I move—

We, on these benches, have not worried the Government before with a motion of this kind— we have been very patient with the Government. Perhaps we should not have been so patient; I suspect the country will not be so patient. There has been a very great change of opinion during the last four years. The Government started with every chance in its favour—fair times, fair winds, goodwill on every side, but the result to-day is that we see a complete change in the attitude of the public all over the country. The time has come for a motion of this kind; we are discharging a public duty, and we are voicing the opinion of the country by proposing this motion. The Government must be aware of the great change that has come over the country, and that they have lost, to a very large measure, the confidence which the country reposed in them at the start, but they have not hearkened to the voice of the country; they have clung to office, and they are proposing at this late stage of their career to bring forward legislation of the most far-reaching character ever introduced in this country. One reason why I think the Government should have reconsidered their position is this: The basis on which they started has been entirely altered. The Prime Minister himself has had to recognise that. Quite recently he had to reconstruct his Government, and that was a recognition by him that a very far-reaching change had come over the situation which brought about the present Government. As a matter of fact this Government has rested on the Pact. It began as a Pact Government four-and-a-half years ago, and under the pressure of circumstances was an alliance, which has proved a most burdensome and impossible combination. One portion of the Pact has gone to pieces. We may still talk of the Labour Party, but it is a problem to find where the party is. I must be like Argus, and have a thousand eyes to see where the Labour party is. We have these remnants in the House, but out in the country I do not believe that party exists any more. The basis on which the Government started no longer exists. A complete change has come over the situation. One member of the Labour party—an hon. member of this House no longer sitting here—I refer to Mr. John Christie—felt it was a matter of honour: he said that as an honourable man, after the change that, had taken place between the two Wings of the Pact, it was impossible for him to remain a member of the House without testing the opinion of his constituents. Why has the Government not followed his example? I am afraid they were dominated by fear of the same fate which has overtaken Mr. Christie who, at any rate, acted as an honourable man, for he felt his position was wrong and indefensible unless he tested public opinion once more. He was right there. The Government should have done the same and should have considered that it was their duty to take the opinion of the country afresh, and should not have held on like limpets to the very last minute. That is a very legitimate and proper criticism against the Government.

Did you do that in 1913?

I am not talking of 1913. In that year we had the confidence of the country, and we retained that confidence for eleven years thereafter. The position is this: From the point of view of proper constitutional government the old basis of the Government is gone. As a matter of fact, one party has practically disappeared.

No.

Where is it?

Here.

I am sure the Minister’s own public will reckon with him. The result has been a complete loss of grip and unity in this Government. I have never before, seen a Government talking with so many voices—a Government so disunited, and a Government advocating so many opposing policies—as this Government. There has been no leadership. Every Minister has followed his own course, and the result has been that for the last few years it has been very difficult for any serious public man to know what is the policy of the Government and what it stands for in face of all the divergent views that emerge from that Government and its party. I think with that great change that came about the Government should, acting constitutionally and properly, have consulted the country once more. But what has disgusted the country even more is the manoeuvres to which the Government resorted in order to maintain themselves after these crises had taken place. When the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was sent adrift out of the Government, there was a feeling that, at any rate, the air was now cleared and we might really know what was the policy and the direction and the orientation of the Government. The Minister of the Interior, speaking in the Transvaal, said the Government had rid itself of the extreme element. He said that in other countries you had this tendency to the left and more to the left, and the Pact were in the same position. He made out that the departure of the hon. member for Benoni meant this, that the Government had rid itself of the extreme elements of Bolsheviks and Communists and Socialists, as he called them, which formed their left wing. People thought the air was cleared, and that they now knew where they were, but it took only a few days for the confusion to get worse again. The Nationalist party in the Transvaal once more healed the breach or tried to do so, and made an arrangement not only with those of the Labour party still in the Government, represented by the Minister of Defence, but also with those very people who, as Communists and extreme Bolsheviks, had been ejected from the Government. The country was simply dumbfounded. They had never heard of such a state of affairs. People wanted to know where they were, but the result of all these manoeuvres was that after having dismissed these extreme elements, their support was once more called in and a pact was once more arranged with them. I must say the country has resented these manoeuvres. The country is disgusted with these manoeuvres. The Prime Minister had to defend these wild doings. He himself had to dismiss the hon. member for Benoni from the Cabinet, and he had to put up a defence for these reconciliations that followed, and he had to say in public that as the lesser, as between the Communists and the South African party, he would choose the Communists. I should like to know where we really stand with public policies and principles in this country. I cannot conceive a more outstanding case of public immorality, of a breach and departure from all principle and a more artificial combination to retain power than we have seen in the last few months from the Pact Government. It is an exhibition of art and artfulness, such as we have never witnessed in South Africa before. The extreme elements were kept together; even when it had proved impossible for them to work together in the Government, their forces had to be kept together in order that the Government might not be sent about its business. It seems to me what has happened is something which must disgust every reasonable man in this country. We sometimes hear the expression “dirty politics,” and this sort of thing in the public life of this country gives ample justification for that term. It is a foundation for that disgust with public life which many people feel to-day. I hope the air will be cleaned at the next general election. At any rate, this sort of development we have been treated to in the last few months deserves the strongest censure of this House, and of every reasonable citizen in this country. The Government have drifted on, and they have at last reached the end of their term, and they have done so without any political platform. They have held their congresses; the Nationalist party in the various provinces have held congresses, but they have settled no programme for the future, and now to-day, face to face with the crisis of their fate, with the general election, they are unprovided with a programme, and they must, by hook or by crook, find some slogan on which to fight the election.

Our record of work is a good enough programme.

If the Minister thinks it safe for him to go to the country on his record, he will find out his error.

Doornkop!

That is the reason why the Minister of Justice last October, in a fateful speech at Ermelo, made that statement of his in regard to the native question, that he hoped the South African party would not agree with the Pact; he hoped the South African party would fight the native proposals, the native Bills, of the Prime Minister. He said the Pact could have no more favourable battleground than these Bills on which to go to the election. I called that proposal at the time a devilish proposal, that a party, face to face with a general election, without a programme, should be forced to take this issue, the most far-reaching, the most dangerous, the greatest of all in South Africa, for electioneering purposes; that this issue, which we have done our best for generations in this country to keep as far as possible out of party politics, should be made the issue on which the general election would be fought. That was the proposal of the Minister of Justice—“stampede the public of South Africa; the native is in disfavour, raise the cry of a white South Africa against a black South Africa, whip up public passion, whip up all the latent feeling there is in South Africa on this question, and let us, on that vast wave of passion, try to get victory once more.” I condemned it at the time. I never thought that the party behind the Minister of Justice would agree to such a proposal. I never for a moment thought that the Prime Minister, whom I took to be serious on this native question, whom I took to be really in search of some solution of this gravest of our problems, would fall in with that proposal. But we have it now. We have heard the Prime Minister, in his speech at Pretoria, some weeks ago, make it appear as if we were not co-operating any more, as if we had come to a break, and he openly made this native question the issue on which the Pact parties would go to the polls at the next general election.

What I said was that you were making it the issue.

You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

I am not going into the whole question to-day. This is not the occasion to do so, but I just wish to say this, that nothing that the South African party did at their Bloemfontein congress, or settled in their programme, nothing that I said at that congress, afforded the least provocation. On the contrary, our attitude at that congress and my attitude then and since has been that we should keep this native question out of the arena of party politics. And we should do our best to come to some understanding, if that is at all possible. Well, the Prime Minister up to quite recently agreed and admitted quite openly that the South African party were helping him and doing their best to find a solution. We met even at Pretoria last December and discussed these bills, but we did not get far in a solution; but we discussed them in a most amicable spirit. In Bloemfontein nothing happened either in regard to my speech or in regard to the resolution which would give provocation in the least; but it is quite clear that the Prime Minister has gone over to the view of the Minister of Justice, and that the native question had to be made a battle ground and a war cry of the Pact party in the next election, and that a breach had to be made. If I did not make a breach it had to be made by the other side, and this favourable battle ground had to be created; and there we are to-day—

[Interruption].

The Minister of Railways and Harbours refers to what I said at Ermelo. I was aghast last night to see this wicked document. That document, that manifesto— so distorted, so intemperate and so wicked, is going to recoil on its authors, I do not remember any such incident in the public life of South Africa. I expressed my opinion at Ermelo, and on many other occasions. Only last year at Durban I expressed my views more strongly.

interjected a remark: [Inaudible].

I decline to argue with the Prime Minister. He tries to mislead the people of South Africa and tries to make the native question appear as the great battle ground and as if we have made the breach. I say that we have made no breach; we were prepared to co-operate, and still are prepared to do so when possible. In the last few months of the life of this Government Parliament is to be used in order to further this nefarious cause. The Governor-General’s speech declared that the principal business of this short winding-up session would be dealing with the Native Bills. Here you have the most complicated question in South Africa, a question which in its essence time only can solve and for which you want the coolest heads and the calmest tempers; that question requires dispassionateness and calmness, and it is now going to engage our attention in this short final session, and we are going to find a solution of it! I have never heard a more preposterous proposal put before us. No one in South Africa knows what the proposals of the Prime Minister are. He published four bills four years ago, but they have been scrapped. Nobody knows what they are, except perhaps the Prime Minister; and I wonder whether he knows.

Offensive!

It is impossible to be offensive to the gentlemen who have published that document. I say that it is an abuse of language to apply the word “offensive” in this connection. But my point is that it is a crime against South Africa in this short winding-up session and in the course of a general election to deal with the question which, of all others, is the most intricate, most difficult and most fateful for South Africa, and if the Government persist in their policy, their sin be upon their head. I foresee evil days for this country. I should not like to bear the responsibility which will rest upon this Government and those parties if they persist in bringing forward these Bills practically during an election campaign in these last winding-up days of Parliament. It will be a most cynical thing to do. I go on to the other points; you can go over their whole record during the last four and a half years and you will find ample ground everywhere—in their administration, their legislation, and their conduct of affairs, to censure them. Every section of the population has been harassed and has been in trouble, and has had its turn. Let me cover some of the points very briefly. Let us take the Public Service, which we handed over to the new Government on a non-party basis. There was a tradition of non-party service in that Public service; members of it were actuated by their duty to their country, and the question of what party had their sympathies was never raised. Within the last four years, a complete change has come over the scene. Ministers have admitted in this House that appointments have gone on political lines, and Ministers have said, not once but repeatedly, that all things being equal preference would be given to their own followers. Well, that meant one thing—political considerations were entering into these appointments—a thing unheard of before. There has been a complete departure to-day from the spirit and principle within that service—which is largely terrorised and which knows that appointments go by political favour. I think one of the gravest disservices rendered by the Government to the country is with regard to the breaking down of the right spirit which they found in the public service of the country—an impartial public service. I think it will be our duty as far as possible to work back to the old spirit again. Every effort should be made in that direction, because it has been the experience of other countries that where you have a system of “jobs for pals” your public service becomes a political machine and suffers very much. I hope that the Government that will follow this one will make a really serious effort to get back to the right practice once more, and see that officials are appointed on their merits. Take the workers. How many thousands of them, on the Witwatersrand—

Are still alive!

Take this de Villiers report with its 20 per cent, rise dangled before the eyes of these men. Who profited from these inducements’ Who held out these wild hopes?

interjected a remark which was inaudible.

I know who held out these inducements. I should like to know how many of these deluded men who voted for the Government four or five years ago are likely to vote for it again. Then let us take the wage system. The Government has adopted a system which has had only one effect—that of helping the top man, the man who is an expert at his job. [Interruption.] If the hon. member who has just interrupted me will read the programme set out at the Bloemfontein Congress, he will see what my party thinks about it. In every case where the Wage Board has made a determination, there has followed a large number of dismissals and a great deal of unemployment. Thousands of young and old people are walking the streets of the cities and towns of this country because of the determinations of the Wage Board. [Interruption.] I want to say that I am not opposed to the Wage Board in principle. If the hon. the Minister had carried out the Wage Act in the spirit in which it was introduced in this House, and had done the right thing where the two sides were not organized, the position would have been different.

That is what I have done.

The Minister has used the Wage Act and the Wage Board as a threat, and the result is that instead of having unemployment cured, the Government through its wrong wage policy has very largely increased unemployment. There was a time when the Government claimed a great deal of credit for the Wage Act, but we do not hear that any more now. The one point now urged is the white civilized policy adopted by the Minister of Railways, in connection with which they have built up an underpaid and discontented service which is going to be an incubus on this country.

We can replace them again by natives.

In any case it was not the policy of the last Government to let a white man go and to replace him by a native. You have built up a very large service, a sort of labour army, underpaid and discontented, which is going to be a problem to this country. The white standard is not being maintained. It is impossible to do so upon 5s. or 6s. a day in the great centres of population. I say that even from the point of view of the workers, this thing is not working out well. From the point of view of the country and the railways it presents a very grave aspect. I remember hon. members opposite thundering against my Government in the years gone by because we had not discovered a permanent solution of the unemployment question. The only permanent measure that the Government has devised is Doornkop. The Government now sits with the liabilities, Mr. Rosenberg sits with the assets, and the poor workers who built up those assets are now day labourers at Hartebeestpoort. Our industrial development, on which the Government has prided itself so much, owes very little to them. They will find that when we get to the general election. They have nullified all efforts at fostering industry by Government interference—a bureaucratic system of regulating, inspecting and so on—which has seriously upset all these young industries which have been started in the Union by us.

Killed them.

You cannot kill them, but you can hamper and you can thwart development, and that has been done on a very large scale. You continually hear the complaint at industrial conferences that the Government has started a system of interference and Statebureaucracy and returns which make it almost impossible for them to run their business. All this infection has come into the Government from the Labour side.

That is the reason they are extending their factories.

Some of the factories are extended because there is great progress going on in the country in spite of the Government; other factories have closed. I see the hon. Minister of Mines smiles. That makes me think of his management of the Mines Department, which is one of the gravest scandals we have had of recent years. If ever there was an Act calculated to create discontent and to make things hard for the poor man, it is the Act for which the hon. the Minister was responsible last year. We tried to improve that Act. He would listen to nothing. He interfered in every possible way with the right of private owners, and while nominally going against the big man and helping the poor man he did just the opposite. You now hear of nothing but deputations and ultimatums to the Government. The Minister has tried to buy off one of the leaders of these deputations. It never pays to buy off an enemy. He has made a most awful mess of the administration of the department. The Government deserves the gravest censure for the way they have dealt with that department.

A mess for which the country will always be grateful.

I do not think the country will show great gratitude to the hon. the Minister. He must look for the verdict of history. He will find his punishment coming very-close to him in the next few months. Take the defence force. What has become of the defence force? I have never in this House heard stronger criticism of any department than has come from those benches behind the hon. the Minister in regard to the defence force. I doubt whether we still have any defence force. The Minister has broken down what has been built up laboriously and carefully in years gone by. You hear everywhere the same complaint, that the defence force has become a scandal and a farce. Now let me say a few words to the Minister of Finance. He has had many bouquets thrown at him. He has had the great good fortune to be responsible for finance in good times, prosperous times. We should not confuse the two. Good times come to bad people, and he has had this luck. In spite of all the bouquets that have been thrown at him, I maintain that no finance minister has exercised less proper control over the working: of his department than the hon. the Minister. There has been practically no control. There has been a wild outgrowth of public expenditure, and departments have not been checked in their expenditure. You need only read the reports of the Auditor-General from year to year to see his continual complaints about laxity, and the disregard of the principles of economy which have obtained. The Minister has never supported the Auditor-General. Last year a deliberate attack was made by one of his colleagues on the Auditor-General in connection with certain items which the Auditor felt bound to report to this House. There was never a word of defence of this official from the Minister of Finance. The Minister has allowed things to drift. Departments have drifted. We sit with a swolen budget of expenditure to the tune of about four millions more per annum than we had before. The most fatal mistake of the Minister has been that he has every year under-estimated his revenue. It has always been the pride of former ministers of Finance to budget as closely as possible, and to see that their forecasts were as accurate as possible. The Minister has always been out by colossal figures. If the Minister had exercised proper foresight he would have seen that the revenue would be too large, and there would have been a reduction of taxation accordingly.

There has been a reduction.

Instead of the paltry reduction there has been, we would have had more than four millions of reduction. The country is to-day labouring under a load of taxation which it does not deserve, and which is seriously hampering development.

How about Burton?

Mr. Burton was a very good Minister of Finance. I should like to know what line the present holder of that portfolio-would have taken if he had been subjected to that terrible ordeal through which Mr. Burton had to go through. Mr. Burton did his best under the most difficult circumstances. The Government has missed a most glorious opportunity: The country simply asked to be left alone. We were in for prosperous times, and all that was necessary was to allow things to develop, but the Government interfered and continually tampered with public feeling and the true interests of the country. The Government had scarcely come into power when they brought forward the Colour Bar Act, which absorbed the attention of this Parliament for two years, and is the most disastrous measure which the Government has introduced. They have not had the courage to apply it, but it has created a feeling of resentment among the natives which will make it very difficult to have a proper solution of the native question.

I do not think the right hon. member should criticize in that way Bills passed by the House.

I am not criticizing details of the Bill but the policy of the Government in bringing forward this measure. My point is this, that after treating this matter as one of urgency, and fighting the Act through the House, in spite of all the feeling that was engendered, yet in the end the Government do not apply the Act.

It is being applied by the mines in practice.

Scarcely had we worked through the crisis occasioned by this Act than we were launched upon another crisis, caused by the Government’s flag policy. Public opinion was worked up until the pot almost boiled over. The state of feeling in this country was such as I had not seen since the Boer war. At a time when we wanted to live together in peace, and were beginning to form a nation, the Government raised this point of contention in a spirit and in speeches which deeply wounded the feelings of people all over the country. In the end the South African party had to be called in to help the Government out of their difficulty. My patriotism and loyalty to South Africa have been called into question by the present Government, but they were not called into question when the Government was in great distress and feeling ran so high that it was necessary for future peace to come to an agreement. Then I had patriotism and loyalty enough to appeal to, but now it is all over, these wild and unfounded charges are being flung about. I express very grave dissatisfaction about the manner in which the Flag Act is being applied; the spirit of that Act has not been carried out. It is improper and wrong that the Union Jack should not be seen in South West Africa, which the King holds under a mandate from the League of Nations. That is a position which is wrong, which should be reversed and will be reversed at a later date. It is an injustice and an unfair proceeding that nowhere in the native territories will you see the other official flag flying. I see a niggardly petty spirit in the flying of the Union Jack which has caused very widespread opposition. People may not talk about it, but they will show their feelings at the first opportunity. Then all this status stunt of the Prime Minister—there has been nothing more ridiculous and more mischievous. He and his party set out to search for the sovereign independence of South Africa as a land separate from the British Empire, but in the end, after all their wanderings, they have come, to rest in the haven of that empire. Naturally there is the gravest misunderstanding and confusion in the ranks of their party over this matter. We find the Prime Minister going about talking gaily and lightly about deposing the King. I think the King has been deposed on almost every platform in the Free State which the Prime Minister has recently visited. The only effect of that is to wound feelings and to make ourselves supremely ridiculous before the world. The Prime Minister is simply trying to cover his own tracks in this wild march the Nationalists have made from separatism to the bosom of the empire. It seems impossible for the Government to keep out of mischief. I am not going to raise the preference question now, but the fact that the Government, in its last days, and probably at the end of its career as a Government, should reverse the settled fiscal policy of the country and the empire is an outrageous thing. Their policy is not unpopular, but here in their last days, when they are face to face with their doom, they undertake this task as their last parting shot. They tamper with things which go very deep in the economic policy of this country and the empire, and they deserve very grave censure in the way in which they have dealt with this subject. They are filling the cup, and the longer they continue in office the worse will be the position, and the greater the punishment will be. The worst of all is the lowering of the tone of public life in this country. Politics is no longer pursued in terms of principle, but in terms of personal hatred. The thing which is most disabling in public life and most harmful to the life of the nation is this lowering of tone. Vituperation, invective, mud-slinging—I have never seen the like. If these are the opening shots which we heard last night from the Prime Minister I shudder to think what is going to be the final state of affairs in this country. There has been a lowering of the tone, there has been a sinking of the standards in this country for which I hold this Government responsible. We on this side of the House have done our best under the gravest provocation to uphold a decent standard in public life, but there has been no response. We see what treatment had been meted out to us. The result of what happens in the case of the leaders and foremost men in public life is very soon reflected on an enlarged scale all over the country. I am very much afraid that instead of nation-building, instead of drawing the nation together in peace and amity and real co-operative effort, we are misspending our strength in hatred and invective, and I hold the parties opposite and the Government very largely responsible. I am sure the country feels very deeply this change of tone, this deterioration and degradation of public life which has taken place; and it would be one of the things on which the silent citizen, the man who is not a politician and who does not belong to any party, will give his vote at the next election. I have no doubt that the Government deserves for all these reasons the gravest censure of the House and country and I now move the motion standing in my name.

seconded.

I came to-day in the full expectation that the mover would make a speech of little importance. I have not been disappointed. I did not, however, think that what would be said here would be of such a low level.

On a point of order, is the Prime Minister entitled to use the words “of low character”?

By low level I mean that it amounts to nothing. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is regarded as a responsible statesman who has played a great role in the past, and who, even now, from time to time is regarded here and by the world as the leader of the other side of the House, but I can say that his speech was not much higher than that of an ordinary demagogue on a parade platform. I very deeply deplore it. Let me say that I shall speak openly this afternoon, but that I shall try to adopt a worthier tone than the last speaker. However seriously we may regard the speech, it appears at once from his statement that there is none among the Ministers and their departments who is so negligent, careless and lacking in judgment as the Minister of Finance, and this after the recent South African party congress had passed its numerous resolutions, not one of which affected the Department of Finance. They must either have been well pleased, or they were afraid. What struck me more, however, was that this judgment on the Minister of Finance has come from a man who was once a Minister of Finance under whom there was the greatest mess that we have ever known. The hon. member for Standerton is not a man who hesitates to praise himself, because on platforms and in this House he glorifies himself, but we have never yet heard that he dared to refer back to the time when he was Minister of Finance. Go to the people and ask whether they want Nicolaas Havenga or Henry Burton as Minister of Finance, the former with his splendid record, and the latter with his deficits year after year. But, of course, the hon. member for Standerton did not intend to make any real criticism. No, he was only occupied once more with the flag, and unfolded it again this afternoon. The misfortune is that the hon. member for Standerton runs away so regularly. He took up the flag question and had hardly done so when he ran away so fast that we thereafter met him in Natal engaged in whipping up the people to such an extent that they could only think that he would lead them to victory, even if it were with the sword. Now, this afternoon, he states that we came to him. No, the hon. member was in such trouble about the excitement he had raised that he ran to us, he saw that the responsibility was too great to be borne and ran away again. The question of the status he also tackled and brought forward. Hardly had he done so, however, but he ran away, and when we met him again he was sitting on the other side. Why? The reason is that with the hon. member there is only one thing that counts in politics, and that is the vote, the ballot-box is everything with him, and if he cannot get any benefit from the ballot-box he will not resort to it. With regard to the native question the hon. member has also changed his attitude. Before 1922 he was a supporter of segregation. Let me say that the portfolio was given to him in 1912 with the express aim that he should carry out segregation, but in 1922 he ran away from it. That was not his last running away. This afternoon he says that I made a speech in Pretoria and abandoned my previous attitude by making a political issue of the matter. I want to correct the hon. member. Instead of my having run away, the hon. member for Standerton went from Pretoria to Bloemfontein to directly drag the native question into politics. The South African party is so afraid of the native question that they want to move heaven and earth to leave the people under a misconception. That, however, I shall not allow. I brought the native question before the public in 1924 as one of my seven points, and the public gave its decision on it. Immediately after I came into office the hon. member for Standerton reproached me and asked where my Bills were. I asked him to have patience and to give me time, but he thought that I would not dare to do so, and that I would run away. He thought I was like himself. At the first opportunity I went to Smithfield and developed the matter. I have never yet made a secret of it that it emanates from the Nationalist party, and that it was our view for a number of years before, that it was a political matter and would remain so. I said from the first that if Parliament threw it out it must not be thought that I would leave it at that. Then I would have a further election on it. But I asked the hon. member for Standerton and his friends not to treat it as a party political matter, but to leave it to the House and to the country to decide—that those who were in favour should support it, and those against should oppose. What is more, the hon. member for Standerton understood this so well that the members of the select committee will recollect that in the committee room he said to me and to all of us—

I then said—

And that was the basis accepted. The whole question was: He promised, and all promised, that they would do nothing to drag the question into party politics. On that basis we sat until the 3rd December in Pretoria, but two days later the hon. member for Standerton went to the South African party congress in Bloemfontein and we find him saying there—

At his congress he already went one step in making the matter a party one and he went further and obtained a resolution from the congress that none of the rights of the natives should be touched, which means that no member of the party in future will dare to support me. Just imagine that this man now has the audacity to say that I took up my attitude in Pretoria deliberately with the object of dragging the matter into politics. No, I say clearly and expressly it was a perversion of my words, and of the co-operation which took place until the 3rd December to take up that attitude at the South African party congress, and I am justified in being indignant at that action. If the hon. member for Standerton understands anything, well it is throwing up smoke screens. I do not know whether he learnt this in the war, but every time he wants to run away he creates a smoke screen. I am now referring to his speech at Ermelo on the 17th instant, as reported in the newspapers. Let me say that I have never yet been filled with such astonishment—and I have already been considerably astonished at actions of the hon. member— and such indignation as when I read the speech. Now the hon. member tells me that it is clear that I prefer to believe lies to the truth, and in a published interview this morning he says that the words I quoted were untrue.

Your inferences.

Very well, then I shall quote what the report says. Are the reports true then?

The reports also are incorrect.

We all know how easily the hon. member for Standerton always denies, but I should still like to know what he is going to deny to-day, and I can assure him that I shall make him run right up to the election, and after it also. Here we have Reuter’s correspondent, who was present at the meeting, reporting—

Why not?

Ask your leader. The reporter continues the speech—

Hear, hear.

I admit that the hon. member for Standerton is par excellence the man to be able to say so. We have already seen that this afternoon. Then the correspondent continues—

Hear, hear.

I know that in this connection I shall always elicit hear, hears: But now the hon. member says that it is not correct. He says that it is a “travesty.”

Your inferences.

Then I shall give the report of an independent man, the reporter of “Die Volkstem.” He signs his name to the report. He reports the hon. member for Standerton as saying—

I have a map here, the Equator runs through British East Africa. According to that report, Gen. Smuts further said—

Of course, and we are marching as far as we can into Kaffirland. The report proceeds—

Hear, hear.

Now at least I hear that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) agrees with the principle. Can I. however, say the same of the hon. member for Standerton after this morning’s “Cape Times,” and what he has said this afternoon? The report goes still further—

Is that the object of the hon. member for Standerton? Am I then to believe that what I have read here, and what I have read in the other reports is not true, that he did not speak of a unified state from the Cape to the Equator?

No.

Now I want to ask hon. members and the public outside—and I am going to do so because the matter is of too great importance—whether it is possible that we have here to do with a wrong report. If we have to do with wrong reports then the reporters ought to be discharged from their posts as soon as possible, and I ask the hon. member for Standerton to write to them and tell them so. But let me also tell the hon. member that I have here as well the report of “The Friend,” which is almost completely identical with what I have read. The hon. member for Standerton now wants to make us believe that he did not say it. The reports appeared ten days ago. They were immediately commented on by every newspaper, and I want to ask the hon. member whether he has taken one single step to say that they are not accurate. Has he taken a single step? He knows how seriously this is regarded from the national side, and he knows some of his own newspapers rapped him over the knuckles. Did he tell them: “I never said such a thing”? This morning he had to come after he saw how seriously we regarded the matter, and say that it was not so, that it was a “travesty.” The rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, provide that when a member rises and says that this or the other is wrong in the report another member is prepared to go no further into the matter, but one thing the hon. member will not tell me, and that is that what he said there did not have that object, and was intended to create the general idea that was reported. That he cannot tell me. For the present I leave the matter there, but I am going through the length and breadth of South Africa to ask the people if that is what they want, yes or no. As I said in the letter this morning—

A paper bomb.

Every man and woman in South Africa has the right to know where we stand in regard to the native policy. If we are to have a kaffir land, then the sooner the people know it the better. The morning paper says that Gen. Smuts—

I do not wish to put any construction on his speech, I do not do so. Does that speech need construing? The words used are clear. I want to ask the hon. member whether the inference I draw that he is in favour of a united Africa from the Cape to the Sedan is wrong?

Mad.

Then I am very glad. The difference between us is very clear. He says that such a state is mad, but may save South Africa. If I say that it follows from his speech, as reported, that he is in favour of a large state—

The three to four pages of the letter are mad.

Of course that is the way in which the hon. member for Standerton answers questions from platform to platform.

He does not even permit questions.

That is the man who rises here and wants the people to call upon him to resume the Government, a man who is afraid when anyone who does not belong to the small backveld constituency puts a question to him. The hon. member comes and says that the House no longer has confidence in the Government. He has attacked all the Ministers, and the impression must have been made on a stranger that they were a lot of dish-cloths. Well, I am quite prepared to enquire a little whether the hon. member with his followers, or I with mine deserve the confidence of the people more. Only four-and-a-half years ago we came into office, and then we found a stable which was dirty from one end to the other; an incredible amount of work had been left undone through impotence. They were an impotent lot. I could do nothing more, they were so impotent that eighteen months before their time was up they wanted to throw up the reins. They were so powerless that they could not put through one matter of importance. They were so incapable that colleagues of the Prime Minister are still walking about looking for places where they can stand to get into the House again. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) will be able to say what that good Minister of Finance, Mr. Burton, was doing at Klip River. [Time limit extended.]

Go on a little more, it is a good advertisement for the South African party.

Then I accede to the request with pleasure. When in 1924 we came into office there was not one department which did not overwhelm us with subjects for which something had to be done. The previous Government was powerless. If it was a matter of protection, then the hon. member for Standerton was troubled with his Minister of Railways (Mr. Jagger). If it were finance, then there was a difference between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Burton) and the Natal members. We came into office and altered the polity of do-nothing and let things go. I actually notice that the hon. member for Standerton still now and then has the temerity to ascribe the presence of Kadalie in the Union to me.

Not I.

Oh, but I see that the hon. member asked at Ermelo why Kadalie is not expelled. The reason is that the Government cannot do it. When they were on the point of expelling Kadalie there was a telegram to one of the South African party Ministers that the South African party would lose votes, and when the telegram was handed over to the former Prime Minister then everything was at once as still as death. If the hon. member for Standerton wants to be straightforward he must say that he did not want to put out Kadalie because he wanted to retain the native vote.

Have you forgotten your letter to “Dear Kadalie”?

No, and I am proud of having given a contribution for poor native women and children when I was asked for it. What I am against, however, is that a man with the position of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) wants to insinuate that I did it for political reasons, although he must know what the actual position is, and that the lies which are constantly being repeated are untrue.

You wished him success in his action.

Those are the people who stand up so much for the native, but when you give anything to native women and children then they shout. To come to another point, I want to point out that the previous Government handed over a bankrupt Treasury to us four and a half years ago. That was not only the case with the Treasury, but also each of the five or six funds was as bankrupt as ever possible. The position was such that the farmers were threatened with a land tax for educating their children. The S.A. party had to resort to a tobacco tax which killed the tobacco industry in the Transvaal. They had to resort to the medicine tax. How many unemployed were there? 150,000 to 175,000. The Opposition are complaining to-day that there is too much unemployment, but the numbers are very small in comparison with the figure given. The former Government felt hopeless, and one of its ministers in reply to our questions whether nothing could be done, shrugged his shoulders and threw up his hands. When we came into power we immediately went to work however, and that pestilential policy of the late Government to give native workers the preference on the railways over white for unskilled work—

That is not correct.

The hon. member does not understand me. I did say last year that whites were being pushed out and replaced by natives, but when I learned that this was wrong I admitted the inaccuracy of my statement. What we confirm, however, is that the policy of the former Government, and of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was to give unskilled jobs on the railways, which were filled by Europeans, to natives in preference to whites when they became vacant.

That is untrue.

It is a fact. There were no less than 6,000 to 7,000 jobs, formerly filled by white men, which were filled up with natives. The white labour policy which the old S.A.P. Government introduced in 1911, and in connection with which the recruiting was done by Mr. Naude, was abandoned. To-day the Opposition is still attacking us on the civilized labour policy.

Your statements are incorrect.

Let me tell the hon. member that certain houses for white men were broken down along the Prieska line.

That is the only line on which I know an alteration was made.

You went to that length, however.

The white labourers were not dismissed, but they were transferred to other parts of the line.

I do not say that they were dismissed. When anyone was transferred, however, a native was put in his place. What have we done to reduce unemployment? In the first place we have again given work to 10,000 people in the railway service, and with their families this means that 30,000 to 40,000 poor people to-day make a satisfactory living. As another example I may mention that we immediately followed a protection policy with regard to our industries, but with the understanding that a reasonable-proportion of unskilled labour must be done by whites. The result is that work has been given to from 8 to 10,000 Europeans which, including their families, means between 30,000 and 40,000 people. So we stand to-day where we stand. When Parliament was opened on Friday the unemployed again came to the building, but they only consisted of 100 coloured and 20 white people. During the S.A.P. regime things were so bad, however, that there were thousands. As a result of our policy, industries have also flourished, and the chairman of any chamber of industry will confirm it. I want to draw another comparison between the present and the previous Government. If there is one thing on which we, and I, can look back with pride, then it is the industrial peace which has prevailed during the past four and a half years. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs, but I challenge him to get up and defend the previous Government in that respect. There was no industrial peace after 1913.

The agitators are included in the Government.

The policy of those days was nothing but a policy of force. In 1913 the military was called out to shoot, and in 1914 there was more force when the deportations took place.

What about the bayonets at Alexander Bay?

Alexander Bay shows the exact difference between that party and ourselves. Law and order must be maintained, even if it is done with bayonets——

When we did it you made a fuss.

What I complained about is that you fired so soon. That is why we had the force and the bloodshed in 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1922. In my opinion it was all unnecessary. We have also had to do with civil commotion, and when I was Minister of Justice in the Botha Government, there was a strike. I did not, however, employ the military, and instructed the police to take pick handles, and prohibited them from firing unless it was necessary. To-day, however, even the hon. member for Standerton goes through the country and makes speeches expressing his chagrin at the success with which the Government has always solved difficult matters. At Ermelo and elsewhere he reproached us for succeeding at Port Nolloth so that it did not come to shooting. When I read the report of his speech I said that one could expect something better from a responsible person, the Leader of the Opposition. But, however that may be, the people of South Africa must judge between them and us. There you have the force and the bloodshed. It is for the people to say if they want that party again. Let me say that if the people say that the Nationalist party must give place I shall not shed any tears. I shall feel that I can look back with the greatest pleasure on the four and a half years of my Government, and I am convinced that no Nationalist will ever need to hang his head over anything which has been done. Stupidities! Those I am prepared to admit, those you can only avoid by a policy of do-nothing. I want to tell hon. members opposite that I shall give them the fullest opportunity of speaking, but I want to assure them that they will get two for every one they give. We will not be stampeded, and their attempt to frighten us will fail. We have hitherto always allowed the hon. member for Standerton to run away and we shall continue in the future to let him do so. If the hon. member wants to co-operate on the native question, well and good. He still has the next fourteen days to co-operate with me to arrive at the best possible solution. I am not, however going to allow myself to be misled by foxy tricks. I quite agree with the hon. member for Standerton in this that I like clever twists and foxy tricks just as little as he does. I am going to the country on that question because it is clear to me that however they may try to throw a smoke screen around it and sand over it, I must treat the people honestly. I am going to make it clear to the people what the spirit is in which the S.A. party considers the country must be led and I am not going to run away from it.

If there is one thing that I deplore this afternoon it is the tone of the speech of the Prime Minister. He is not only the Leader of his party, but also of this House and of the whole of South Africa. What we expect from him is a worthy lead in this House. I want on a few points to reply to what the Prime Minister has said. In the first place he spoke about the unemployment that existed when this party was in power. Has the Prime Minister forgotten that that was an abnormal time?

Which you made abnormal.

Does the Prime Minister know what the position was in America at that time? Does he know that they had 6,000,000 unemployed there shortly after the war? Then the Prime Minister said that they found nothing but deficits in the Treasury when they came into office. If he reads the Auditor-General’s report on that period, what will he find? £12,800,000 was paid off the public debt, £9,800,000 was paid into the sinking fund during the period that the S.A. Party were in power, a total of £22,600,000. The Prime Minister knows just as well as I that when his party came into office the financial statement just balanced, and did not the present Minister of Finance get about £3,000,000 got from the Germans not only to pay off deficits with it, but also to provide ½ a million for roads? What happened when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was Minister of Railways and Harbours? He left an account which balanced. That was the position found by the present Minister of Railways and Harbours. Although the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was Minister in a difficult period he nevertheless reduced rates on the railways by £4,000,000 while the present Minister, although he has had a very prosperous time, has only reduced rates by £1,500,000. The Prime Minister also referred to the statements of the hon. member for Standerton about the South African state from the Cape to the Sudan. It is quite clear from what the Prime Minister has quoted what the hon. member for Standerton intended. He was speaking about a federation of British states in Africa. Our constitution provides for the incorporation of states. We have for instance already tried to get Rhodesia into the Union.

But do you mean states outside Rhodesia as well?

Naturally, why not states outside Rhodesia as well? The Constitution lays down the principle that we can alter the boundaries of the Union.

And use our commonsense in the matter.

The Australian Commonwealth is an example. They have a federation of states, and is Australia not a dominion?

Are you in favour of an African state which will include all British possessions in Africa?

Yes, Rhodesia, and in the circumstances also Kenya and Tanganyika, the states which adjoin Rhodesia when they are prepared to join up on our conditions. But the policy of this Government results in hundreds of people leaving our country for those countries in the north. We also do not forget our people there in church and other matters. The Prime Minister has now practically abused Rhodesia by calling it a black state.

I am in any event pleased at what you have said about the matter.

If the Prime Minister will only listen a little to what I mean. Such a federation of states is not alone formed with the consent of this Government, but also of the other governments, and they also act jointly with the consent of the states concerned. I do not see what is objectionable in that, although the Prime Minister is now attacking it so much.

Does your leader-agree with you?

My leader means a federation of states, and not one state. Everyone knows that it would be for the good of South Africa if we had a federal Parliament of Africa as it has been for the benefit of the Australian states. We may differ in opinion about it, but that is no reason why the Prime Minister should attack the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in that way. It was, in any case, once the idea of President Kruger and the ideal of the Voortrekkers always to go northwards. If the Prime Minister thinks that he can make party capital out of this matter then he makes an error, and has a very poor opinion of the intelligence of the people of South Africa. Let him follow the example of the Dutch Reformed Church, whose advance posts are in the Soudan. The Prime Minister has also abused the hon. member for Standerton as defaulter. If there is one characteristic of the hon. member for Standerton, even if he has his faults, it is that he never runs away from his standpoint. His past shows that he has remained by his people and never run away. Now I come to the native question. The Prime Minister lightheartedly says that we have made a party political matter of the native question, and why? Because we laid down as a party at our Bloemfontein Conference what principle we were adopting in connection with the problem. We came to those conclusions after long deliberation which lasted the whole day, and into the night. I almost know the resolution by heart, and the first point in our principle is that the native question must be solved in a fair and just manner. Has the Prime Minister any possible objection to that? The second line says that when that native question is solved existing rights must be kept in view. Is the Prime Minister in his proposals not going to respect the existing rights of natives? Why then does he object to our laying that down as principle? We do not say that everything must be retained precisely as it has existed, but we must show respect for existing rights. Has the Prime Minister possibly any objection to that? Another point in the document is that we want the native to solve his own problems in his own way, e.g., by his own councils. Does the Prime Minister object to that? That is surely his policy also. I also was a member of the native commission, and for two years on the select committee, and the Prime Minister cannot accuse me of working against him. We prepared a report recently in Pretoria on our findings, and the Prime Minister himself signed it. We were not able to finish, but we did not oppose the Prime Minister. Let him lay the commission’s report on the Table so that the House can see it. Now he says that the native question must be put before the people, and must be debated in the bitter atmosphere of the election campaign. I regard the Prime Minister as a man who loves his country. I have never said on any platform that I questioned his patriotism. How can he, with his patriotism, drag such a thing into the party political struggle of the country. Let him appoint a commission from outside Parliament in the form of a national convention. We pleaded for this before, but the Prime Minister refused because if it comes into the House it is almost unavoidable that party politics will be dragged in. I deeply regret, and many Afrikanders will agree with me, that the Prime Minister has taken this step, and I am certain that he will yet deeply regret it. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) shortly after the Minister of Justice had done the same thing, begged for the chance to make a party political matter of the native question, and he even said that the interests of the whites must be maintained even if the native’s head had to be pushed under water.

Where did I say that?

Take the press which stands behind the Prime Minister. For months and months the Nationalist press has been abusing us as brothers of the Kaffirs, etc., and the cartoons have been of the lowest standard. Did the Prime Minister move a finger to point out their duty to the press, his ministers and his followers? But if we at a party congress consider the matter in connection with which the whole of South Africa expects an expression of opinion from us, and in connection with which the Prime Minister has introduced legislation, we may not make any statements. I think that the Prime Minister will yet regret the fact that this matter has been dragged into politics. It is not of the greatest importance to attain to something in political affairs. Politics are of a passing nature. Parties are of a passing nature. You may obtain the victory to-day at an election. What is that in comparison with the great matter of the native question in South Africa? The statement signed by the Prime Minister appearing in the press this morning is nothing but a number of collected “Die Burger” articles, and the Prime Minister of South Africa actually degraded himself by publishing to the world the document which was drawn up in Cape Town. I am not much astonished. The chief reason I see for the motion of no-confidence is that the political life of South Africa has never yet been in such a parlous state as under the Pact Government. If there is one thing of which the people of South Africa were always proud, it was the honesty and dignity of its public life. But what is the position to-day? The political life is stained by a dishonourable and illogical combine in the Government of the country. A great promise was made to the country that on the night of the election the Pact with the Labour party would come to an end. Members of the party went so far as to say that if Gen. Hertzog dared to take Labour members into the Cabinet they would resign as members of the party. The election was over, and the Sunday after the Labour party held a conference to decide whether they should take part in the Cabinet or not. From early morning till late at night they sat that Sunday and the present Prime Minister had to wait till Monday to complete his Cabinet upon the result of the Sunday conference of the Labour party. Did the Nationalist leaders even consult their followers before they broke their election promise? That is the party which always said that it would act democratically. They did not act in that way towards the people. The people were not consulted, and what confusion did not arise after that. Have we ever heard such a thing in the public life of South Africa? Ministers sit there, and, like dentists, we have to try to extract something about the Pact between the Labour party and the Nationalists. Subsequently we learnt that the 8-hour working day was one of the conditions of the Pact. As well as the eleventh minister and the raising of the Parliamentary allowance—all financial burdens which the public were not consulted about. Have we ever heard of such a thing that one of the parties which assisted in forming the Cabinet is split into two parts. Two years ago the Minister of Defence at Port Elizabeth accused his colleagues of everything that was low and dishonourable in public life. Just read the minutes of the Port Elizabeth congress. The people whom he accused, under guidance of his colleague in the Cabinet, namely the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) replied again to the Minister of Defence, and what did they say to him? All this while the three Labour ministers were sitting next to each other in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister of South Africa then said that the matter did not concern him. They could go on quarrelling and disputing. The people, however, who quarrelled so much, kept the Prime Minister in office. That is one of the complaints which I have against the Prime Minister, namely, that he has degraded public life in the eyes of the people. If I were to make a complaint against the Government it would be that practically from the beginning they have kept us Afrikanders apart. When we look back on the outbreak of the world war we see that when the great question of whether South Africa should take part in it or not had to be considered, the Prime Minister never gave us the credit for coming to our decision in the firm conviction that we had acted in the true interests of South Africa. The question with me was whether it was in the best interests of South Africa to take part or not, but we were met with suspicion by our own people. The Prime Minister abused us as destroyers of the national traditions, and as Empire followers, and I do not know what else. This caused very bitter feeling. I live among my people and know what is going on, and what this matter meant to us. Brother against brother, father against son, and often mother against father was the result. That is the life we live and I do not even wish to speak of the effect on the religious life. What is the position to-day about war policy? I admire the Prime Minister for undertaking the honourable task of unveiling the memorial at Delville, and I praise him for the unimprovable panegyric that he made over the grave where so many of our young people lie buried, but then I ask why all the division, why the bitterness, why should people stand opposed to each other if that were to be the final policy of the Prime Minister? After the war the people gradually came closer together again. What happened then? Even during the war the agitation for the republic and the separation movement commenced. Nearly all the leaders at present on the front Government benches travelled round the world to go and get the republic. The Prime Minister said that we ran away from the flag. We did not introduce a Flag Bill, and why not?

Because you were too frightened.

Up to 1924 the slogan was “A republic, separation and the Vierkleur.” Would there have been an opportunity for us to get a national flag approved by the Opposition of pre-1924? Just read the speech of the Minister of the Interior at the first and second reading. Will not the Prime Minister as a statesman admit that after that it was impossible to come to an agreement? And then? The Prime Minister bears a very great responsibility in connection with the divisions of our people. In 1920 and in 1921 he put his own signature to two manifestos which were issued, preaching to the South African people that there was no freedom, no sovereign independence for South Africa inside the British Empire, that the only way was separation.

I did not say “Not inside the Empire but “not through the Empire”.

What happened? At Versailles we, that is the representatives of South Africa, signed the great international document, the greatest that has ever been signed. The representatives came back and Parliament approved the treaty. Shortly thereafter we became a member and are still a member of the League of Nations, together with the other nations of the world. The status was then despised by the Prime Minister and he said it amounted to nothing. All kinds of misrepresentations went the round. What do we hear to-day about the status? When do we still hear of a republic? I was in Canada recently together with Mr. Speaker and other members of the delegation. We were on Lake Louise, one of the most beautiful places on earth. One morning we found at the hotel the speech of the Union Prime Minister, sent by wireless. What did it contain? The statement that if the secession propaganda continued it would mean the death of the Nationalist party. I noticed the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) reading it with a sour face. I said: “Cousin John, how does the General speak so strangely?” and he said: “No, I think the General is right.” There were a few violent political parsons like the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe,) but the Prime Minister gave him a good reprimand and told him that he was breaking up the Nationalist party, yet we noticed that the Prime Minister said: “You can continue the propaganda”, whereupon the hon. member for Winburg was satisfied. I believe however that the Nationalist party has dispensed with official republican propaganda.

You ought to be thankful.

I am thankful.

Why then a motion of no-confidence?

Why has the Prime Minister driven the people into two camps on this matter all these years? He returned from London and said that we had absolute sovereign independence which was what we had always said. There was a clarification at the Imperial Conference and more light will still come, but everyone knows as well as I do that our status existed. I want to ask the Prime Minister where his sovereign independence inside the British Empire would have been to-day if we had followed his policy in 1914 on the outbreak of the world war. Four years ago the Minister of Mines and Industries said at Caledon that separation was the radical and cardinal principle of the Nationalist party, but today he says that there is sovereign independence within the British Empire. I notice that the Minister of the Interior went on a platform at Parow—not the pulpit—and told them that the Nationalist co-operation with the Socialists was justified because the hon. member for Standerton invited the present Minister of Defence in 1920 to enter his Cabinet, but he (the Minister of the Interior) forgot to mention what the condition was of the offer made by the hon. member for Standerton at that time— it was all in writing—even the legislation that was to be passed by the temporary joint Cabinet was clearly set out, and he also forgot to say that the Nationalist leaders refused to accept the offer because they would have to give up their secession movement—although they subsequently bartered the cardinal and holy principle to the present Minister of Defence for political support, and he, the Minister of Defence, still has that document in his pocket to-day. After the expulsion of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) from the Cabinet the Minister of the Interior thanked heaven that they were rid of the Communists and Bolshewiks, and they were now a purified party. Within a few days of this statement, however, the head committee of the Transvaal Nationalist party met, and decided to co-operate with those-very Bolsheviks and Communists. At the bye-election in Langlaagte the Nationalists were even advised to vote for Mr. Christie who had resigned his seat as a member of this House as a protest against the action of the Prime Minister. I ask you. Have you ever seen such doings in the public life of South Africa? Our public life is degraded, and the people will settle with the Government on the point of honour in public life. The Prime Minister can throw up as much dust as he wishes about the native question and what the hon. member for Standerton is supposed to have said about the North African states. [Time limit.]

I move—

Well then I shall have to put a time limit to the debate if members of the Opposition want to speak longer than their time.

I shall be very short. [Time limit extended.] In conclusion I want to say that hon. members opposite and we here have the same political ideals. Our interests are also the same. Why must we again be divided by the Prime Minister? To make the breach greater he is now appealing to the people on the native question. We have Dutch-speaking and English-speaking members here.

How many Dutch-speaking?

We here have sacrificed everything to building up the country. I do not want to boast about the Afrikaans-speaking members of the Opposition. Take the hon. member at my side (Mr. Jagger), is he an honourable member of society or not? Has he assisted in building up South Africa, or not? A public life which has no room for a man like the hon. member is not worthy of the name.

In politics he is a free-trader.

He, as well as I, is called a soulless Afrikander. Does the Prime Minister think that that is the way of bringing us closer together? Let me tell him that I know the people just as well as he does, and at heart there is a desire for peace amongst them.

Does a motion of no-confidence mean peace?

By his action the Prime Minister kept us apart in the past, and now he says that he prefers Bolsheviks and Communists to the Saps. The reason I am voting for the motion is that I feel that it is largely the fault of the Prime Minister that we are kept apart.