the question of the language in the schools was a burning question, we thrashed it out in this House and the opposing parties came to an agreement. No party was willing to force its views on the country and we came to an agreement. The same happened only a few years ago in regard to the language question in the South Africa Act, when Afrikaans was adopted as an equal language in this country.

What a concession.

I am pointing out to members and I hope they will take it to heart— the procedure that has been adopted for the last sixteen years. In every case of grave national concern the parties of this country, the people of this country, have agreed to consult each other and to abide by such consultation and such agreement. Now, for the first time, a new precedent, a new departure is laid down. I would ask this House, and I would ask the country, to pause and to pause very gravely before the step which we are taking to-day. The Government is going to fail once more—the Government is not going to succeed, it is bound to fail. The character of the people of this country, being what it is, the Government is bound to fail once more.

Then why worry?

The races from which we come, English and Dutch, are not such as to admit coercion of this kind. It is futile for the Government, our characters being what they are, to try and force down the views, even the views of a majority, on a substantial minority in this country. No, they are going to fail. But it won’t stop there. There is going to be left as an aftermath of these efforts and of these failures, a sense of injury, a sense of bitterness, a suspicion in this country which will continue to poison our public life for many years to come. I ask, what is the urgency of this measure? What is the necessity for this furious driving which we see on this matter? Let us be clear on certain basic facts. The first fact on which we should be perfectly clear is this, that the question of our status is not involved at all.

Oh, yes.

No, to my mind the question of our status is not involved at all. I think every sensible man in this country, every moderate man and woman in this country, is agreed on the question of our status. We had a debate in this House not many months ago in which this question was thrashed out. We, on this side of the House, gave our cordial support to the views expressed by the Prime Minister on that occasion. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) who started that debate, said to the Prime Minister that he had done nothing and said nothing on his trip to England and on his return to South Africa to which my hon. friend took any exception. And when a statement like that is made from that quarter, we may take it that in this country the vast bulk of the people, practically every moderate South African, is agreed on the question of our status, and this agreement is a fact of the greatest significance. On the grave issue whether we are a South African nation, there is practically no difference of opinion in this country, and when the Prime Minister, as he has promised later on, brings forward his resolution to affirm what was done at the Imperial Conference, he will find that apart from discussion, apart from raising questions and apart from eliciting information, there is no difference of opinion in this country. That agreement has been signalised in the most gratifying manner by the reception given to the Prime Minister when he returned from England last December. Never has a Prime Minister of this country received a more generous and a greater reception than our Prime Minister did on that occasion. The people of this country, even those who have differed from him for years, were prepared to treat him with the utmost generosity, and to replace the old feelings of estrangement and suspicion by a new feeling of trust. Nothing showed more clearly that we were agreed on the question of our status than that both English- and Dutch-speaking in this country accepted this situation. Nothing could have expressed that agreement more than the reception which was given to the Prime Minister. But what response has been given to that? What a chance the Prime Minister had on that occasion! If he had said on that occasion—

If the Prime Minister had taken that step and had not missed that great chance which was given to him, what a different atmosphere for South Africa there would have been. All that generous feeling that went out to the Prime Minister has been turned into bitterness and gall; people find their trust is not reciprocated, and instead of meeting them half-way, or in a small way, the Prime Minister is standing on the last letter, and forcing this matter through. Why did not the Prime Minister accept the hand of friendship at the time? We heard many rumours at the time that this Cabinet was divided—that some were for the statesmanlike act and for the courageous step; others, again, it was commonly rumoured, and it was more than rumoured—

How do you know it was more than rumoured? Where did you get your information?

I got my information from gentlemen who talked over this matter with the Cabinet. It was commonly reported, and I believe it was largely a fact, that it was the unbending obstinacy of the Minister of the Interior which led to the situation in which we find ourselves. I am afraid that for that ill-starred obstinacy this country is going to pay dearly, and I am afraid there will not only be bitterness and sullenness all over the country now, but even matters which have been settled and even this matter of our status which we all accepted may be involved in the same mistrust and suspicion. Once you allow the people of this country to question your motives and ask. “What is behind it all?” then even on matters they were prepared to settle and prepared to accept generously, they begin to question once more. I am very much afraid that hon. members will find that the Government in the step they have taken, have done the country, the political peace of this country and its national unity, no service at all. To me it has been one of the most gratifying things to see how the two white races of this country, since Union, have been coming together. We have been discussing our ordinary current party politics and we have differed violently on the details of our political programmes, but on the essentials, on the things that really matter in the lapse of years in the life of a nation, we were gradually drawing closer together, and marching to that national unity that was the ideal of all of us. I do not go too far when I say to-day that this is all once more in danger through the foolish action of the Government. We are once more endangering the progress that has been made. To me there is nothing finer than the way in which the English and the Dutch have come together after the conflicts of the past—a past which has been one of the most terrible disagreement! But we have let bygones be bygones, and in spite of the feeling that has bound a nation of our people to the old world, we have drawn gradually closer together, and more and more felt the sentiment of national unity; English-speaking citizens have been more cordially co-operating with Dutch-speaking South Africans, and looking forward with them to the ideal of one nation. That is a great fact, and there is no disagreement in this country about the question of our status. We have accepted the position, English and Dutch alike, with the exception of small bodies. You cannot expect 100 per cent. of the world to be agreed. You must expect that there will be small minorities which will voice their own feelings and perhaps misunderstand the situation. Another fact I think we are agreed about is that there is no more any question of superiority or subjection in this flag matter. It follows logically from the other position, and from what I have said. Once you accept our equal status, the Union Jack or any other flag cannot mean either superiority or inferiority, either conquest or subjection. All that has been wiped away by the fundamental agreement we have arrived at, and formally expressed at the last Conference in London. Our own flags do not mean that— conquest or superiority on the one hand, or inferiority or subjection on the other hand. They mean only one thing—our attachment to the past—our feelings of loyalty and honour to the past. To my mind what the flag—what these old flags—mean to-day, both for English- and Dutch-speaking in South Africa, is simply this feeling of loyalty to the past. These are the symbols under which they have marched to victory and to defeat—under which they have suffered and triumphed—and they want to carry these things forward as reminders to their national future. Our flags mean only one thing: that past which we have honoured and treasured, and we want to carry them with us to the future. If anybody says, after what has happened at the Imperial Conference and the acceptance of the people of this country of what has been done there, that the Union Jack means the superiority and dominion of one race, I fail to follow that or to see the logic of that statement. I pray the Government, do not let us take this step. Last year the Government listened not so much to me as to the spontaneous outburst and explosion of feeling in this country. I warn them they are going to see a much greater explosion this time.

Worked up.

It is not worked up, sir. I anticipated that interruption. If any hon. member thinks that the feeling which is moving in the country to-day has been worked up artificially he will find out his mistake.

Absolutely.

The Minister of Posts, who is vocal now in interrupting me, will find out when the time comes that the people he is—

Misrepresenting.

That is unparliamentary— the people whose views he is supposed to represent will deal with him for the action he is taking. We have followed the path of agreement ever since Union. Do not let us now take this fatal step of abandoning the policy of agreement that has been the keynote of our national life, those are the very foundations on which the new South Africa has been built. I say let us stick to that policy and let us continue to build on those foundations great pact was formed at Union; a new chapter was opened at Union. We took each other’s hands there and we promised to be faithful and true to each other, and not to apply force to one another. We have, to the best of our ability, faithfully and honourably observed that promise. Do not let us depart from it now. It is the great understanding upon which South Africa is built. People talk of the understandings of our constitution the greatest understanding of all is this ultimate foundational understanding that we shall not force our views on each other but will as a united people move forward by agreement to our future. I would ask the Prime Minister to consider this carefully. He is one of the fathers of the Union—he is one of the fathers of the new South Africa. There are not many of us left. The majority of the men who framed the new South Africa are gone, but we who are left are here to defend our own work. That work is again being tested now in a storm of tumult and passion. I appeal to the Prime Minister. Let us be true to our own work. Let us defend and let us be faithful to the work which we ourselves built up seventeen years ago. I agree, and I have always agreed, that it is desirable for us if the people of the country can agree on it, that we should have our own national flag in South Africa, and we all agree on that—I don’t think there is any question about it. But we say let us have a better atmosphere—don’t let us try to force through this step at a time when this country is running riot with passion. If we do that we are going to make the gravest mistake which will have far-reaching effects, and we may all deeply regret it. Last year the Government bowed before the storm. Let them for the sake of South Africa—not for the sake of the Opposition—let them bow once more. Let them withdraw the Bill; let them give time for passion to cool down. Do not let us in our laudable object to establish a national flag take a step which will tear up national unity; which will undo all the good done in the last sixteen years and once more launch us on the stormy seas of passion, mistrust and suspicion which divided us years ago.

I feel that it is a great trial to me to have to address this House after my right hon. friend. Nothing would induce me to do it but the supreme conviction that this Country is to-day entering upon a path which is going to lead it right away from all the good work of reconciliation done in the last twenty years. That is my profound conviction. If anything were lacking to make this occasion more tragic than it is, it is the attitude of hon. members opposite, who do not seem to realise the depth and intensity of feeling held throughout this country by hundreds and thousands of men and women.

What about our feelings?

Exactly. I respect your feelings to the last degree, but I ask you to respect our feelings also. [Interruptions.]

Order!

Why are the feelings of those men and women I have mentioned less worthy of respect than those of hon. members sitting behind the Prime Minister?

We never took away your flag.

No, sir, we are proposing to give you back a flag. We are looking for a South African flag, but we are looking for a South African flag that will not outrage the feelings of a large section of the people.

Just what we want.

I accept the hon. member’s interruption. Does not that prove more convincingly than anything else could that the time has not yet come? The hon. member says our proposals will outrage his feelings—we say your proposals outrage our feelings. Does that not show more eloquently than any words that we have not yet come far enough along the path of reconciliation to decide upon a national flag?

What about the meantime?

We have been going on all these years meanwhile building up a new national feeling in South Africa which the Prime Minister has done so much to strengthen and the flag will come when we are ready for it.

You are in possession in the meantime.

That may be; that is a fact of history. We are ready, and always have been ready, to meet hon. members who hold different views and try to arrive at an agreement. By no other means than agreement can you have a national flag. Is it not worth waiting for? Is anything to be gained by the Prime Minister, as he is advised to do to-day, putting his foot down and settling this question once and for all. Is anything to be gained by that?

Who advises that?

I am quoting an extract from the “Kerkbode” and I have heard it said in this House over and over again. Why is the Government in a hurry? Is this a question that can be settled by putting your foot down? No, it is a question of sentiment, which knows no majority—

Is it a real sentiment?

Not even a referendum majority. You may have a referendum and divide this country in two, but you will not crush—

Supposing you win the referendum?

I do not know what you mean by my winning the referendum, but if it goes against these proposals I should welcome it and say it is another sign the country is not ready to adopt a national flag by agreement. Neither by Act of Parliament nor by a referendum should you attempt to make the determination of a national flag a matter for a majority. It is a question of sentiment.

Do you mean everyone must agree?

No.

Then bang goes your argument.

If my hon. friend does not understand I cannot help him.

[There being further interruptions,].

Order. Will hon. members please allow the hon. member for Yeoville to proceed.

A national flag is or ought to be a sacred symbol, and you cannot impose it by Act of Parliament on that section of the people whose sentiments do not go with it, whose sentiments are outraged. You must have respect for them. You cannot expect people who have this sentiment—

You insist on the Union Jack?

If the Minister will listen I am explaining my point is not a question of what the flag should be, whether the Union Jack shall or shall not be in the flag, my point is we are trying to force on the country a decision on the flag question for which it is not ready. The decision whether it goes one way or the other will wound the sentiment of one section of the people or the other. It is almost criminal madness to force this decision now. What shall we lose if a decision is not forced now, but is allowed to come in the process of time when people’s sentiments come into agreement with it? I cannot find an answer. I cannot understand a Minister who has done for the country what the Prime Minister did a few months ago now coming to the conclusion that at all costs we must wait no longer, but we must get a decision now on the flag. No matter what Parliament does or what the referendum decides you cannot get a decision now. The sentiments of the people will not bow; sentiments do not bow to majorities and do not yield to force of arms, on the battlefield or by the referendum. They grow stronger under oppression.

You must remember we have been like that since 1902.

A decision now is going to tear up all the good work of Union between the two races which has been accomplished in the last 20 years.

Would you rather be without a flag?

I would much rather be without a flag. The sentiment of people of British descent for the Union Jack is not an unnational, un-South African sentiment, it involves no hostility, it is compatible with the fullest expression of South African nationality and what it means, and they have shown that again and again. They constitute a very considerable section of the country numerically and historically. Why is their sentiment one to be ignored? I believe some evil counsellor is behind the Prime Minister, counselling him that this expression of sentiment is artificial. That it is worked up and means nothing, that it is due to a few newspapers and nothing more. I warn them they are making a mistake. The point we stress now, and it is the only point we can stress, is that the time is not ripe for a decision and we ask the Government not to force it. It is not a question of design; it is not a question whether the Union Jack should be in the design or not.

Yes it is. Don’t be hypocritical.

The objection is to this matter being forced to a decision at this moment.

Nothing of the sort.

We know perfectly well a large section of the people say they will not have a flag which does not contain the Union Jack. Another section, whose sentiments I respect, say they will not have a flag which does contain the Union Jack. No more compelling argument could be addressed to all statesmen than that, to show the time is not ripe for a decision. I have said publicly, I think last year, that it seemed to me a way might be found for arriving at a South African flag in consultation with other dominions of the British Commonwealth whereby some emblem might be agreed upon to represent membership of the British Commonwealth and, with that on it, every dominion could have a flag with an emblem acceptable to it. But that cannot be forced on the people anymore than the Government’s present proposal can be. It must be by agreement. The Government in forcing a decision now are embarking on a policy which will set this country back for 20 years. I say that because in my opinion the working together of the two races is the one dominant thing we must all work for if we have the good of South Africa at heart. Without it we can do nothing. We cannot deal with our economic problems and our relations with other races if the two white races are paralysed by racial divisions, by a division which rouses uncontrollable sentiments at every step we take. The first great threat to that policy of conciliation which was initiated at Union, and received its seal and sanction, was the outbreak of the European war in 1914. That was a calamity to us in South Africa because it reopened the wound, a wound that was in process of being healed. That was not our act; this is our act, something we are doing of our own free will and I hold unnecessarily, and I ask the Minister to find for himself an answer to this question—

What compelling need is there behind this Bill that is worth the sacrifice it will entail? What are we going to gain that can be set in the scale against the disruption of the two peoples and the opening of wounds which this Bill will cause? I say that the Prime Minister must take the responsibility of finding an answer to that question, and I would ask of him to look at the question in all frankness and with a full sense of responsibility, and if he cannot clearly establish to the satisfaction of his own conscience that we can gain something by forcing this thing to a settlement now, even at such a cost as we are going to incur, then I would ask him to take the step of going back and admitting that the time is not ripe, as it is not ripe. I have no doubt that we shall come to a national flag one day for South Africa, if we survive as a nation at all, but we are not going to come to it now, and what we are doing now is putting it off again by a long stretch of years. We can go far; there is nothing to stop us as a nation if we can only solve these racial difficulties. This is not, as my hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) said, a question of our international status. It does not raise the question of our sovereign independence, or whatever our national status may be, but what it does is to raise the old issue of racial division, to raise the old issue out of the ashes in which it was, and I say again that to do that, except for some reason of overwhelming national importance, is a crime against the future of South Africa, and I beg the Prime Minister and this Government not to incur the reproach that that will certainly bring upon them in the years to come.

Before expressing the voice of Natal upon this matter, I must say I could not help thinking, as I listened to the laughter and jeers which punctuated the sentences of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), how little indeed hon. gentlemen opposite realize the seriousness of the step they are undertaking and how little they realize the character of the British section of the population.

You do not realize the character of the Dutch section.

I want to read to the House a resolution which was passed last Thursday by the Natal Provincial Council. It is as follows—

1. (1) That this council resolves, in terms of Section 87 of the South Africa Act, to advise Parliament that a national flag for the Union of South Africa which excludes the Union Jack from the design thereof is contrary to the wish of practically the whole of the people of this province, and in the opinion of this council would violate both the letter and spirit of the South Africa Act of 1909.
2. (2) That a design of a national flag acceptable to the Province of Natal is one that is a combination of the Union Jack and the flags of the late South African Republics.
3. (3) This council therefore most respectfully urges Parliament to reject the South African Nationality and Flag Bill in its entirety or to so amend it as to give effect to the foregoing.
4. (4) That Mr. Chairman be requested to convey the resolution by respectful address to the hon. the Administrator for presentation to Parliament.

That resolution has not yet been brought before Parliament as far as I know, but no doubt the Government is fully aware of the resolution. The extraordinary feature of this resolution is that it was adopted unanimously by the Provincial Council of Natal, which was elected only a few weeks ago on this very issue. Therefore, we have here expressed in this resolution the united voice of one of the four partners of the Union. There is still a more significant factor about it. This resolution was seconded by a member of the Labour party, and the two Nationalists in the Provincial Council, though they did not vote for this resolution, I understand, out of loyalty to their party, expressed sympathy with the resolution itself. Therefore this resolution, coming from the people of Natal, adopted by their representatives duly elected on this very issue only a few weeks ago, expresses the united opinion of Natal— both British and Dutch—that this measure is a violation of the letter and spirit of the Act of Union. I do not think anything could show more clearly the tyrannous attitude of the Government than the contemptuous manner in which it has treated this resolution. It appears determined to ride roughshod over the instincts and honour and traditions of one of the four partners of this Union. For all the trouble that may arise the Government alone must take this responsibility. I cannot for the fife of me understand why the Government adopted this measure. Never in the whole history of the Union was the political atmosphere so bright, nor did the future of this country appear so pregnant with promise than it did a few months ago. The depression which had come from the war was rapidly disappearing, the Union itself was rising from the troubles of the past. Responsibility, to a large extent, had quietened the intractable ways of Labour, which was always fishing in the past in troubled waters. The secession chorus had been gradually dying down. The Opposition had announced its intention, on all occasions, to assist the Government to govern wisely. Never, as has already been mentioned, had a responsible public man received such united acclamations from a whole people as the Prime Minister received on his return to this country a few months ago. The star of South Africa appeared to be rising higher and shining brighter in the firmament than ever before, and there seemed to be no reason, to my mind, why the old political alignments should remain. New parties were evolving new policies to lay the foundations of the future. The press itself took up the discussion of our affairs in that strain, and we all looked forward to a sure and glorious destiny. That was the picture a few short weeks ago. Now, in a flash, as it were, we are back again amongst the dead ashes of the bitter past. I think the responsibility lies entirely with the Prime Minister, and he cannot shake himself free of that responsibility. There is no doubt about it. The gage of battle would not have been flung into this arena had it not been forced from the hands of the Prime Minister by the most extreme jingoistic politician we have ever had in this country, the Minister of the Interior. God knows that nobody on these benches wanted to raise this issue. We would have avoided these discussions with all the strength of mind we could. It is none of our seeking, for throughout the months which have passed since this measure was introduced into the House last year, in spite of the provocation to which we have been subjected, this party has exercised the utmost restraint. We hoped that reason and common sense and common decency would prevail. There seemed so much to be done. Everybody’s minds were directed towards the urgent economic and social problems that confronted the country. We had native legislation before us which would draw all men together in trying to find some solution. Yet the Government has thought fit to rend the country in twain, and set back the clock of progress by a quarter of a century. I do not think any hon. member of this House can say that I have ever consciously raised a racial note in this House. All my political life I have studiously avoided saying one word that could be said to give umbrage to my Dutch friends. In Natal and in Zululand both Dutch and British live in the closest bonds of friendship. There is there, except in certain limited quarters where bitterness has crept in, a full recognition of the part which both races in South Africa have played in preserving South Africa for our children. In that historic portion of the Union both British and Dutch have dyed the ground red with their blood in defence of civilization, and I say that, except for the bitterness which has been fostered in certain quarters by politicians, by those poisonous products of our political life, the racial priest and the racial lawyer, we have lived everywhere in harmony and friendship. In my own particular district neither Dutch nor English have ever stopped to ask the question as to what their racial origins were. They were all engaged on developing the swamps and the forests in order to build up those areas into a productive centre for the whole of the country, and they had no time to bestow upon those political questions which only leave the taste of Dead Sea fruit in the mouth. I think what I have said fairly represents the attitude of Natal, that province which had been traduced and maligned and jeered at as un-South African by that little Afrikanderism which has its home in the heart of Calvinia. In Natal, the people have seen that there is no hope, there is no future for the white race on this continent unless we can agree to work together; and, in earnest of this, before Union took place, the people of Natal, the people from the battlefields of South Africa, walked into the ballot box to cast their votes in favour of Union. That was a people’s choice. They were not led by their noses by political leaders. The people cast their votes for Union, realizing that their destinies lay in absorption in the greater Africa, knowing that they were handing over their future to Dutch leaders, yet believing in and being firmly convinced of the honour and sense of justice and right of their Dutch fellow-citizens. When Union took place the parliamentary members from the country districts of Natal came down to this House as independents, knowing nothing whatever of the political whirlpools which existed in the other provinces, and they were convinced that the truest interests of South Africa lay in their casting in their lot with General Botha. They became members of the South African National party. When called upon for an explanation by their constituents, they said that they had supreme faith in the honour and integrity of General Botha. They said they believed that the best policy for Natal and for South Africa was to trust to those Dutch leaders who were insisting upon the necessity of both races respecting and honouring each other’s traditions. Throughout all these years Natal has remained true to that position. The people believe that co-operation between the races is essential in the interests of South Africa, a principle which the Minister of the Interior told the country the other day was not practical politics. Now the people who went into the ballot-boxes in Natal in the firm belief that their traditions and their flag would be respected, what is their position to-day? They find their trust betrayed. Without a word of warning, without any mandate from the polls, without any majority whatsoever in the country, a party which has yielded to the most extreme jingoism in its own ranks, has set out to insult and trample upon every sentiment of honour and feeling which has inspired the British race—

That is not true.

A race which has bequeathed free institutions and liberty to the whole world. This very Parliament in which we are assembled is a British institution, conceived, created, fought for and died for by generations of Britishers.

It originated in France.

Where did you originate?

I hope the country will note the state of feeling which the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is showing. He jeers almost at every word, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is one of those who would allow this Parliament of South Africa to destroy that symbol of British traditions which has stirred the hearts and still stirs the hearts of millions of the British race all over the world.

Nonsense!

It makes one wonder whether the Government really thinks that the English-speaking race in this country has become so emasculate and degenerate that they will permit this thing to go on. What would the proud Dutch race say themselves in similar circumstances? Why, they would say this—

I am speaking what I feel sincerely. My object is merely to sound a warning note to the Government. This afternoon it has been made very clear that the Government have no realization at all of the seriousness of the step which they are taking. They have been misled by hon. members on their left, who think that the British race lives by bread alone. They represent no sentiment of the British people; they were not sent to this Parliament to represent the sentiments of the British people. They were sent to represent certain economic aspirations of the working men. They are denationalized, internationalized, the puppets of a world movement of disorder and economic barbarism; they are as alien to the spirit of the British race, as they are alien to the spirit of South Africa nurtured upon the textbooks of the worn-out cities of Europe. Therefore, I urge the Prime Minister not to be misled by the members on the Labour benches. Natal regards this Bill as being utterly unconstitutional, utterly unnecessary, and extremely provocative to a degree, and a betrayal of the trust which the British race has reposed in the Government of this Union. We ask from Natal that the Government shall not decide an issue such as this, which should be decided only in goodwill and co-operation outside of this House, and not inside. There are many things in the life of a nation which the Minister perhaps does not realize. There are things far beyond the scope of Parliament. There are matters which are extra-parliamentary, and this is one of them. That the Government does realize that there is some special extra-parliamentary side to this matter is shown by the very fact that it sought to gain agreement by consultation before introducing the Bill. Technically, the Government is perfectly right. This Parliament can introduce such a Bill, but Parliament can also introduce a Bill into the House to divorce me from my wife, to divorce all men from their wives—and an attempt to divorce men from their traditions is equivalent to an attempt to divorce them from their families. Natal holds very strongly that this House has no moral or constitutional right to choose a design which ignores the traditions of one-half the population and insults the other. In this final hour I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he cannot retract, whether he cannot go back on the path he has taken. Can I not ask him to keep his eyes fixed on a greater Africa, and not on the little Afrikanderism of the member for Calvinia? We can be a great people, but we can only be great if we are great in conception. The Prime Minister can either rise to heights as a true national leader and patriot, with both races marching under his banner, or he can go down to oblivion as a blind partisan who has destroyed a bright heritage of promise built up after patient years of tolerance and co-operation.

[On Maj. G. B. van Zyl rising,]

Talk Afrikaans.

Now for the voice from the docks.

The spirit displayed by hon. members opposite makes one despair of ever having real unity in this country. Apparently on serious matters they never can be serious. It leaves one with very little hope as to the future. One finds it extraordinarily difficult in this important matter to speak dispassionately, as undoubtedly the foundations of very serious trouble in this country have been laid by the peculiar insistence of a small proportion of supporters of the Government, and by the determined obstinacy of the Minister of the Interior, who has one idea, and one only, and that is to please, irrespective of the feelings of every other section, a small but irreconcilable section supporting him at present. We certainly had thought that after the claim that the Prime Minister had secured a declaration upon the country’s higher status—a status not gained by an irreconcilable few, but by those who nobly offered up their lives on the battlefields of Europe and elsewhere—one would have expected that after that some consideration would be shown for those who gained this, fighting under the Union Jack, and gave the Prime Minister that higher status. The most disappointing figure in the whole of this drama is unfortunately the Prime Minister of South Africa, of whom we can say with truth and reason how constantly our better is defeated by our worse side, our strength by some petty weakness, our wisdom by the folly of obstinacy which presumes to seize the helm in moments of decision. One is terribly afraid of the consequences of the Government’s decision to force a flag on this country not acceptable to the people as a whole, and one’s fears are increased as one watches the attitude of hon. members opposite, when the Minister gave notice to introduce this Bill, and the attitude of supporters of the Government outside who, presumably with the consent of the Minister of the Interior, made statements calculated to stir the deepest feelings of the people of this country. This is not the way a national flag should be introduced or brought into existence. Where a national flag is concerned, we know that the least breath of party politics in connection with the matter is sufficient to make it sectional, and blasts its national character. There must be agreement, for if that is absent, true nationhood is lacking, and a nation is presumed when we ask for a national flag. By agreement alone can we have a flag which is going to satisfy the whole of the community, and without satisfying the community we can never obtain peace in regard to the flag. After all, a flag is merely an emblem, but an emblem must meet the inmost sentiments of all elements. We all love and reverence our flags, but not as objects in themselves; we love and venerate them as symbols standing for certain facts and traditions. Surely it is better to have no flag at all than to have one forced on the minority by a chance parliamentary majority. English-speaking South Africans have done everything in their power to meet the wishes of the Dutch-speaking South Africans. They are prepared to give an equal place to the symbol which the Dutch-speaking may desire, but they are not prepared to be deprived of that symbol which they love and reverence. Apparently members of the Cabinet do not appreciate the intense feeling aroused throughout the country. If that is so, then surely they are out of touch with the vast bulk of the population, and should make further investigation, and if they find the least shadow of doubt, they should lay aside their personal feelings and ambitions, and even at this late hour do their duty to the country, and not to themselves, and drop the proposition altogether. On the other hand, if they do appreciate the position, then I unhesitatingly say—

On a point of order, is the hon. member permitted to read his speech?

The hon. member may proceed.

Then I unhesitatingly say that their attitude shows that they are both callous and indifferent to the future of the country and to the people of the country. The country is faced with a very grave situation, and the responsibility must rest entirely with the Government. Those who know no flag but the Union Jack—and there are at least nine-tenths of the people of this country who have never known any other—are prepared to accept any flag which the Government may wish to design, provided that the symbol which they love and reverence is part and parcel of that flag. Those who are against the inclusion of the Union Jack have urged the objection that it would arouse bitter feeling because of past memories, and yet at the same time the representatives appointed by the Government say that sensible men and women do not dwell on the past, which is done with. They assert this, but confine any basis of settlement to the exclusion of the Union Jack. The Government is pandering to passions, which will destroy the noble traditions of the past. I would like to remind hon. members opposite, who are mostly descended from the Dutch race—

Aren’t you?

Yes, and I am proud of it. I want to remind them that in the past sentiment has played a great part in our history, and nearly all the troubles of the past have been due chiefly to an idea that the feelings and sentiments of the Dutch have been flouted and trampled upon. Whether that is correct or not, the fact remains that no section could be in a better position to appreciate the effect of any flouting of sentiment than the Dutch-speaking section of the community, and surely then it is up to them to consider what the effect of the present action of the Government necessarily must result in, and to pause before insisting on throwing discretion to the wind—and see that they are particularly careful that the sentiments of others are in no way trampled upon. Canada experienced the same difficulty, and did everything to get a flag by agreement. They also wanted an individual flag, but when they found what the true feeling Of the other section was and appreciated the bitter opposition that was to be expected; when agreement proved to be impossible, they took the sensible and only course, and very wisely dropped their project. Let me remind hon. members opposite that there will be as little chance of real union in South Africa as in Ireland if we attempt to force the flag of one section on another section. Ireland did what our Government proposes doing, but, as in South Africa, unity there will be impossible while the sentiments of the other section are ignored. I do not propose discussing the Flag Bill in detail in any way, but merely wish to point out that on this side of the House, where the large bulk of public opinion is represented, we feel, and feel very strongly, that the only thing to do is to drop this Bill until all sections can agree without bitterness on a flag which really represents the history and traditions of both great races. We are really afraid of what is going to happen in this country. I wish to appeal to the Government, even at this eleventh hour, to give heed to the very strong current of feeling aroused, and in this matter to cease merely to be the politician, and endeavour to rise to the level of statesmen. Surely we have had a surfeit of racialism, bitterness and division. Both Dutch-speaking and English-speaking South Africans offered up their lives to rid the world of dominance, and to give us security and peace. Together they fought for freedom under and for the Union Jack. Is their sacrifice to be counted as naught? Are disruption and strife all we can offer for the price they paid? I appeal to the Prime Minister and to those of his colleagues who are not opposed to everything that is British, to pause ere he does something which will destroy the goodwill and understanding which has grown up between the two great white races of the country, and to see that the country gets an opportunity to go ahead in unity and strength.

Hon. members opposite laugh because I rise to say something about this matter, but we Afrikanders have just as much right to speak about it. I also want to appeal to the Government to withdraw the Bill in view of the opposition which there is to it to-day. As a young Afrikander, I should also like to have our own national flag, but I should like also to have unity and content. I would like to see peace, unanimity and love in the country, but I feel that this measure will put the clock back for years, and I appeal to the Government inasmuch as no agreement can be come to not to stir up undesirable feelings. Only if opinions agree about the flag can one inaugurate such a thing. Speaking as a young Afrikander, I feel that I cannot support any flag unless it gives satisfaction and is acceptable to all sections of the population.

That you will never get.

It will come. Why this haste? Let me remind my friends over there of the feeling which exists at the present time.

It was caused by you.

No, it is the result of this measure, of the obstinacy of the Government. If I understood the Minister correctly, he wishes when there is a national flag that all sections will love it, but if there is to be a flag which will mean anything to South Africa it must be one that unites, and not one that separates people from each other.

What flag do you want then?

It is not a question of politics with me, but of sentiment, and I feel very strongly that we must have unity and peace for the future of South Africa. We have great problems to solve in the country, and it is necessary that the white population should stand united. It would be a pity, and it would be fatal, if at a time when we are dealing with such great problems, we were to get dissension, and I am certain that the Minister of the Interior is not in touch with the feeling of the Dutch-speaking section of the population, especially of the Cape Province. That section of the population do not want this motion, they are not anxious for it. We have suffered enough in the past and want unity and peace now. We want unity to push the country ahead, and not dissension about these things, and, when I say that, I am interpreting the feeling of a large section of the population of the Cape Province. I do not know the position with regard to the other provinces.

That is just the point.

We want rest and peace. Unfortunately, we have always had dissension, and the feeling amongst the Dutch-speaking people of the Cape Province is that we ought now to have unity. I am surprised that hon. members opposite, who say they represent the feelings of Dutch-speaking South Africa, are remaining quiet during this debate.

We shall not always remain quiet.

I feel it is the duty of the Government to take account in this matter of the feelings of the people in general, and not merely of the feelings of one section. I go further, and ask the Government not only to take account of the people as a whole, but also of its own supporters. There are Nationalist members opposite who, in this matter are not thinking of their supporters, because there are many people who voted for the Pact Government who are to-day shouting that the sentiment of the people should be acknowledged. That sentiment is being pushed on one side.

Why are you worrying about it?

The Government have not received a mandate from the people in this matter.

Man, sit down, you are now talking utter nonsense.

I want peace, and I think that I have as much right as any other hon. member to speak.

To talk nonsense?

The feeling of many supporters of the Government at the last election is not being interpreted.

Then you ought to be glad because at the next election they will vote for you.

It is not a question of votes, but a question of whether account is being taken of the sentiment of the people.

Blood and tears.

That is what hon. members opposite are striving after, and what we would like to avoid. I should like to discuss the matter calmly and soberly, and if possible, I want to ask the Government to reconsider the matter. I hope my appeal will not fall on deaf ears.

Being a South African bred and born, the responsibility rests on my shoulders of expressing my feelings on this matter, and I hope hon. members opposite will extend the courtesy which one generally extends to them. I do not ask for anything unreasonable. I realize, at a time such as this, and on an occasion of such great importance, forbearance should be the keynote of every speech made in this House, and every word should be carefully weighed. I feel that on our shoulders rests a great responsibility in the manner in which we deal with the matter which is now before the House. It is a strange thing that up to the present no hon. member on the other side has made an attempt to reply to any points made on this side, and there were speeches on this side which called for a reply. My remarks are not directed to the English-speaking or the Dutch-speaking people; to-day we look upon South Africa as a nation, and it is from this aspect that the Prime Minister should consider this question. That is all we ask. We have shown that respect to the traditions of the other race. The Minister, in introducing the Bill last year, referred in most glowing terms to the necessity for a flag to unify the country. In common with other South Africans, I am absolutely in sympathy with the desire to have a flag for South Africa, but it is foolhardiness to attempt to do that unless by consent. The Bill is glorious in its conception, but is tragic in presentation, because I take it the Union Jack is not acceptable to a certain section of the community. If that is the case, let us wait until such time as the two great races of South Africa can agree upon a flag acceptable to all sections. Do not force the issue. As one who was born and bred in South Africa, and who loves this country just as much as hon. members opposite do, I hope the Prime Minister will realize that it is not yet too late to drop the measure, and to recognize the intensity of the demonstrations—spontaneous demonstrations not fomented by party politicians at all—against the Bill. As a fellow South African, I ask the Prime Minister to let the matter drop until we can have a flag by common consent.

I do not think the Government at all realize the depth of feeling which has been stirred up by this question. It has not been worked up by the newspapers or politicians, but it is a spontaneous feeling which has animated men and women, especially in Natal. Just before I left that province, I addressed meetings of my constituents in a stretch of country 150 miles in length along the Natal coast. I carefully avoided any reference to the Flag Bill in my speeches, but at each meeting the first question I was asked was what was my attitude on the matter. As we respect the feelings of the Dutch, so do we ask that the feelings of the British section be respected. Nations are built up of individuals, and no individual is so good that he has no evil in him, and no individual is so bad that he has no good in him. Nations are just the same. No section of a nation can claim to have all the good qualities and to assert that the other section has all the bad qualities. It is only by amalgamation that a true nation can be built up in this country. Natal is the most British portion of the Union, but a very large portion of it is almost entirely Dutch. Yet the Dutch live in perfect amity with their British neighbours, and they have learned something from them, because Natal is the only province which has no poor white problem. In proportion to the population there are more intermarriages between Dutch and British in Natal than in any other part of the Union, and intermarriage is the true basis of union—a union of love and mutual respect. The only way to secure this is by freedom of thought and freedom of intercourse, uninfluenced by predikants and politicians. There are a large number of doctors of divinity in this House, but the Christian charity and fellowship they are supposed to preach does not find any influence in this House. They ought to go back to the Book and study it again, and see if they can learn from it a neighbourly feeling of respect for the other man’s outlook. The country is making wonderful progress in which Natal has a fair share, but if we want to put the country back for a quarter of a century and rend it in twain, then let the Government proceed with the Bill. I did not come much in contact with Dutchmen until I had been here for 30 years. But I am proud to say that now I have many very good friends amongst them. If, however, a bitter feeling is introduced, these friendships will terminate. A man who has been in the House since Union said the other day that he had never known such a friendly feeling as that which now exists in the lobby. But if the Bill goes through there will be an end to that feeling. I appeal to the Minister of the Interior, who the other day became the father of a boy. We don’t want that boy to grow up amid bitter feelings, and his father will make the lad’s path in life much easier if this Bill be withdrawn.

I regard the action of the Government in introducing this Bill last year without agreement as being a blunder, but to proceed with it now in face of the opposition and the agitation which has spontaneously arisen throughout the country is a crime. The Government is steering the ship of State into dangerous waters, and if the Bill passes into law I am perfectly certain that the Government will regret its action, because feelings will be embittered, friendships will be estranged, unrest will be created, and the whole country will be put back for many years. We have had a good many blunders in this country since Union was established in 1910, but this is the worst. We had the rebellion of 1914 that upset the country and kept it back. Then we had that unfortunate deputation to Europe, headed by the present Prime Minister, which sought to dismember the Union. Fortunately, it was a fiasco. Then we had the secession movement started about 1917, and continued down to the end of last year. Those were dark days. South Africa passed through many troubled times, but when the Prime Minister came back from the Imperial Conference last year with an olive branch, and said he was perfectly satisfied with the position of South Africa as part of the British commonwealth of nations, everyone heaved a sigh of relief and the Prime Minister was the man of the hour. Everybody gave him credit, not only for having represented South Africa, but for having attained the object which he had when he set out. He had the whole country with him at that time, and the sun then shone on South Africa. If the Prime Minister had then said that the time had not arrived to force through any national flag except by agreement, he would have had the whole country with him. Some or his followers might have been disappointed, but they would have acknowledged that that was the right thing to do, and that their leader was taking a great and courageous course. Unfortunately, he has yielded to other influences in taking a narrow and restricted view, and is trying to force through a flag which the country is not ready for, and does not want. The action of the Government in proceeding with the Bill has completely changed the face of public affairs, which were in a happy state when the Prime Minister returned from the Imperial Conference. If disunion, strife and probably worse things take place, the Government will be entirely to blame, and the Prime Minister will have to bear the principal share. Why has the Prime Minister gone back on the action he took in 1910 when, in response to the wishes of the British Government, the Government of General Botha, of which the present Prime Minister was a prominent member, adopted a national flag for South Africa for use at sea? That flag contained the Union Jack and the Union coat-of-arms, and the minute which was sent to the Governor-General on the subject was not signed by General Botha, who apparently was absent at the time, but by our present Prime Minister. Now if the Union Jack, which was included in that flag, is to-day regarded as a symbol of oppression or a symbol of the conqueror, why was it not so regarded in 1910, and if the Union Jack was good enough in the year 1910 for inclusion, what has happened in the interval?

He never signed it in 1910.

The hon. member is not very well informed. I can show him the minute signed by the Prime Minister in 1910. Hon. members are ignorant. If they apply to the Clerk of the Papers they will get a white paper, signed by J. B. M. Hertzog, containing a reference to a flag, and expressing gratification that South Africa had at last a national flag. I agree it was a flag to be flown at sea. It was not a land flag, but, as a matter of fact, it has been flown in South Africa every day since then. It has been on the flagstaff of Parliament House, of magistrates’ offices and schools, and has been used throughout South Africa. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what has happened since 1910 to make him dislike or make him hate the very idea of including the Union Jack in our national flag? I can see nothing that has happened to warrant a change. The English section of the population have behaved themselves, have been law-abiding, have supported the constitution, and have comported themselves as good citizens of this country.

They have not abstained from abusing the Union Jack.

Is it abusing the Union Jack for the English-speaking people to say—

Is it abusing the Union Jack if I say I am proud of the Union Jack; the traditions and history which cling round it, and if I want to see it included in a quarter of the new national flag? Is that abusing the Union Jack? I do not think the English-speaking people should come as suppliants to ask the Government to include the Union Jack. We demand it. It is a right. If the Government had been consulting the best interests of the country they would have acceded to the general request which has been made to include the Union Jack and the Vierkleur, but, unfortunately, they have determined to force this matter on the country, and the country is not ripe for it, and it is totally unnecessary. What is a national flag? It is a symbol of unity, it expresses the traditions of the people, it stands for a common sentiment, and if any flag is adopted by a bare majority, then whose sentiments and traditions will it embody? It will not embody the traditions and sentiments of the nation as a whole, it will only be a sectional flag. To be of any value at all it should be loved and reverenced, and men should be ready to defend it, and, if necessary, to die for it. I ask the House if any flag adopted by 51 per cent. or 60 per cent.—

How many Scotchmen were prepared to die for the Union Jack when it was proclaimed a national flag?

The Union Jack included the cross of St. Andrew in 1601.

I am afraid your history is at fault. I advise you to read your history a little.

I want to give you some information. In 1601 or thereabouts the cross of St. Andrew was added to the cross of St. George, and there you have a combined symbol of two races which had been at war with each other for centuries. The two races came together and adopted a national symbol. Apart altogether from that, I put it to the Prime Minister that if he goes on with this Bill he is bound to produce turmoil and strife. He may say if he withdraws the Bill now that he will lose prestige. I do not think he will. I think the country will applaud his action and he will go down to history as a man who can take large views, and who is not actuated by party interests. I ask the Prime Minister to get back to the convention spirit. I remember the delight of the Prime Minister when, as a member of the National Convention, he signed the draft Act of Union. He was one of the most delighted men amongst that well-pleased body of men who signed the Act of Union, and if he could only get back to the convention spirit of 1909-’10, I am perfectly certain he will withdraw this Bill. If he does he will go down to history as one of the lovers of his country, and if he refuses he will go down to history as a man unable to take a wide vision and instead of furthering the interests of the country, he will throw it back for a generation.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

Where do they get their raw material from?

I am mt sure about that. In any case, the position is that they can supply all our requirements, and they really require no increased assistance in Cape Town, although overseas countries are actually dumping, but, in order to enable them to compete at other coast ports, this increased duty is necessary. In regard to the resolution dealing with income tax, we propose to reenact the existing rates in regard to both normal and super tax. We have dropped the provision in regard to certain income of life assurance companies, because we propose to exempt them altogether-that is, mutual companies—and the Bill which will be introduced if the resolutions are adopted will provide for the necessary exemption. We do not propose to make any alteration in the existing rates in regard to normal and super tax, and we propose to continue the concessions which we make in regard to debenture interest. The alterations in regard to the fees payable by hawkers and pedlars have become necessary, owing to the fact that local authorities insist that they should have better control in regard to the issue of these licences. The position at present is that we made provision for a provincial licence for hawkers. Under that, if a hawker wants a licence, he has to apply to one local authority; if that authority gives him a certificate, a provincial licence is issued which enable» him to trade over the whole province. The various local authorities object very strongly, and we now propose to do away with the £10 provincial licence, and to provide for a £5 licence in magisterial districts, and in urban areas and in rural areas.

Who is going to issue the local licences—the local authority?

Yes, the local authority. There are various local authorities in the various provinces. The Divisional Council will issue a certificate for the rural area, and the municipal authority for the urban area.

Didn’t you say that the provincial taxation for hawkers and pedlars would disappear now?

The hon. member knows that we do not get these revenues. We deal only with the legislation and fix the rates. The revenues go to the provinces. Formerly hawkers could get a licence to trade over the whole of the provinces; now they will have to get a separate licence for separate local areas.

Double taxation?

No, he will still have to pay whatever municipal licence is required under the municipal regulations. That is the case in the Transvaal, and will continue. Generally, it will mean a reduction in the rates payable by these people. The alteration is merely to have better control, as it is desired to have by the provinces.

All provinces, or the Cape?

All provinces. It is a Union statute. Last year, or the year before last, we made these licences uniform for the whole Union. Then we are also providing for a smaller licence fee (of 5s.) for the sale of certain classes of Union-grown and produced foodstuffs. The old licence of £1 will remain, but a trader can select any one of these classes, and will pay only a 5s licence. That will meet the case of local fish hawkers in the Cape. The £1 licence was found to press rather heavily on them. When the Bills are introduced, various other particulars can be more adequately dealt with.

seconded the motion.

Under this law we have a good many experiences in the Cape, and I know of cases where a man had retired from business, sold it, gone away, and wanted to come back, but the local council would not give him a licence to start business again. These licences are entirely a matter of the local municipal councils, and you can imagine what is the result. In the Cape you had to give the right of appeal, which there was not at one time, because the treatment of some of the people was not quite fair.

Surely the hon. member does not advocate their removal.

I advocate the removal from municipal control, which leads to monopoly and restriction of trade. With regard to the proposed duty on cream, it is proposed to more than double it, from l¼d. to 3d. I cannot tell you how much cream is imported, but it is absurd to more than double the duty. I do want also to draw attention to the fact that quite recently the duty on condensed milk was increased.

And they are not satisfied. They want increased protection.

I quite believe my hon. friend. They want it 6d. It is always the same with this sort of people—they are never satisfied. You have tried to protect this industry ever since 1912, when Sir George Leuchars was Minister. There is to-day one factory, and we are taxing the people of this country for the benefit of this factory. In 1914 it was ½d., in 1924 1d., recently 1¼d., and now it is 1½d., or a 26 per cent. duty with the addition now made. In 1921 you had about five factories, and they have all sunk to one factory. It is proposed to start three other factories, and you propose to start one at Oudtshoorn.

And one at Potchefstroom. They will not until they get increased protection.

I hope they will not get it. Does my hon. friend know Oudtshoorn? It is a dry country. It has just closed down one creamery. If the hon. member for Oudtshoorn wants to, let him try. Does my hon. friend think it will do at Johannesburg? You can sell your milk at a higher price to the public there than to the condensed milk makers.

Johannesburg won’t consume the milk at that price.

They can consume all that is sent to it. I get 1s. 2d. per gallon in Cape Town, and in the wet season 8d. or 9d. for fresh milk. They will not get that price for condensed milk. One complaint is that the farmers cannot get the price, but they can get better prices in the big centres. What I do grumble about is this increasing burden on the people every time. In 1924 the duty collected was £49,552, and in 1926 £56,937. Last year we imported £303,000 worth of condensed milk. Recently we had a Bill to afford relief to farmers in the drought-stricken districts, and now we are going to put on a duty which is going to increase the cost of living. This is a monstrous state of affairs. We have spent millions on encouraging land settlement, but, according to a census which the Lands Department has just taken, the average annual gross income of some 800 of these settlers is under £100.

A settler cannot succeed unless he obtains this protection.

You will not help him by piling up the cost of living. The duty on dairy utensils has been increased by 20 per cent., hardware by 20 per cent., horseshoes by 20 per cent.

The settler also wears clothes.

Yes, and you put 20 per cent. on them and on his shirts, and 30 per cent. on his boots. These are the poor people who are doing their best to struggle along. With the exception of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), the Labour members are absent. What astonishes me is seeing that they are supposed to represent the poorer part of the population, that they do not protest against these high duties. The duty on milk is now 26 per cent.

Preserved cream, and only rich people buy that.

Since September the duty on milk has been increased by a farthing a pound.

We are not dealing with that at all.

I want to protest against the action of my hon. friend.

You must not say “protest.”

I now want to say a few words about lead, of which there is only one manufacturer in this country. He lives in Cape Town, I know him, and as far as I am aware he is in prosperous circumstances. He obtains his ore from Rhodesia, and he has been to the Board of Trade and asked for increased protection, which is only human nature, seeing that the members of the Board of Trade stand there ready to pour out increased protection. This increased duty is not necessary, and only enhances the profit of the South African manufacturer. It is easy to say that there is dumping, but I have never come across people who are prepared to give me things below cost price. This will tend to higher building costs. In this case the Minister has given additional, protection, although it was entirely unnecessary.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was a member of a Ministry which gave a bonus on the export of meat.

A better system.

But it was so arranged that the bonus could only reach the Imperial Cold Storage Company.

What nonsense.

That proved to be the effect.

Unless one applied for permission to export within one month of the passing of the Act no subsequent applicant could receive a permit. The bonus system has never yet succeeded in establishing an industry. I congratulate the Minister on going a little further forward in protection, and trust that as this country progresses he will become an absolute protectionist and not a half-and-halfer. As regards the poor people for whom the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) pleads, is he willing to assist them to be able to purchase cream, and if so will it be by a system of doles to keep them alive to provide cheap labour, or will he help to put them on their feet? It is only protection that can do that by ensuring remunerative industries. Why, indeed, should there be importation of such a thing as cream into this country? I ask the Minister of Finance to engrave on his heart: “Protection that does not protect is not protection.” We must protect up to the limit when an article is excluded if it can be produced locally. If employment is found for the people and paid for, they can pay a higher price for the article. I regret that the Minister of Finance should surrender anything in the way of protection. Last year he listened to the blandishments of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who is always pleading for the big interests He pleaded with the Minister of Finance to drop from 20 per cent. down to 15 per cent. duty on boys’ and youths’ and children’s clothing. The result was that hundreds of poor women, for whom the hon. member pleads for cheap cream could not even get work. Hundreds of tailoresses depended upon it for a livelihood. I always thought the Labour party would remain to its detriment a free trade party, but it has realized that a first want is not cheap living but well-paid work to establish purchasing power, and to ensure work. As regards cream and such products, this country has developed production greatly, not only of cream, but also of cheese. As far as other items of the proposal are concerned, I am glad the maximum rate has been put on. It is better to give people out-and-out protection, so that they can confidently invest their money in machinery for industrial effort, than to hold a tariff over their heads that, perhaps, they will get assistance, perhaps they won’t. People, fortunately, have taken the view that our Government will go further in this regard and accordingly have put their capital into industries. I hope the Minister has not forgotten that hawkers and pedlars are not fair and square legitimate traders. They are expected to be itinerant, and to go their rounds outside business areas. We find, however, these Syrian, Greek and Indian hawkers go along with choicest goods on a big trolley and spread them out opposite a trader’s store. How would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jagger) like it if an opponent came and opened samples on the pavement opposite his emporium?

They do—they come next door.

The legitimate trader who keeps a stock of goods and a staff, and pays heavy rentals, is beaten by people who settle down for the day, folding their tents, and like the Arabs, stealing silently away when evening comes In all kinds of illicit ways they tempt the boys from the mines to deal with them. I hope the Minister will see that he gives the fullest power of control of hawkers and pedlars to provincial councils over local authorities, so that they can protect dealers from such unfair competition. We have been years and years trying to get something done to assist the fair trader in legitimate enterprise and to put some check on this system which allows hawkers to trade anywhere as they like. They spend next to nothing in the country. When they have saved enough, if they are Greeks, off they go to Greece and if they are Indians, their savings invariably go to India. As a class they deserve no consideration whatever, and the sooner they are got out of the country, the better. I hope the Minister will respond to the request to see that fullest control is given by the Act to provincial authorities to stop unfair competition.

I understand from the speech of the Minister that hawkers’ licences have been reduced from £10 to £5.

It is now £5 for the district or for the town.

The meaning then is that if the licence of £5 is taken out, the hawker can only do business in the district, and not in the town? Suppose now a skin buyer goes into the district buying skins. Must he take out an extra licence to sell the skins in the town or can he do so without an extra licence.

He must trade either outside or inside of the town.

This means a double licence then, because a hawker cannot only trade outside. In the past, considerable confusion has taken place in connection, e.g., with coal. A man buys at the mines and has to take out a licence which was practically impossible in view of the small profit made.

Skins and coal are products of the Union, and the licence for them is only £1.

I am satisfied with that.

I don’t go quite to the length of protection which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) goes, but I think a good case has been made out for the increased duty on cream bound up as it is with the condensed milk industry. The condensed milk industry of the world is in the hands of a big concern—Nestles. This is a big trust, and it practically controls the manufacture and sale of condensed milk and, incidentally, cream, throughout the world. It has got its organization very fully developed in other countries in the world. So long as that company can concentrate in Australia, Switzerland, England and, I believe, the Argentine, it is not going to open out here. If it can secure the South African market with the product manufactured in other parts of the world, so long is it going to continue on those lines, and the produce of those countries is going to be exported and sold here. We have got the milk here, we have got the sugar here, we have got everything that is necessary, coal, wood for boxes; in fact, everything for a successful industry, but that industry is never going to get a fair start in this country until those who control it are forced to come here and manufacture our products into the finished article on the spot, and the only way we can get that done is by imposing a duty which is going to make it profitable for somebody to come and start the industry here. I had á talk with the representative of the Anglo-Swiss people the other day. They had evidently some little idea that something was to be done in this direction. They said—

As they are selling here, I believe, speaking from memory, about £300,000 worth of their product every year, it is not going to pay them to give up that market. I do think that it is a very wise step to so increase the duty that they are bound to come here or else lose that market. I know that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) adduces as his biggest argument the rise in cost of the article to the consumer. I go this length with the hon. member, that I do not stand for excessive protection, protection of an article, the manufacture of which can never become established in this country, but I do stand for protection as a means of inducing manufacture, and one which when it is on a proper footing will be able to hold its own. Let me remind the hon. member of the position in regard to meat in 1902, after the South African war. There was any amount of meat in South Africa at that time, but the position was that a big trade in import meat had been built up and it was very much more convenient for the butcher in the towns to send his order to the cold storage and get a carcase or two delivered at the shop, than to send his buyer out into the country to purchase stock. What happened? The Government put 2d. a lb. on to the imported meat, with the result that next year the import practically stopped, and our meat found a natural market in it’s own country. The price did not rise. To-day we are over-producing, we are selling meat in the world’s market, and the price of meat has come down in this country to what it is in the rest of the world. The same thing has happened in regard to dairy products. A big duty was put on cheese and also on butter. To-day, because of that duty, we have established a cheese industry in this country, and we have reached that stage when we are over-producing, and we have got to export. The result is that the price of cheese has come down to practically the world’s price. Reverting to condensed milk, I am perfectly convinced that we can produce an article which will compete, and can compete in the world’s markets. The amount of condensed milk which is imported by the Anglo-Swiss people to-day represents 21,000 gallons of fresh milk per day. That is a mere flea bite in South Africa in the bigger districts. In a very short time we shall catch that up, and then the position will arise which has happened in regard to other products. I think under these circumstances that my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) Mr. Jagger), would agree to the duty, if it is going to act as I think it will, and force the manufacture of the article here without adding in the long run to the cost to the consumer. There is one other matter which I want to draw the Minister’s attention to, and that is the question of cotton blankets. I know that this is a very vexed question, and one on which there is a certain amount of divergence of opinion, but I do ask the Minister to consider this, that you have got a certain market for cotton blankets in this country.

I think it would be better for the hon. member not now to deal with that. We are not now dealing with the taxation Bill.

I want to mention this in view of the Bill which the Minister will bring up.

If there is any mention of it in the Bill, the hon. member can discuss the question on the second reading.

Am I not in order in mentioning it now?

No. There may be an opportunity when the terms of the Bill are before the House.

The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) in addressing the House a few minutes ago referred to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as being in with the monied interests.

I said he hoped so.

You remember that last year my hon. friend was responsible for getting a tremendous reduction on boys’ clothing, I think it was, which showed that his interests were not thrown in with the monied interest, but with the children of poor parents; in other words, with the consumer. That charge, therefore, I think, fails. When the Minister introduced his budget he informed us there was a surplus approaching £1,250,000, and he proposed to deal with it in a certain way. I think he ought to have thought a little bit of the taxpayers of this country. That £1,250,000 would have proved very useful in reducing taxation, but, instead, he is increasing taxation on certain articles of consumption.

What are those?

Well, on cream. It will mean an increased tax of 1¾d. per lb.

I want to stop importation, and then I will lose the revenue I am getting now.

The public are not concerned with what revenue the Minister loses; they are concerned with what it costs to get the article. It means a great deal to people who have been accustomed to having this cream. He is treating this matter far too lightly. He is increasing the burden on the people. I expected more from the Minister. I hoped he would have thought of reducing the burden of the people instead of increasing it. He always says so, but, in fact and practice, it does not work out so.

He is protecting a South African industry.

Where is the South African industry? Practically none. Cream is produced from milk, and all the milk you can produce in the country can be sold at good prices. Then the Minister proposes to put a tax of 2s. pel’ 100 lbs. on lead. I agree that if it is done with the object of encouraging that industry, it is all right, but there is no control whatever, of the price. I submit there should be some control. If the Board of Trade is able to suggest an increased tax, it should be within their province to suggest a way by which the consumer can be protected, but they have not done so. Here is also a proposal which deals with hawkers and pedlars. Both the provincial councils and the Union Government impose taxation upon hawkers and pedlars, and it seems to me that this will perpetuate the double taxation at present existing. We want to get away from that, and I would ask the Minister to seriously consider how he can prevent the one imposing on the other. We have at present in the Transvaal a poll tax, which is based on the income tax. I ask the Minister to consider whether we should not have only one body taxing any particular item. In view of the fact that he is about to alter the Income Tax Bill, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will reconsider very seriously the doing away with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1925, in which, in sub-section 4 (2), the abatement of £600 disappears gradually.—

The original income tax was introduced into this country some 12 or 15 years ago. The amount of the tax then was 6d. rising on incomes over £1,000 per annum. That was the thin edge of the wedge. Then came the then Government and they said: “No, you must pay 1s on every £1 you have over £300.” But that £300 was always an abatement. I am asking the Minister whether it is not time we reverted to the old system?

In his budget speech the Minister of Finance notified that certain customs duties would be reduced and abolished. I see nothing of that here.

It will come in the Bills. We are only dealing here with increases, and not with reductions.

Then I should like the Minister to tell me when the reduced tariff will come into force.

As soon as the Bill is passed.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to Section 11, subsection 2 (g) and to the first words reading as follows—

This has always been a bone of contention between taxpayers and the department.

I will deal with that when the Bill comes on.

Then I will take my opportunity then.

I am sorry that here are several omissions of things which I should have liked to have seen in this Bill. According to his statement the Minister does not intend dealing at all with the sugar position. I should have liked to have heard from him that he had some intention of amending Act 47 of 1926, because it is bearing very hardly on all the small grocers of the Union. As he knows, the price of sugar since he put on that increased duty last year has gone up very considerably. It has gone up about 15 per cent. and the result is that no grocer can possibly sell sugar and make a penny profit. He cannot earn a living out of it.

We are not now discussing the Sugar Prices Bill.

No, but I would like to have seen in these suggested alterations some provision to put this matter right.

You want to increase the duty on sugar?

We want you to do something to it. We want the Minister to amend the Act—No. 47 of 1926—and allow the small shopkeeper, at any rate, to earn a living at his work. As I pointed out earlier this session, the price is something in the neighbourhood of 28s. 6d., which leaves him practically no profit. Then the Minister will have noticed that the Provincial Council of Natal is bringing in an income tax measure. I ask him whether he has taken steps to prevent the same state of affairs occurring in Natal as happened in the Transvaal. As far as I can see from reading a telegraphic summary, the same position is going to take place in Natal as took place in the Transvaal. Is the Minister not going to bring in some clause putting that matter entirely straight? I notice that the Minister is still sticking to the 2s. 6d. in the pound taxation of companies. Every year the iniquity of this becomes accentuated. In the last report of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, it is shown that the average taxation of individuals is at the rate of 7.28 pence, whereas the taxation rate of companies is 31.7 pence, or four times the rate on individuals. I must say he has never given any reasons to this House why he deals with companies in such a drastic manner. One would imagine a company is an illegal association which he is trying to tax out of existence. As regards alterations in licences, the Minister does not seem entirely to appreciate the enormous difference between a £10 licence for a whole province and a £5 licence to cover a municipal area. Previously a £10 licence covered the Union.

A £10 licence covered the provinces, and a separate £5 licence the urban areas.

Do I understand that the £5 licence for an urban area is to remain? If so, a man would have to take out an urban area licence and a rural area licence. Take as an example the district we are in now. A hawker will have to take out a licence for the Cape Town Municipality, and crossing a road, he will have to take out one for the Wynberg Municipality. If he goes a little further he will have to take out one for Simonstown, and if he goes across the railway line at Pinelands he will have to take out another licence. It is going to be a greater burden on the hawker than appears from the resolution. This restriction means a very large increase in hawkers’ licences. I would also like the Minister to deal with licences of smaller trades.

We are doing that.

It is not shown in here. I am referring to mineral water licences, which cost £3, and which bear very hardly on small stores up-country. I should like to see the Minister delete that licence. Another licence which falls very hardly is the tea room licence of £5.

Is the hon. member now dealing with items which do not appear in the motion?

I am suggesting that the hon. Minister might deal with the matters I am raising.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions with reference to customs dues. I see the Minister proposes to raise the duty on barley, and I want to ask him whether he does not see his way to slightly raise the duty on wheat now. In the second place I want to ask him although it is not mentioned here whether he cannot still include it in the Bill which he will introduce. I ask these two questions because it is well known and generally acknowledged that the price of wheat in the country depends on the import of wheat from other countries. The report of the Board of Trade and Industries mentioned this quite clearly.

We dealt with that last year and it is now disposed of.

It is in the report No. 67 of 1926, and it is also recommended to raise the customs duty on wheat.

That was done.

The duty was increased 5d. per 100 lbs. on flour.

On wheat as well.

What appears to be the case, however? The price of wheat this year is 3s. per bag less than last year. And what about the future? If we refer to the latest report of the Board of Trade and Industries we see that they say that there is every chance of the price of bread shortly being put up in consequence of the application of the new wages provision. While, according to the report, the bakers on the Witwatersrand are quite satisfied with the wages, prominent bakers at Pretoria say that the price of bread will probably have to be increased by 1d. per 2 lbs. In Durban also an increase is expected according to the 1927 report. And what do we find? That the farmers always suffer under such a thing. The farmers do not co-operate like the millers and bakers and therefore suffer most. There are so many setbacks in farming, such as drought, etc., that there is usually precious little over for the farmers, and I shall be very pleased if the Minister of Finance will see his way to increase the duty on wheat.

Those of my fellow victims who remember the speech on the budget by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) still shudder at the recollection of it, not only for the matter it contained, but for the time it took in delivery. It occupies 14 columns of Hansard and took from one-fiftieth to one-twentieth of the time allotted to private members on the budget debate. I propose to deal with that portion of it in which he referred to the income tax, and pleaded for raising the exemption limit. [Speech quoted Hansard column 2305.] One would have thought that the hon. member would have made a claim for the average person he spoke of whose income is only £43 a year, but instead of doing that, he urged that the income tax abatement should be increased to £500, or else that the abatement allowed for children should be raised. That, he remarked, would be a reduction in taxation that would be of benefit to people. What people? His plea, I take it, is not for the bachelor or for the married man without children, nor is it for the married mat in receipt of a comfortable income who has only one or two children. I take it that any plea addressed to this House on behalf of the average man must commence in the case of a married man who has at least three children. Let us examine the income tax position of such a man. He gets a primary abatement of £400, and in respect of each child under 18 he receives an abatement of £60 a year in addition. I assume that a married man with a family carries a certain amount of life assurance, and would not pay less than £20 a year as a premium. If that is the case, his total abatement comes to £600 a year. Is that the man the hon. member is pleading for? It is not as if this were an isolated utterance, but it comes every year from the party for which the hon. member acts as the financial mouthpiece, and it leaves me absolutely flabbergasted. I was sneered at this afternoon by a member of the Labour party because I persuaded the Minister last year not to increase the duty on boys’ clothing, and was told that I spoke for the “big interests.” If it is meant by that, the interests of the ordinary taxpayer, I do, but when have I spoken for big interests, if that means big financial interests? What does the hon. member for Troyeville’s plea amount to? A cheap attempt to obtain popularity. Under the circumstances I have just outlined, a man with a wife and three children receiving £700 a year, pays only £5 in income tax. If he earns £1,000 a year he pays £22 8s. 1d. Is anybody going to say, whatever party he belongs to, that a man in receipt of a parliamentary income of £700 a year should not pay £5 a year to the State? And to think that plea should be addressed to this House in respect of those persons. I would respect the hon. members more if their appeals were addressed on behalf of the poor people of the country who have to pay in other directions, through customs and excise. Every time we get this plea for increased abatement in income tax. Let me give you one or two sets of figures which I have taken from the report of the commissioner of Inland Revenue showing what abatements are received. In the case of taxpayers whose income ranges between £301 and £400 their total taxable income is £7,650,000 and in abatement they get £6,250,000. In the case of those incomes between £401 and £500 the total taxable income is £8,600,000 and the total abatement £6,250,000. For incomes between £501 and £600 the total taxable income is £7,250,000 and the total abatement £4,750,000. For incomes between £601 and £700 the total taxable income is nearly £5,500,000 and the abatement £3,000,000. I say deliberately, that any plea addressed on behalf of these persons is either made in ignorance or is a deliberate attempt at vote-catching, and no honest Minister of Finance or financial critic can fairly say that these people do not escape very largely the burden of taxation in regard to income tax and no Minister of Finance can be expected to go further than the present Act goes. It is right these people should bear their burdens, and if a man earns £600 or £700 it is right he should bear his fair share of taxation. Coupled with this annual plea of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is another plea, specious on the face of it, and unfair, namely, that the income tax should be stiffened up in the higher grades. Let me confront the hon. gentleman with some cold facts. Our total taxable income in regard to normal tax was £61,250,000 in the year under review. If you eliminate the persons with less than £2,000 a year what is left is £11,250,000. In other words the proportion of our total taxable income earned by people earning £2,000 a year is only £11,250,000 out of £61,250,000. If you did stiffen it up would you really get more income and benefit the country? We know to-day the normal tax goes up to 2s in the £ and the supertax goes up to 5s. in the £, and if you take the case of the ordinary wealthy man whose income is derived from dividends on mining companies then the Minister will agree that he pays 8s. in the £ because the company pays 3s. in the £ on its dividends. A man may have a large income and pay 8s. of it in the £ in taxation to the State. Does that not satisfy the desire and the needs of my hon. friend for the stiffening up of the income tax in the higher grades? Can he say the rich escape their share of the burden? Surely not. The hon. member should reflect before making anymore of these election speeches. An hon. member like the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) who has a numerous family and a parliamentary income of £700 a year does not pay a single penny of income tax.

You are wrong.

Then you must be earning more than I thought. If you pay on the £700, it would be £5 a year. If the Labour members persist in this debate, it is not in seriousness, but it is a trap set to catch the unwary elector in the country. Any reduction of the income tax or increase of abatement is really shifting the burden off the few on to the many. Income has to be raised somewhere, and if you lessen the burden of income tax, we know it will come from the customs and excise, and will be paid by the many instead of the few. The total number of income taxpayers of the country is only 90,000, and the plea for the income tax-payer is a plea for this 90,000 instead of the 7,000,000. and then we are told these people represent the proletariat, the poor people. This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) pleading the case of the merchant against the hawker, saying that the shopkeeper should be protected against these nefarious hawkers who commit the unspeakable crime of underselling the trader, and that they should be put down by law. My friends on this side are too fond of referring to the hon. member for Troyeville as a bolshevik. If he went to Russia, he would be shot as a bourgeois. He is always putting forward the view of the middle class. He is as much a bolshevik as I am. So far from pleading the case of the poor man, you get appeals to lessen the income tax in the case of a man getting between £600 and £800 a year.

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

When the House adjourned, I was telling hon. members what I thought about the plea advanced by my hon. friend for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) for a reduction on the income tax, or rather an increase of the abatement, and I tried to show that the hon. member is in this dilemma, that he is either pleading the cause of income tax payers whose income is below £600. in which case he is pleading the cause of the bachelor or the married man without children, or else he is pleading the cause of the income taxpayer whose income exceeds £600, in which case he is pleading the cause of the man with a very substantial income who ought to contribute towards the Treasury. I have the figures showing the total number of income tax-payers in the whole Union. The total is 85,729. Of these 63,758 are married, and 21,971 are unmarried. I take it that the hon. member advances no plea on behalf of the unmarried income tax-payer. The total number of married income tax-payers, as I have stated, is under 64,000. The number of persons whose incomes are between £600 and £1,000 is only 19,000, of whom just on 17,000 are married and 2,500 unmarried. So it comes to this, that the hon. member’s plea is really on behalf of 17,000 income tax-payers. As I said before, it is a plea for the few as opposed to the many. I would have been very much more impressed if the hon. gentleman had devoted a little more of his eloquence and his time to pleading the cause of the poor man and the consumer in this country. I want to say a word to the Minister of Finance on the question of the income tax and its collection. I have a fear that the Minister is not getting in the revenue that he ought to receive from the income tax.

I do not think the hon. member can discuss that now.

We are dealing with a motion to impose certain rates of income tax, and the point I am going to raise would come under—

I was under the impression that the hon. member wished to discuss the administration of the present law.

It arises in that way, that if the administration is not tightened up, the rates will have to be revised. The existing rates will not be adequate for the revenue which ought to come in. My fear is this, that the Treasury is not getting the revenue in regard to income tax that it can legitimately expect to do, especially from large bodies of professional men. There are some doctors in this House, and they will be interested to know that the total taxable income returned by the medical profession throughout the whole of the Union of South Africa is £985,000. I have got the exact figures from the Department of the Interior as to the number of doctors and dentists in South Africa. There are 1,833 doctors and 588 dentists, giving a total of 2,421. If you divide that into the total of taxable income returned, it shows an average of just £400 a year. I would ask the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) to tell me this, does he believe that the average income of the doctors and dentists throughout South Africa is only £400 a year? Surely it is absurd. I say to the Minister of Finance, I am satisfied that a great deal of income tax which should come to the State from professional men—I am only taking the medical profession as one instance; possibly in regard to my own profession the same inquiry could be pursued with advantage—but to tell me that the average income of the medical profession throughout South Africa is only £400 a year is absurd. I suggest that a great deal of tightening up should be done. The taxable income of the legal profession is returned at nearly £1,500,000 a year, as opposed to £985,000 for the medical profession. Coming to the Minister’s taxation proposals in the motion before the House, I see that he is giving another turn, a small turn, it is true, to the screw of taxation, and he is putting higher protective duties on certain essential commodities used by the consuming public in South Africa. He is putting a tax, a suspensive tax, on barley and other cereals, he is increasing the duty on condensed or preserved cream by 1½d. per lb., and so the process goes on. The Minister is moderate in his demands this year compared with last year, it is true, but we are again asked to agree to a further tax on essential commodities in this country. The more taxes you put on food and other commodities, the more the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) seems to be pleased. He has a faithful follower in the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), but let me say this, that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) even went so far as to criticize the Minister for agreeing not to impose last year the protective duties on boys’ clothing. The fact that there was no factory in South Africa which made boys’ clothing, which undoubtedly induced the Minister not to impose that duty, counts for nothing with, shall I say, high protectionists gone mad, like the hon. member for Pretoria (West) and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). Protect, protect, protect, build your tariff walls higher and higher, send up your cost of living, and then hope that somehow means will be found for people to pay. Last year’s surplus that the Minister announced in this House as such a surprise packet amounted to £1,150,000. Of that surplus, no less than a little over £1,000,000 came from extra customs and excise duties. From customs there was £847,000 more than was anticipated, and from excise £155,000 more than was anticipated. So that practically the whole of the surplus was due to these extra customs duties. In this year’s estimated collection of revenue, amounting to £20,000,000, £10,000,000 comes from these two items. In other words, the people of this country are paying this year something over £10,000,000 into the exchequer in customs and excise. It is not the people who pay that; it is the merchants and importers, and for every pound they pay, the consumer will probably pay two. The complaint of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is that the protective wall has not been brought high enough. Let us come down to bedrock. The native who has to buy blankets pays two or three times as much under the present Government as he had to pay under the old Government. The very poorest pay more for clothes and food under this Government than they ever did under the old Government. Every year we come up with a fresh turn of the screw of taxation, and the so-called defenders of the poorer classes on the cross benches strafe the Minister because he has not made the burden heavier. Let me give this to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) to take back to his constituents. This is what was collected last year by the customs department in duties on the ordinary necessities of life, such as are used by the poor: Clothing, £800,000; hats and caps, £155,000; boots and shoes, £330,000; woollen piece goods, £57,000; cotton piece goods, £330,000; blankets, £400,000; haberdashery and drapery, £280,000; and articles of food and drink, £1,075,000; a total of £3,500,000, which, as I say, when the taxpayer paid it, probably swelled to £7,000,000. I suggest the so-called defenders of the poor man might study these figures, and ask themselves whether they could not do a useful thing in asking the Minister to reduce this burden.

Are you a free trader, or a protectionist?

I am a free trader, undoubtedly, because I believe that the ideal of free trade, though not really understood in this country, is the one to which we should strive, because it reduces the burden of the ordinary consumer in this country. This mad race for protection is like a cat chasing its own tail. I now come to the specific duties. There is a protective duty put on for the benefit of one particular factory, for making cream, and a duty for one particular factory which makes sheet lead. There was a duty on wrapping paper which was put on by the last Government to assist a paper factory which was started in the Transvaal. They put a duty of a halfpenny per pound on wrapping paper. They did it with the laudable object of allowing that factory to carry on. What happened? That factory is dead. It closed down two years ago, but the duty is still on the Minister’s schedule, and every consumer throughout South Africa pays that tax in general revenue. Then there was a duty put on rubber manufactured goods for the benefit of one factory in Natal. Every consumer of tyres, rubber heels, and so on, had to pay tribute to that factory. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) once worked out a calculation that it would pay this country to give a pension of £300 a year to every white employee of the sugar industry in Natal, and we would profit by the bargain, instead of making the consumer in South Africa pay as he does for his sugar.

What about boots?

The Minister is, no doubt, a very excellent Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, but he knows nothing about boots or the duty on boots. That duty was imposed by the late South African party Government. I am not defending their action; I fought against it at the time. It was put on in the form of a descending duty until it reached reasonable limits, and that is the law to-day.

Is the industry dead as a result of it?

Of course not. You could build up a motor-car industry in this country for the manufacture of motor-car engines, if you gave a high enough protection, but in the end the consumer would have to pay. Finally, the Minister is giving further relief to life insurance companies. Most of us believe they fulfil a very useful function. But has the Minister ever paused to inquire as to what happens to the enormous accumulated funds these societies have? They charge premiums which, in my opinion, are entirely out of proportion to the service they give. To-day the average life of the human being is 10 or 12 years longer than it was a couple of generations ago, but, as far as I know, the insurance premium remains the same. The cost of effecting an assurance is something like 50 per cent. of the premium charged. I would ask the Minister to one day turn attention to the profits of insurance companies, to ask himself whether they are reasonably charging such a premium as they should charge. If they are to be favoured by the State, we should know a little more about their operations. I am all for helping them, but I think the Treasury should make a full inquiry into their methods and into what happens to these accumulated profits. I believe insurance in this country to be done at a much cheaper rate than the tariffs charged among many insurance companies to-day.

The point the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has made in connection with income tax I have been advocating, and the Labour party have been advocating, from time to time is incomplete. I indicated very clearly, and I think every member of the Labour party agrees, that the amount of revenue which might be lost as the result of an additional abatement could be made up, not by taxing the poorer classes, but by making the tax steeper in respect of the very wealthy sections of the community. Once that is accepted, the whole of his criticism falls away. I would like to ask him whether he is against the abatement I have indicated? If so, I would like to remind him of a little incident which took place in 1921. During that session I, on behalf of the Labour party, advocated an abatement in the income tax up to £600 per annum. That amendment was defeated, The then member for Parktown, speaking on behalf of the Unionist party, moved an amendment to increase the abatement to £500. Unfortunately for the Unionist party, they anticipated that the Opposition would not support them, and they could make a little party capital without getting the necessary abatement for the people for whom they pleaded, but, unfortunately, the Opposition decided to support that amendment, and it was carried, to the consternation of the Unionist party. I presume that to some extent, at any rate, they believed in that principle, and if it was right then it is right to-day. The hon. member has omitted to mention that in asking for that abatement, and I still do so, we indicated that the treasury might recover the amount it lost by making the tax steeper on people with incomes of £1,000 and upwards, and certainly on people with unearned incomes. The hon. member went on to talk about the poorer classes. On the cross benches we have put up a strenuous fight to improve the lot of the small people, and the best method of relief is, firstly, to pursue a policy of creating employment and creating more avenues of employment so that they get better wages, and secondly, by supporting us in our policy for a national minimum wage. I support a policy of protection which would create avenues of employment and enable workers to get better wages. With regard to formers, I have indicated already the methods by which they can be protected. I have on various occasions said that the farmer is entitled to a certain amount of protection, and it would enable him to pay better wages. By guaranteeing him a price for his produce and controlling imports, so that he shall not be subject to outside competition, he could pay these wages. We are in sympathy with the Government in the policy of protection on which they have embarked, but when that policy was adopted it was conditional upon certain protection of the workers in respect of conditions of labour and the consumers in respect of prices. This was provided for by Clause 4 of the Tariff Act, and I should like to urge upon the Minister that some definite steps be taken to see that the provisions of Clause 4 is enforced, so that the worker and consumer shall be protected. They should definitely act and see that industries which are not carrying out the conditions should come under the minimum tariff. I want to touch on the question which arises in connection with protection with regard to the subsidy on sugar exported. As 66,000 tons were exported last year at £15 per ton, as against £25 per ton charged in the Union, the people of South Africa were subsidizing the industry to the extent of £660,000. The position to-day, as one gathers from the press, is that sugar is sold in England for 17s. per 100 lbs., and in South Africa from 28s. to 30s. If the world’s market is to be followed, there is no reason why that subsidy should be given to the sugar industry. If the world’s prices are high, then in South Africa they will insist upon the world prices being paid. I see no reason why that principle should not be applied when the world’s prices are low, and thus assist the general community. I would not press that to such an extent if the sugar industry secured large avenues of employment for the white population of South Africa, but the position, as far as conditions of labour are concerned, is that an overwhelming number of employees, something like 40,000 natives, are employed in the sugar industry; I have not the figures of the Indians, and 600 Europeans. I say, without any hesitation, that if the sugar industry should receive a subsidy, one of the conditions that should be imposed is that there should be adequate conditions of employment and a better opportunity than is given at present for the employment of white people. I hope the Minister, in spite of the arrangement made last year, if he cannot alter it, will see that something should be given to the consumers, that better conditions are secured, and that there are more avenues of employment for the white people. Questions have been put in connection with illicit liquor, and although I agree with the Minister of Justice that it would be a mistake and futile to introduce piecemeal legislation in connection with the liquor industry, I do think the Minister of Finance could materially alleviate the position if he put a substantial duty on imported yeast, because I have been credibly informed that the bulk of the yeast utilized in the illicit trade is imported, and the yeast manufactured in the country is only adequate for normal requirements. I hope the Minister will’ take into consideration whether he could impose such a duty.

The hon. member who has just sat down has said that so long as a decently high wage is paid there will be more money for the purpose of protection, and all will be well, but he loses sight of the question: Where is the money to pay these wages to come from? The hon. member says there is no great difficulty about that. He says, safeguard imports, safeguard exports, and safeguard the wages of the workers, and there will be no difficulty at all. He loses sight of the obvious fact that we are dependent upon the world’s markets; where are we going to sell our wool, our maize and all the other products we are exporting to-day? I don’t suppose the Minister of Agriculture has yet disturbed himself to inquire into the circumstances under which additional duty on wool has been imposed in Scandanavian countries. Some of our semi-political commissioners might inquire into it. In effect the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) bases his case on what happens in! America, where it is said enormously high wages are paid, and the prosperity of the country is prodigious. He argues from that that the scale of wages should be raised in South Africa, and then there would be more money available for the purchase of manufactured articles; there would be more factories and imports would cease. But who is going to buy the things we produce—if we cannot send them overseas, what are we going to do with them? How long will it be before we shall be able to build up a population sufficiently numerous to create a home market to counterbalance the loss of the overseas markets? What we shall do if we are wise is to cut our coat according to our cloth, and not spend more money than is absolutely necessary, for the more money we spend the less there will be to enable people to develop fresh industries and the natural resources of the country. The very comfortable theory is prevalent overseas that in South Africa we are very lightly taxed, but that is a perfect fallacy resting on the idea that we pay less income tax than they do in England where there are special reasons for a heavy burden of taxation. People who say this ignore that fact that in America, which is always held up to us as an example to be followed, direct taxation is extraordinarily low. I have some figures which I have every reason to believe are perfectly accurate. These figures give a comparison of the amounts paid in income tax by a married man with three children, who is the class of person to be considered. The relative figures are: Income £1,000 tax, United States 13s. 6d. South Africa £23 8s.: £2,000. South Africa £83 1s. 5d., United States £12 17s.; £4,000. South Africa £442 9s. 1d., United States £114 15s.; £10,000, South Africa £2,041 13s. 4d., United States £965. The result of all that means that the people in the United States are able to keep their savings which are available for investment and starting industries and developing the country. The only way we can do that is to see that the country is conducted on economical lines. The Minister of Finance told us that he has not spent a penny more than is necessary, and I am glad to see that the extra duties are only those mentioned in the proposals before us. Considering the attitude of hon. members on the cross-benches, I think the country has got off rather lightly, but that is the best that we can say. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has shown fairly conclusively that some of these new duties are not very necessary, and are going to increase the cost of living. He knows what he is talking about, and I am quite sure he is right. Still, possibly what some of us have said on this subject may have borne some fruit, and I am very glad to recognize that the Minister of Finance has not pushed to extreme lengths this year this policy of protecting all and every class of industry that asks for protection. The natural result of that will be that the few people who are conducting non-competitive industries will be able to continue them at the expense of the rest of the population. I hope the Minister of Finance will continue in the policy of moderation. It requires tome courage to do that against all the pressure applied to him from people on the other side, who do not see that, in the end, the things they advocate are going to hit them very hard. In this country We are not so very lightly taxed, and, looking ahead, I should not be surprised if we are not more heavily taxed. The expense of running the railways is increasing by leaps and bounds, and when we say that these proposed new taxes are not in themselves particularly onerous we must bear in mind that they are not the only taxes. We have provincial taxation which is on the up-grade, and I hope the Minister will put his thumb on these provincial councils and see that they do not ride roughshod through the people’s pockets. Then people living in urban areas have to pay rates which are by no means light. Owing to this protectionist policy, we now pay considerably enhanced prices for most of the commodities we purchase. When you put 30 per cent. on an imported pair of boots you pay about 28 per cent. more for boots made in this country than you did before, for the price of the South African article goes up to just below that of the imported article. I quite agree there are certain industries, particularly those which deal with the natural products of the soil, which it is worth while to protect, but to protect all kinds of things which are going to employ only a few people at the expense of the whole country is a policy we should in no way approve of.

In supporting the Government policy and that which has been so ably expressed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), I would ask the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), when he quoted the figures regarding the amounts paid in income tax in the United States, why he did not pause to consider that their modest dimensions in comparison with the taxation paid here is chiefly owing to America’s protectionist policy, and whether that policy is not responsible for the exceedingly prosperous state of America to-day. I would not like the Minister to go to the extreme in protection, but I consider the Government’s policy is a very wise one, especially in regard to lead. We first of all consider the people in South Africa, whether in work or out of work. There are 13,000 more workers engaged in the railway workshops to-day than there were three and a half years ago. The relief workers also have been reduced from 10,000 to 2,000. When we took office there were roughly 500 apprentices; now there are 2,000. We also realise that although the Government is spending more, naturally as the business of the country increases so the expenses grow. While we have been importing less we have been spending more in the country, which means a greater circulation of money, and ultimately leads to increased working expenses of the State. It surprises me to hear hon. members opposite talk about free trade. We have read recently what has been happening in China where the British-owned industries in the international settlement have increased tremendously during the past five years. China is importing from Great Britain over £6,000,000 less of cotton goods than she did previously, because British and American capital has created industries in China, not for the benefit of the Chinese, but for the benefit of a few financiers. This is the policy of the Opposition—import from the cheapest country, and sell in your own country at the highest price. If that policy were carried out extensively, it would mean the destruction of the people of this country. America, New Zealand, Australia, and even Great Britain built up their manufactures by a protectionist policy. Recently Great Britain has been a free trade country owing chiefly to the fact that Great Britain had previously built up her industries as an island and, therefore, had been cut off from the competitive system. All countries have built themselves up on the principle of protecting their own products. If we depart from that policy, not only shall we throw out of employment the workers of South Africa, to the advantage of nations living on the lowest civilized scale, which naturally would gain an advantage, not for itself, but for the few exploiters who run the factories. In 1921 over £27,000,000 was withdrawn from British industries and invested in German industries, because there were greater profits to be made in Germany on account of the deflation of its currency. Humanity with few exceptions are selfish, and as individuals are mainly selfish so are nations. It behaves us to see that if conditions in other countries are selfish owing to nations being selfish to be also selfish and look out after our own people. What right have we to find work for people in Japan, China, Austria or Germany? If we produce commodities in this country, we find work for the people of this country, and therefore find work for our own people, and leave other countries to look after their own people. We spend a large amount of money in sending representatives to the League or Nations to discuss economic policy, but the majority of countries represented there will gain an advantage if we meet them on an equal footing. The Chinese people were hostile to industrial employment in the international settlements when they were created, but they were forced into it and now they are manufacturing goods which they are exporting. What right have we to consider them? I would like to see the Minister bring in a policy whereby any article manufactured in another country by people living on a lower economic standard than the people of South Africa should be taxed to the equivalent of what it would cost if produced in our country. That would give the higher civilization an opportunity of living. If we follow a policy of free trade we should see people on a lower plane living at the expense of those who belong to a higher civilization. If we take the statistics before the war dealing with the question of the cost of the manufacture of goods and take the figure of 17/9 in South Africa it works down to 6/1½ in China, 6s. 3d. in India, and 6/3¾d. in Japan, and yet free traders expect us to receive goods from those countries in competition with the goods manufactured on our standard. I hope and trust the majority of this House will stand, not for the profits of the few which free trade means, but for the profit to the greater number of the people of South Africa as a whole, realizing that through the transition periods where industries are first created there must be a few who make great profits and pile up great wealth by doing so.

We have had a good deal of discussion, but I think very little has been actually said in regard to the very modest proposals of taxation before the House. We have had the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), assisted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), holding forth against the evils of protection, but his criticism this afternoon has been less robust and virile than usual, so much so that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has not thought it worth while to intervene and give his annual lecture on the benefits of protection. The hon. member criticised the position of extra duties on cream. He has pointed out that the dairy industry already enjoys sufficient protection, but figures have been quoted to show that we still import large quantities of milk which should be produced in this country. It is true that at certain seasons of the year there is a scarcity of milk, but it is a shame that we should import so much milk. If we set our house in order the time should come when we need not import dairy produce at all, and when we should be in a position to export. If these duties are put on, it will not mean an increase in the prices of these commodities in the Union. We merely want to obtain for the local industry a local market, and it will not mean any increase.

That statement has been made very often.

And very often it is true.

Didn’t you tell us the price of sugar would not go up?

It has not gone up. We have controlled it by legislation.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) sells sugar and knows more about it.

I have heard no complaint from the consumer that he is paying more. Perhaps the hon. member, judging by the criticisms, is selling more and making less profit, and perhaps that is the complaint.

You are sweating the grocer.

Well, if it does not pay, then the grocer need not sell the sugar. It is the duty of the producer to distribute his own article. If the grocer is not making sufficient, and, therefore, will not perform the duty, the producers will make other arrangements to distribute their products.

That will not make it cheaper.

If the producers do not give the grocer a fair deal they can make their own arrangements. I cannot interfere with that. The late Government tried to control the price of sugar all along the line, but it was not a success. We are concerned in seeing the consumer does not pay more than before, and we leave the arrangements to the trade. As far as cream is concerned, my hon. friend need not trouble about the poor. That is an article of Luxury. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it was a case of taxing the food of the poor, and my hon. friend referred to malt. Does my hon. friend know what malt is used for? I do not think it will increase the price of beer. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has raised the question of applying Article 4 of the Customs Act in cases where we have increased protection to see proper labour conditions are observed in industries which receive protection. That is a matter which should be regulated by the Wages Boards in the country. We have incorporated the principle in legislation. I informed the House at the time when incorporating this principle that it might be difficult to have it carried out. Some firms may be observing the proper conditions of labour and others not, and you cannot penalize these because of those who are failing. It would be difficult to apply the principles of the Act to cases where you have a number of industries, and only in some of them the proper conditions of labour are not maintained. We can trust the Wage Board to see sweating does not take place. He also dealt with the position of the protection we afforded to sugar last year. I do not think that at this stage we should revise the arrangement the House deliberately accepted last year. It was only done after a full investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries. The House decided we should afford this measure of protection to the industry. On the whole, I do not think we are paying too high a price for sugar in this country. The hon. member also dealt with the question of yeast. I am considering the question whether or not we could control importation by licence. I do not think we can deal with it by customs duty. We have a local industry manufacturing this article. If we put on a customs duty it would allow this company to put up the price to an unreasonable level. We are thinking of giving additional power to the Commissioner of Police in regard to the issue of licences in order that it shall not go into illicit channels. The position with regard to methylated spirits is not the same as the position with regard to yeast. As regards the question of hawkers’ licences, I was rather surprised to find my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) advocating the doing away with the present control provisions. I am quite sure that opinion will not be shared by the commercial community in general in South Africa, that licensing boards should have a say in regard to the issue of licences to these people.

It is not licensing boards; it is the local authority.

Very strong representations have been made to me for this legislation by the local authorities all over the country, who are insisting that they should have an opportunity before a licence is issued to a hawker especially, of saying whether such a licence should be issued or not. As a matter of fact, they are going further. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) this afternoon mentioned the matter. In the Transvaal especially the demand is now made that the local authority shall not only control the issue of licences, but shall also control the methods of trading, and we propose giving the local authorities that right in a Bill which will be introduced by me later on in the session. Various municipalities now are pressing me, and I had a deputation from a number of members of Parliament.

What methods of trading?

Preventing them from trading within a certain radius from an established general dealer’s business. I do not know how far they intend going in regard to control, but seeing that it is a burning question and that the Union Parliament is not prepared to deal with the matter, I think it is only fair that we should give these powers to the provincial councils, and if they want to deal with the matter in a particular province, they should have the right to do so. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford asked me about the provincial legislation in regard to income tax. I informed him on a former occasion that I intend to deal with the matter in a Bill to be introduced to lay down that they will be limited to the taxation of their own residents, instead of, as they are at present being limited in regard to the source of income. At present they have the right to impose income tax on income derived within the province, and also tax residents outside that province. I propose to alter that by saying that they shall only tax their own residents, and leave the question of source alone.

What about the legislation of the Natal Provincial Council?

I do not pretend to prescribe to these councils what they shall do and what they shall not do. If they go outside the scope of their authority then, of course, their legislation will be declared ultra vires. I discussed the matter with the Administrator of Natal some weeks ago, and he fully agrees to the proposed legislation, and I have no doubt that they will keep within the limits of that legislation.

Are you going to take residence as the principle?

Yes, that will apply to all the provinces. Instead of having the taxation based on incomes derived within the province I am now going to confine it to residents. That meets with the general approval and I think it would be much fairer. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) rather suggested that the income tax department was somewhat lax in collecting income tax from certain classes of professional men, and he deduced that from certain statistics contained in the report of the department. I think my hon. friend is wrong in the conclusion which he has drawn, because he has not noticed that dentists are not included under “medical.” They are included under other professions.

No, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue told us that dentists were included under the medical profession.

No, my information is that they are not so included, but they are included under other professions.

He told us that they were included under that profession.

I think my hon. friend misunderstood him. Then my hon. friend’s figure is quite wrong when he says that the average income of the medical men is only £400 on which they are taxed. Then he has raised the question of high premiums and excessive profits of insurance companies. The hon. member knows that life insurance in this country is a highly competitive business, and I am quite sure that if any particular company, or a number of companies were quoting unduly high rates they would soon find that the business would be taken from them by other companies. Under the legislation which we passed some years ago all these companies must furnish to the Treasury annually very elaborate returns. Seeing that in the case of mutual companies—most of them are mutual companies—their directors are elected from time to time, I think we can leave it to the policyholders to see that the right men are elected as directors to these companies, and they will see that a proper distribution of bonuses is made. I know that one of the companies only last year increased the bonus given to members.

They never reduced the rates.

I think that is the form in which they should distribute their benefits to their policyholders. They must, of course, be careful to see that their earnings are such that they are in a position at all times to meet their liabilities to policyholders. I have replied to the question of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). I do not know whether he heard. I informed the House just now, that I intended introducing that Bill to give the rights of control over the methods of trading of hawkers to the provincial councils. That Bill will come on in a few days’ time.

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

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question, and I am very glad the Prime Minister is also here. I notice in this morning’s paper that the Norwegian Government have placed a duty on wool. Does my hon. friend know anything about it, and have representations been made by our trade commissioner on the Continent? Perhaps my hon. friend has already instructed the trade commissioner to enquire as to what are the reasons and so forth.

I want to ask the Minister a question about the tobacco co-operative society in the Vredefort district. He will remember that I asked him the question about six weeks ago, whether he was entitled to make this co-operation compulsory. I understand that the Minister said that 75 per cent. of the producers are members of the co-operative society but I am informed that the Minister did not have the right of making that co-operative society compulsory: The people are surprised that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has not yet raised the matter.

You were wrongly informed.

No, the hon. member has neglected his duty. The Minister has never yet had 75 per cent. of the producers and he has not got that percentage to-day. I have been asked by someone in Vredefort if the Minister will not have a vote taken. It will be fair towards the tobacco producers in that district if it is done. It is a burning question there, and it seems to me that the Minister has not treated the people fairly. The Minister told me that he got his information from his excise returns, but he gave me the data for 1924-’25. He ought to have supplied the data for 1925-’26. He knows how many producers there were in the district in 1925-’26, and how many of them were members of the society. I shall, therefore, be glad if the Minister will tell me what he is going to do in the matter. If he is not going to have a vote taken I should like to know why not. The people are very angry and it seems to me that they are right in being so, because they have not been well treated by the Minister.

I wish to ask the Minister a question in regard to the cattle industry, and particularly in regard to the conditions the industry is now in, owing to the embargo on importing cattle from England, because of foot-and-mouth disease. We are all aware that it is essential to keep any disease out of the country, but I would like to point out that in the case of this particular disease it is recognized that the incubation period is only a matter of eight to ten days, and here we have the position that farmers are not able to import stock from England, because of this disease. The incubation period, as I say, is only eight to ten days and, therefore, any animal coming from England, if infected before it leaves England, will certainly show the disease before it arrives here. Further, farmers with whom I have discussed it ask why should not animals be allowed to come to this country and be placed in quarantine? All foodstuffs and bedding could be destroyed at sea. The animal itself can go as a matter of course into quarantine when it gets to the port, and go through quarantine not only for foot-and-mouth disease, but also for tuberculosis. We all recognize that quarantine is essential if we are to import stock from England, but we also feel that the position is a very serious one for the cattle industry of this country. Our Agricultural Department has for many years been emphasizing that we must import cattle into this country if we are to have an export trade later on. It is essential that we should have an opportunity of importing stock to improve the herds of this country. What is the position to-day? For more than eighteen months we have been unable to import stock from the British Isles owing to foot-and-mouth disease there, and we feel as farmers that the department has been slow and dilatory in their arrangements to quarantine animals. This inaction has irritated farmers very much. We know that for some time the cattle industry has been in the doldrums, but it has been exaggerated by the fact that we have been unable to import stock. If only during these eighteen months we had been able to import 100 bulls, in the natural course we would have another 5,000 head of superior cattle in this country. I know of one man in Rhodesia who took with him orders to Britain for 100 bulls. I think the Minister will realise how important it is to get these cattle from Europe, but I do not think he does realise how necessary it is for us breeders to have better stock. I hope he will see whether it is not possible to arrange a quarantine system, either in England or in this country.

I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister a communication I have received from a man who has had 35 years’ experience of the trade, who says—

I would like to support the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat). Our burning question is to find markets for export cattle. I know that the quality of the cattle is low grade in the majority of instances, but there is a market for it. It is a reproach to the Government that the cattle farmers are in the condition in which they are to-day. One need not go into the details. The Minister knows the different channels in which markets can be found. He has now been in office for three years. In the Union there are 88,340 occupied farms with an area of 99,557,447 morgen, of which only 4¾ millions are arable. Natal is at the head with 10 per cent., the Free State has 9.1 per cent., the Transvaal 8 per cent., and the Cape 2.5 per cent. Out of 9,606,000 head of mature cattle in the last twelve months the losses have been, due to disease and drought, 746,000, and of 4,046,000 sheep and goats losses due to vermin have been 303,000, and stolen and missing 404,000, making a total loss of stock to the value of £8,500,000. The condition of the cattle farmers is most serious. We ought to take advantage of the stud cattle in the country; it does not take many years to improve the breed of cattle, and by this means we could improve the grade of the cattle. I suppose there is no country where cattle can increase in such numbers as in South Africa. If we take the native territories in Natal, in fifteen years the native-owned cattle have increased from 90,000 to 850,000, and in the Transkei, in nine years, the increase was 494,000 to 1,250,000. The present Government has done nothing to find a market for these cattle. Our own home markets we have to share with Rhodesia. Is it any wonder that our farmers are in such a stringent financial condition when we have a Government called a farmers’ Government which leaves them to find a market? When a drought comes along cattle which should have been converted into cash become dry bones littering the veld. Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to do anything, or does he intend to allow the farmers of the Union to be ruined?

I should also like to bring a few points to the notice of the House and of the Minister of Agriculture. In the first place, I want to say something with reference to restrictions imposed on farmers under the Emergency Loan. Act. The restriction on farmers owning stock under that Act is in many cases the cause of great inconvenience, and I should be glad if the Minister will agree to make the restrictions a little less arduous than hitherto. In my district there are many farmers who have got cattle under the Emergency Loan Act who have suffered for almost three years from drought, and according to the regulations they can only use the cattle which they bought under the Act for ploughing, etc., and on account of the drought their cattle have been walking about earning nothing and they were not permitted to make any other use of them. There were many possibilities of their earning something by transport riding or carrying wood, etc., but the restrictions are such that they are forbidden to do so and the people have suffered very much in consequence. I shall be glad if the Minister will give attention to that point, and in future if there is a drought, or if the farmer for any length of time has no work for his oxen to do, whether he will give him a chance of doing something else to make a living. I listened the other night to the speech of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). If one is to judge Natal by what the hon. member told us then the people of Natal must really be suffering from want of intelligence, and the Minister of Agriculture was quite right to send the inspectors there. The hon. member has done his utmost here to attack a man who is not here and cannot defend himself, and under the protection of the House he said whatever was possible about the character of the man and to attack his honour and paint him in dark colours. When one, goes into the matter one sees that the inspector in question tried at least to be courteous by using the second language so as to inform anyone of what his duty was. The hon. member for Illovo has read out a letter. Ft is not actually what one would expect from a B.A. student, but it shows clearly what he wanted the man to do and what his wishes were. That is the most which can be demanded from a dipping inspector who earns the small salary of £15 per month out of which he has to find his own transport expenses. But if one adopts the attitude of the hon. member for Illovo, where shall we end? We have in the public service to-day no less than about 530 translators, translating from one language into the other for officials in the service who are not bilingual. According to the reply of the Minister of the Interior to my question, And to be precise, there are 526 translators in the public service of whom 27 are permanent and the other 499 are translators of correspondence. If we adopt the point of view of the hon. member, that one ought to be just as good in the second language as in one’s own language, then nothing remains for the Government but to say that the correspondence can no longer be translated, and that the people who do not know the Afrikaans language can no longer be employed. That would be an actual economy.

Where do you get the figures?

The Minister of the Interior gave me them last year in answer to a question. They appear in Hansard.

Are they not translators for the public?

No, if officials cannot understand Afrikaans then their letters are translated into Afrikaans, and if a letter comes in in Afrikaans it has to be put into English for him.

And if it is a letter from the public.

It makes no difference. If the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) adopts the standpoint that people must be equally proficient in both languages then such a person must be able to draft a letter in both languages correctly, and then he will require no translators. Therefore it is not fair to just make an attack on the poor dipping inspectors in Natal. What about the officials who have the advantage of enjoying much more education? From my point of view, although the letter was not very well written, I think that even the hon. member for Illovo could understand what was in the letter and what the man wanted. He objected that the letter was not quite courteous enough. I think that it was sufficiently courteous of the inspector to use the second language instead of his own. I want to add that there are also dipping inspectors who cannot write any Afrikaans, or if they know Afrikaans then their Afrikaans is not so good as the English of the Afrikander. What is going to become of those inspectors? I think that hon. members must be very careful about these things, and when they come to the House to paint officials outside black in this manner, they are wasting the time of the House. I hope the hon. member from Illovo from these figures will understand that that dipping inspector is not the only official who is not entirely bilingual. I hope that the hon. member will learn a lesson and will not in future come so recklessly to the House to criticise everything Afrikaans and to do his utmost to vent his spleen here. I also would like to support the point mentioned by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat). There is undoubtedly a strong feeling amongst the cattle farmers that we have need of stock from outside and that it is necessary to improve the breed and if it is possible to arrange for the import of bulls from England to take place regularly then it will be very satisfactory. We know that the quarantine station in England has been abolished by the Minister of Agriculture there, and I trust our Minister will again enter into correspondence to see whether the station cannot be re-established, so that the animals can be sent to the quarantine station and then be exported. I want, however, to say that we quite appreciate that strong measures must be taken to guard against the introduction of foot and mouth disease and that we should have a guarantee against the disease, but I think that if there is again to be a quarantine station— and it is a thing which should be obvious on the other side—that a position will then be created by which the regular introduction of stud animals will again be possible.

I would like to revert to matters I was dealing with at the last sitting when I was interrupted by the time limit. First of all with regard to the question of the way anthrax is spreading. I gave the Minister a clear instance of where outbreaks have occurred from farm to farm, traceable to natives removing diseased meat. I want the Minister to deal with the question of the removal of this meat and make it a serious criminal offence. Then I did not complete my remarks with regard to the question of the active participation in politics by Government officials. The Minister, in reply to a question put by me early in the session concerning an official who took the platform with him at a public meeting held under the auspices of the national party, said that he could not see that that was a contravention of the Public Service Act. It is quite conceivable that an official attending a public meeting as an ordinary member of the audience might not be contravening the Public Service Act, but I disagree with the Minister when he says that it is not a breach of the Act for an official to take a public platform with a person addressing a political meeting under the auspices of a political party. That is where I join issue with the Minister and I think it is to be regretted that he should allow it to go forth to the Government service that such conduct does not constitute a breach of the Public Service Act. If that is to be the Minister’s interpretation of the Public Service Act, then where does the Minister draw the line? What are the acts which constitute active participation in politics. I think the whole Government service is interested. They do not, know where they are. In the report of the ca.se of assault brought by Capt. Botha at Vryheid against a dipping inspector the accused said “I am a public servant and cannot take an active part in politics, but I had leave to attend that meeting.” I do not know who granted that leave, but if that officer considered it necessary to obtain leave then he puts a different construction on the Act to that which the Minister has placed on it. The Minister should clear up the point, and I hope he is going to reconsider his ruling and say that it is a breach of the Public Service Act for a Government official to take a platform at a public meeting held under the auspices of a political party. I want to know also whether there is any system of control in connection with the motor mileage paid to the locust officers. I ask that question because on reading the Auditor-General’s report I find an enormous amount of money has been spent in motor mileage in connection with locust destruction. It so interested me that I went into the figures and I would like to give them to the House. The total expenditure since 1922 up to the end of the financial year 1926, was £1,090,837. I have not taken out figures to ascertain the proportion spent on motor mileage, but I am sure it would be found to be considerable. Of this amount £85,999 was spent outside the union, £49,833 in South-West Africa, and £36,266 in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. I want to know whether this work has been done gratis for the South-West and Bechuanaland Protectorate, and if not what steps have been taken by the Minister to recover this expenditure incurred by this Government in the work of locust destruction in those countries? Apparently up to now only £18,440 has been recovered. I questioned the Minister regarding the incomes of two officials, one of whom drew no less than £3,263 from the 18th July, 1924, to the 24th July, 1926, which was made up as follows: Salary and subsistence, £1,222: motor allowance £2,041, making a total of £3,263 in two years. Taking as the basis 20 miles to the gallon of petrol, my calculations show that this official did not less than 40,800 during that period. Making due allowance for depreciation of car repairs, lubricants and petrol, £486, and a net income is left to Mr. Bezuidenhout, who is a senior locust officer, of £1,388. I then took for the purposes of illustration one of the district locust officers, a man by the name of Larkins, and I find that working on the same basis at 15 miles to the gallon, he received for the ten months ended 31st March, 1926, £756, which works out at a net income of £906 per annum. He did for a period of ten months an average of 43 miles a day, Sundays included. Mr. Bezuidenhout on the other hand did an average of 53 miles a day during the period that he was employed, Sundays included. It seems to me on going into these figures that this huge expenditure could with effective administration have been cut down by almost one half. The motor allowance of 10d. to 1s. a mile seems altogether too high. I understand that the motor allowance to veterinary officials is 3d. a mile. Why there should be this differentiation between the veterinary and the locust officers I do not understand. [Time limit.]

I want to have a word or two with the Minister about the delay in issuing his Departmental report. The last information we had was only up 30th June, 1925. I had occasion on another vote to allude to the same question, but I believe in that case the Minister had laid his report on the Table of the House, although members had not seen it in the printed form. I understand that the report of the Department of Agriculture is not yet laid on the Table of the House. I wish there was a clause in the Act of Union compelling all departments of Government to run their departments on business principles. We are representing the shareholders in a very big concern, and I would like to know what company would stand waiting for a report on its affairs until two years after the accounts are closed. I am sure that the Minister will be well-advised to speed up the issue of these reports, so as to give information to hon. members, before he comes and asks money to be voted for another year. If he looks at the last issue of departmental reports, No. 5, which was placed in our hands on the 8th June last, he will find that it is stated that the closing date for receiving copy for these reports is the 15th October. Surely between the 15th October and the meeting of Parliament is ample time for these reports to be printed and circulated. We are at a great disadvantage. While we are critical of many things that happen, we claim to be constructive critics, we want to help the Minister, we want to help this big industry, and we are trying to offer a few practical remarks. One of the things that ought to engage the Minister’s attention as a practical farmer is to see that we get more practical results than we are getting at the present time from his department. We are asked to vote now for the whole department of Agriculture no less a sum than £1,163,153. That is a very large item, and I think the time is long overdue when we should have seen more results. One way in which the Minister can demonstrate the efficiency of his department is by having more practical experimental farms. I do not mean farms for research work in the ordinary scientific sense of the term, but farms in which the principles of our agricultural schools are taught, based on the information supplied by experts, could be turned to practical account. Seven years ago it was my duty to point out that some of the departments of which we had information were not being run on practical lines. We had a return of poultry stations and when we came to add up the total receipts for eggs, prize pens, etc., the total receipts for poultry did not cover the food of the fowls. There was something wrong there, that with the prestige of the Government department and a good market for eggs, and without taking into consideration rent, the amount of wages or anything else, the total receipts did not cover the cost of the food the fowls had consumed. That was a very depressing result to be shown on the figures for the year. Curiously enough, I do not remember ever having seen those figures published since that time. I think it would be good for the department if the Minister insisted on the publication of these matters. If there is one thing that distinguishes South Africa from other agricultural countries it is the great diversity of soil and climate. It is essentially a patchy country and therefore, we ought to multiply the number of experimental farms. The information that may be obtained at Bloemfontein, for instance, is very little use down on the border. I have pleaded with the Minister more than once to have this experimental farm. I pointed out that it could be run at little cost and in future years probably at a profit without any expense to the country at all. The farmers in that district are so anxious for such a farm that they have even offered to supply stock to give the department a fair start. There is no need for this to be a charge on the consolidated revenue at all. It could be run, if there is anything in the wisdom of these experts, on their experience at a profit, or even if for a time it was run at a loss it is often the case that negative results give almost as much information as results showing a profit. What the farmer wants to know above all is how to produce at a profit, and as the Minister has a department of economics under his charge he cannot do better than arrange for practical effect to be given to the teaching of these experts. One thing the department should seriously note and act upon is the exhaustion of our soil that is going on in spite of the large sum of money voted every year and not voted grudgingly. We have this department going on for a large number of years employing excellent experts in every way and yet our yield of mealies is no better than it was twelve or fifteen years ago. Our soil is being exhausted as surely as our mineral wealth is under present conditions. I wish farmers would realise that and realise that what they really are is mealie miners that is to say, taking out of the soil that which is never replaced and presently the soil wild cease to produce profitably. There are many things that can only be demonstrated on a large scale by means of a farm. An experimental farm growing crops on a farming scale with accounts properly kept would be of enormous benefit. We want more information, and in varied districts we want far more information as to the effect of fertilizers on the soil. There is only one way to do that satisfactorily to the taxpayer and to the farmer and that is to have ground on such an extensive scale that really valuable results will be obtained, and we want to experiment so to speak, on the scale of 12 inches to the foot. Your farmer can then see what is happening and the Minister will then be able to judge of the value of the expert. [Time limit.]

When the hon. Minister rises in two or three days’ time to reply to the few questions which have been put to him, I hope he will give a full and detailed account of the working of the Department of Economics and Markets. I hope we shall learn what these gentlemen are doing when the report comes out. So far as markets are concerned, I do not see what markets they are providing. Now, we are this season deeply concerned in the maize market and what the department is doing to find markets. If you turn to the report you will find there are a number of sections, and one of the sub divisions of these is supposed to find markets for our maize. Now, in this connection the Argentine practically sets the price. If the Argentine crop is a large one, the price falls. The crop there is stated to be 82,250,000 muids this year, and the crop of South Africa is estimated to be 19,500,000 muids. Something in the neighbourhood of 10,000,000 is for local consumption. Up to last year our best market for export was Australia, but under the policy of the Government of doing away with preference Australia is practically shutting our maize out of their market. We are told by the Government that this is due, not to the Government’s policy of abandoning imperial preference, but to the use in this country of coloured labour. Now, we have been using coloured labour ever since South Africa has been occupied by white men, and Australia is finding fault with our maize now for the first time, only after we have removed the preference. I hope the Department of Economics and Markets will pay some attention to this, because the prosperity of the whole of South Africa depends upon the prosperity of the farmers. If you have a shortfall in the maize crop, you have a shortfall in the circulation of money, and everybody feels the strain. I want to raise another point, already mentioned by my hon. friend on the right and the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), on the absurd embargo instituted by the Government prohibiting the importation of pure-bred cattle from England. As a result of this our cattle is going backwards. We cannot supply our own blood stock to keep up the quality and character of the best breeds. Fresh blood from the best herds is essential. Although we are a long way behind South America in this respect, that country never neglects an opportunity of importing the best bulls from England, paying as much as £800 and upwards for them and never worrying about foot-and-mouth disease. South America, which is our principal competitor, both in meat and maize in the world’s markets, is going ahead, while we are adopting a retrogressive policy. It is true we are producing cattle in large numbers, but chiefly of useless character, and only a limited number of animals of the best quality., Turning to another matter, if there is one thing I dislike doing it is lacerating the feelings of the Minister; but I feel I must refer to those amusing people he has been sending to Natal to teach us things he says we did not know. So far as that goes, the Minister has been successful, and some of these people have taught us quite a lot that we did not know. The Minister invited us, again, if we had any complaints to communicate them to him. Well, we could have given him a volume of complaints, but we have been moderate. We really don’t object to these gentlemen he sends us to Natal as long as they prey on each other only and not on us. Instances such as have been referred to by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) leave me absolutely cold. But when it comes to preying on the natives, that is a very different thing. I call preying on the natives being careless about rectitude over matters connected with native affairs. There we require the strictest rectitude, honesty and impartiality. It was a most pathetic thing when the Minister had to inform the House the other day that one of these gentlemen he sent down to teach us things we did not know had been convicted of perjury for swearing false charges against natives. That is one of the most humiliating things a Minister has ever had to admit in connection with people he appoints. It is some comfort to know that the Minister discharged that individual quite promptly. I asked at the same time what became of him, and the Minister said he was unable to inform me of the position he now occupied. If the Minister had made some inquiries, he would have found that gentleman is occupying another profitable post under the Government. That sort of thing ought to be impossible. [Time limit.]

I notice that certain things are already being repeated, and therefore I think it is time that I should reply to certain points raised in connection with my department. We always welcome sound criticism, because it is useful: but when we hear criticism such as we have had to-night from the other side, then we are sometimes astonished at the ignorance exhibited by certain hon. members. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) asked this evening why the report of the Department of Agriculture had not yet been laid on the Table, and he said that hon. members in consequence did not know what was going on in the department. If hon. members, and especially those who hold themselves out as agricultural experts, do their duty in that way, then I am really astonished. If the hon. member for East London (North) had taken notice, he would have seen that the report was laid on the Table the first week of the session, and would know that it was already sent to members of Parliament in December last. We now hear the criticism tonight that the Minister and the Secretary for Agriculture are so dilatory that no report has as yet been issued, and I quote this as one of the things which are mentioned, and possibly will to-morrow appear in the newspapers under large headlines. The hon. member also raised a few points in connection with experimental farms, and it seems to me that he wants us to establish an experimental farm in every part of the country. That is impossible, because experimental farms cost a great deal. I told the hon. member last year that we could commence with experimental plots in his district and, even if he is not satisfied, more cannot be done. The hon. members who criticize so much are the same people who have so much to say about expenditure. The hon. member does not now remember that experimental farms cost money, and that there is great expenditure connected with it. Where experimental farms exist, we find that is just where they are so little visited and do not get the support they ought to. I think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) knows that it was one of the complaints when he was Minister of Agriculture. It must be remembered that we have various agricultural colleges, and that there are still many vacancies in some of them., We are still expecting support of the agricultural colleges, but the hon. member now says that we must develop further and establish those kind of experimental farms all over the country. It is impossible to give effect to that suggestion. I am inclined to grant experimental plots which are under proper control, because in America and other countries the tendency is to have more experimental plots, instead of more agricultural schools and experimental farms. Then the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) asked what the department of agricultural economy and marketing was doing. As hon. members know, it is a new department and we cannot expect immediate results. It is also said that the officials of the Agricultural Department should come more into touch with the farmers, to give the necessary information; but I may say that that is being done. Where an agricultural society wants a man from the department, whether it is an economist or an expert in soil exhaustion, or anything else, the department is always prepared to supply the necessary information. In this connection I may say that the journal which is issued by the department, and which gives much useful information, does not receive the desired support. The subscription is only 5s. a year, but there are even members of Parliament who do not take it. The information in the journal may save them thousands of pounds a year, because information is given with regard to all aspects of farming. I hope hon. members will make more use of it and will recommend it in their constituencies, so that the farmers can become fully informed about what is being done and what can be done. The same applies to poverty of the soil. The rotation of crops is clearly explained in the journal so that farmers can know what can be done. The hon. member for East London (North) also complained about the low maize production in proportion to the area. I know that that is the case. We bought an experimental farm last year in Kroonstad, and we are busy there having the necessary experiments made so that the farmers can be given better advice. Let me now come to a few other remarks, which hurt a little and which it was a pity were made in the House. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) complains that there were too many dipping inspectors, and he proposed a reduction in the expenditure. Does he want us to continue as was proposed in the 1923 Bill, that if a farmer has East Coast fever on his farm after 15 months he must pay for every beast? The Bill was killed by the Natal members themselves. On whose behalf is the hon. member speaking when he wants to have the number of dipping inspectors reduced? Is he talking on behalf of his party or is he talking on behalf of Natal? It seems to me that he does not know what is going on in his own constituency. Let me just say that 14 days ago the Natal Agricultural Congress was held, and let me quote what the chairman said. He said that until recently there never was a good staff of inspectors, but that now 300 people had been placed under senior inspectors in order to fight it, and that there was every chance of good progress. He says that it is noticeable how the number of out breaks of East Coast fever has decreased in proportion to the increase of the staff, and that there is a hope of the disease being eradicated within a reasonable time.

Not in Umvoti.

But the hon. member wants to speak on behalf of Natal. The hon. member also spoke about inoculation. In connection with that the chairman says that two methods of inoculation were employed, one of them in Umvoti; that it is still difficult to say what the results of the inquiry into the matter are, but he expressed a hope that the result would be satisfactory. Let me say that in that very division, although in other divisions as well an attack has been made on me every year, they have a remedy for the eradication of East Coast fever. We gave them an opportunity of employing it, and it resulted in complete failure. I hope, therefore, with regard to the dipping there, to get full support in future from those areas. The hon. member, however, protested strongly against the policy of the department. Let me tell him about a resolution which the secretary of the Agricultural Union of Umvoti sent me and which is signed T. J. Duncan. The resolution states that the meeting of farmers was not in favour of any relaxation of the measures for fighting East Coast fever until the district was proclaimed free of it or a satisfactory remedy was found. And then the hon. member comes here and says that East Coast fever is not getting less.

What about the meetings at Dordrecht and Hanover?

Let me tell the hon. member how East Coast fever has diminished in Natal. In 1920 there were 84 cases; in 1921, 97; in 1922, 94; in 1923, 107; and in 1924, 106 cases. Then this Government came into office. In 1925 the number of cases was 61, and in 1926 it was only 76. This, therefore, shows a reduction of about 50 per cent. And then the hon. member comes with his stupid criticism. We welcome sound criticism, but it cannot be expected that the department should take any further notice of that kind of criticism. The hon. member for Umvoti, and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), as well as the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), complained about the inefficiency of the Natal inspectors and about the uselessness of these people. In Natal I appointed about 100 inspectors. The complaints are against a few of them, and especially against Du Plooy. The hon. member for Klip River even said that he was a nephew of the Minister. I do not know’ whether he got this from his own imagination or someone else’s, but Du Plooy is just as much related to me as the hon. member himself. The hon. member complained bitterly about political activity, etc., on the part of Du Plooy. He was appointed in 1912, or thereabouts, by the S.A.P. Government. How can the hon. member then complain about him? The Du Plooy’s gave so much assistance to the late Government that the father and three sons and son-in-law were appointed at various places. Now the hon. member comes and attacks me. Then it is said that the inspectors do not know what dip to use, and that they cannot write proper English. The hon. member for Illovo quoted a letter here, the English of which is not exactly quite grammatical. I will make a proposal to the hon. members. They have complained about two or three Afrikaans-speaking inspectors because they do not know English properly. I am prepared to dismiss them at 24 hours’ notice … provided that 138 inspectors who were appointed by the late Government, and 35 of whom do not know a word of Afrikaans, are also immediately discharged. Is that not a reasonable proposal? Are the hon. members prepared to accept it on behalf of Natal? The time has come to no longer be one-sided, but to look on all sides, and not only to attack the Afrikaans-speaking people if their English is not of the B.A. standard. Then the hon. member for Illovo said that Du Plooy was taking part in politics, and had borrowed money in connection with a certain report, and the hon. member for Illovo said that I gave the inspector a scolding. There must be a leakage somewhere in the department in Natal. That kind of official document is not meant for the public, and it is in conflict with the Government service regulations. I shall make a change, and the responsible official will be transferred. It is possibly wrong for people to remain at one station for 25 years without a transfer. Regarding the borrowing of money by Du Plooy I, of course, reprimanded him, because it was stated that he had borrowed the money. I thought it was not right, although he does not strictly come under the regulations for officers of the public service. I think it wrong, however, for such a person to borrow money from an official. Then the hon. member further inquired why the East Coast fever commission was sent to Natal. It was done to investigate a certain complaint and to try to bring about more co-operation with the farmers. The hon. member said that some of the cattle of his party friends were killed by incompetent inspectors. Did the hon. member ever bring it to my notice? Of course not.

It is all trash.

The hon. member for Wakkestroom (Mr. A. S. Naude) spoke about the difficulty of the farmers in getting permits for the removal of sheep. He said that they sometimes had, to wait as long as 12 to 14 days for a permit to trek with their sheep. Such permits are not required unless it is for a trek to a protected area. People in Wakkerstroom, Standerton and the neighbourhood are all in unprotected areas, and can trek without permits. They have only to give notice to the inspector that they will trek at-such and such a time and notify the inspector on their return. The hon. member for Klip River astonished me by his attack on the department about anthrax. He said that the Act and the regulations were of no use, and that the natives were spreading the disease in Natal. If he had read the regulations he would know that if any animal dies suddenly the blood-smear must be followed and the animal buried 6 feet beneath the surface.

Why do you not carry out the regulation?

Does the hon. member expect us to appoint a constable in every native location or on every farm? Will the taxpayers approve of that? If the hon. member had known of such a thing and did not report it, then he neglected his duty as a farmer. Now he comes and raises the matter in the House. It is very unfair criticism.

It was not my farm. What have I to do with it? I was asked by farmers in my district to investigate it.

If the hon. member had read the regulations he would himself have been able to answer the farmers. He has now been unnecessarily occupying the time of the House. Then he spoke about the great expense in connection with locusts and about the accounts in the matter of mileage of officials. Things go just as in war time. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) knows how difficult it is to control the number of miles of officials. In such a case it is just as in war time. You have to trust the man who is appointed. The hon. member knows that some locust officials drew a large amount for a few months, but at that time they were travelling with me personally in the uninhabited parts to combat the plague. Accordingly the expenditure for those few months was higher than in other months. Then they had to follow the flying locusts and kill them. The hon. member can rest assured that as good control as possible will be kept. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) mentioned a few points, but as he is not in his place I will let them stand over. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) spoke about the danger of the spreading of lung-sickness from the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and he was quite right in saying that a case of that disease had been discovered in Durban. We are, however, taking very thorough measures to prevent its spreading to the Union. The case that occurred in Durban was immediately reported, and we hope a similar case will not occur again.’ I wanted to deal with the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and I hope to have the opportunity later of doing so. The hon. member for Cradock mentioned the question of the discharge of Mr. Lounsbury, but the hon. member ought first to have inquired from my department. He would have learned that Mr. Lounsbury during the reorganization of my department elected to retire on pension instead of coming in under the reorganization. The hon. member knows that there were 13 divisions in the department when I took over, and that the number has now been reduced to six. Moreover, Mr. Lounsbury had reached the retiring age, and when he elected to take a pension I decided to agree to it. The hon. member also spoke about scab, and that is a matter about which I can deal later on. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked me a question about the influence of Norwegian activity on our wool, and I can tell the hon. member that I know nothing about the matter. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) put me a question about compulsory co-operation, but he does not take sufficient interest to be in the House now, and, therefore, I shall pass over the reply. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) spoke about the embargo on cattle, and I may inform him that I am dealing with the question. We are just as anxious as he is to get good bulls, and the British Government are creating a quarantine station, the High Commissioner tells me. If it is not done, then I will arrange with the Rhodesian Government so that we can take other steps. I will give the hon. member all the information about the matter. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) asked me about regulations in connection with the Drought Emergency Loan Act. It is a matter which is receiving my attention.

To use an Afrikaans expression, the Minister is “baie slim.” He stands condemned out of his own mouth. He is slim in this respect. He quotes a report from a centre where there is no East Coast fever. He omits to say anything about the disease centres, New Hanover and Dalton, where the disease does exist and where the farmers have met and condemned the Minister.