I have examined the provisions of the Irrigation Loans Adjustments Bill and find that although it may be regarded as dealing with public policy it will have the effect of depriving certain private individuals, as distinct from the public generally, of the water rights they now possess. For these reasons I consider that the Bill should be proceeded with as a Hybrid Bill. The Order for the second reading should therefore be discharged and the Bill referred to the examiners for report in terms of S.O. No. 182. Subsequently, if allowed to proceed, the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee after second reading.

EVENING SITTINGS.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary to say anything on this, except that I should like to assure the House that I want to see the night sittings instituted in as easy a manner as possible, so that those of us to whom it is not easy to sit here late at night can leave the House. I shall therefore at any time be prepared to undertake with regard to this motion that at any rate no division will take place after 7 o’clock. I think, however, that it is desirable and necessary to sit a little at night in connection with the motion. I also want to say that it is not at all the intention of the Government to shorten the debate. I have just given notice of night sittings to-day and on Monday. This does not mean that the debate must necessarily end on Monday. If the House has to continue with the motion I shall be able to give notice again of night sittings for succeeding days.

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I have given careful consideration to the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Benoni. It is a recognized principle of parliamentary government that if a motion of no-confidence is carried the Government must resign. As this is the whole object of the motion the hon. member cannot so amend it so as to obtain a vote of no-confidence and at the same time avoid the necessary consequences of that vote. It is not competent to move an amendment the effect of which, if read with the original motion, would render the question inconsistent with itself. For these reasons the amendment must be ruled out of order.

Hard luck! What are you going to do now?

When the House adjourned yesterday afternoon I was refreshing the memory of the hon. member for Standerton and bringing to mind his evil deeds in the past. I was analysing his offences in 1914. It is clear that all the troubles, divisions and shootings which took place under the S.A.P. Government could have been obviated by the exhibition of some statesmanship. I want to ask the hon. member if he still remembers how he and his Cabinet, at the summoning of Parliament in 1914, showed a map to serve as a reason for an aggressive war on a neighbouring friendly power in South Africa.

Why do you not give South-West back now?

I ask whether hon. members opposite still remember the wandering Nakop, which was both inside Union territory, and then within German territory. I want to remind the hon. member for Standerton how he induced the representatives of the people to start the war without consulting the people. When a number of us in the interior felt that that was a wrong procedure, and when we approached the Government by deputations and petitions to abandon its war plan, martial law was immediately proclaimed to prevent us obtaining the remedy for our grievances by constitutional means. Does the hon. member still remember how he turned the guns of the Union on his own people, who formerly sat behind him as S.A.P. men, after he had taken their constitutional weapons from them? Has the hon. member forgotten the distress that prevailed? Can he ever forget how he pursued the people whom he was so fond of calling rebels, and how he used the Defence Force to plunder and ruin a large section of them? Certainly the greatest offence of all he committed at that time was his action against that great son of South Africa, Gen. de Wet, whose name I can mention with pride. If it had not been for the intervention of President Steyn, then the hon. member for Standerton, together with the then Minister of Justice, would have allowed our great national hero to be dressed in prison clothing.

What did they do with you?

Hon. members opposite are becoming nervous, but I shall deal with them. The treatment given to a great man like Gen. de Wet was probably the cause of his death, and I say that no one else but the hon. member for Standerton must bear the blame of his death. Further, I can say that during the S.A.P. regime there were no less than 176 strikes, and in many cases the hon. member for Standerton did not show the great commonsense which the world is so anxious to credit him with, but he had the people shot down with force and with rifles and guns. The present Government has already been four and a half years in power and during that time South Africa has enjoyed a period of industrial peace and rest. The Government has not had the least trouble in maintaining order and quiet. Is it then surprising that the hon. member for Standerton and his followers are highly indignant that such difficulties do not occur now? The arising of difficulties was their only hope for the coming election. There was one strike, namely the external shipping strike, partly in Cape Town and Durban. The S.A.P. members rejoiced extremely, because the Government did not prevent it—although it was a strike over which the Government had no control. Owing to the statesmanship of the Government there was no bloodshed.

The farmers had to suffer through it.

If I had to my account what the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has to his I should not open my mouth so much. Just as to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) I will say to the hon. member for Witwatersberg that I am sorry I cannot say au revoir till after the election. Yesterday I showed in what a prosperous condition the country was when the S.A.P. Government took over in 1910, how the national debt increased enormously during its 14 years’ regime, how all sources of our revenue were over-taxed, and how the credit of the Union stood. The proof thereof is that the S.A.P. Government could not raise its loans as favourably as at the start of Union, or as favourably as the present Government could do. We find that Minister Burton had one deficit after another until finally, in 1924, when the present Government came into power, there was an accumulated deficit of £2,144,000. Then it must not be forgotten that Minister Burton in 1919-’20 took £460,000 of the previous year’s surplus to cover a part of his expenditure. Between 1920-’23 he took £1,760,000 from loan funds from gold mining contracts, which were intended for redemption of capital, to use it for administrative purposes. Notwithstanding this unlawful appropriation of moneys to cover expenditure, the accumulated deficit grew to £2,144,000. Then the hon. member for Standerton still dares to criticize the Department of the Minister of Finance, and in the same breath to say that Mr. Harry Burton was a good Minister of Finance. Well. I wish that Mr. Burton would try again at the next election to make propaganda for the Saps., because he would be the best propagandist for the Nationalists. Are we now to understand from the hon. member for Standerton that if he should possibly again— I say possibly—come into power, he will again appoint Mr. Burton as Minister of Finance? I hope the hon. member or one of his followers will reply to my questions. Is that what the people are to expect? Hon. members opposite are always so ready to say hear, hear, but let them now state what the policy of their party in this respect will be if they come into office. No answer! Just as they have now run away from this position, they will repeatedly run away, and we shall keep them running till after the election. Does the hon. member for Standerton forget that the excellent Mr. Burton understood how to carry on with deficits, and still better to buy flour and bread for the public? If the people are to expect the reappointment of Mr. Burton then I say: “Ichabod to South Africa.” I have tried briefly to sum up the work and misdeeds of the S.A. party in its 14 years’ government. In the limited time at my disposal I want to mention a few of the things which the present Government has done since 1924. In that year it found a mess in the administration of the country, and I heard someone say that it was having a very hard time to cleanse that stable. However, it took that task upon itself, and at once started to give work to from 150,000 to 175,000 unemployed. During the debate, S.A.P. speakers have said that the Government has done almost nothing for the unemployed, but what did the S.A. party do? Their Government possibly voted £200,000 to £400,000 for relief of distress, and paid the people 3s. 6d. a day, but when the money was exhausted the people still remained unemployed.

Where was that?

If the hon. member would read his blue books more, then he would find out where it was. The Government immediately gave work to a great number of unemployed, and so arranged it that in many cases the people were assisted to permanent jobs. Take for example the 12,000 to 15,000 people who have obtained permanent work on the railway. The Minister of Railways has gone so far as to instruct his officials to give the workpeople a chance to get on if they have initiative. Now we have thousands of foremen and stationmasters who began as labourers. With its policy of protection and of white labour the Government achieved so much that even private employers were ready to give the white man in South Africa a chance. The Government also began at once to relieve the heavily taxed people by reducing taxation. In 1924 for instance the customs duty was decreased by £40,000, the tax on roll and pipe tobacco by £20,000, that on patent medicines by £75.000— a total of £134,000 for 1924-’25: in 1925-’26 the reduction in taxation was £200,000 on leaf tobacco, £400,000 from the return to 1d. postage, £30,000 from the return to the ½d. newspaper postage, and £30,000 from the increased exemption in the income tax of from £50 to £60 for children, a total reduction of £660,000 for 1925-’26; in 1926 ’27 the increased exemption in income tax for married people was £205,000, and the increased interest of the Master’s Office, £15,000—a total of £220,000 for 1926-’27; in 1927 ’28 the exemption of life assurance companies from income tax was £90,000. and the decrease in import duties £125,000—a total of £215,000 for 1927-’28; in 1928-’29 import duties were decreased by £503,000, while the decrease of income tax by the reduction of 20 per cent, was as much as £770,000—a total of £1,273,000 for 1928-’29. Then railway rates during these few years were decreased to an amount of £1,282,000, which means a total reduction in taxation in the last four years of £3,785,000. That takes us up to last year, and we shall see what deductions there will yet be. In this connection it must be mentioned that the Government gives a greater proportion to the provincial councils than the S.A.P. Government did. The people know that the poor provincial councils were bled under the S.A.P. Government, and were forced to levy unpopular taxes on the people. Immediately the present Government took office the Minister of Finance met the four Administrators, and gave to the provinces £1,000,000 more than they had ever got before. As a result of that action the provincial council were enabled to reduce their taxation. I can mention the employers’ tax in the Transvaal, £226,000, the turnover tax in the four provinces, £215,000, the company tax in the Cape, £30,000—a total of £471,000 which the provincial council took off as a result of the higher Union grant. Notwithstanding these reductions in taxation the Minister of Finance still succeeded in producing a surplus every year. In 1924-’25 the surplus was £808,000; in 1925-’26 £672,000; in 1926’27 £1,215,000; and last year £1,750,000. Yet the hon. member for Standerton goes to the backveld and tells the farmers that the Government’s administration costs £4,000,000 a year more. We do not deny that, but the hon. member should be honest enough to tell the people out in the country that the development of the country has occasioned the greater expenditure. No, but on this he preserved silence. You know the old proverb that a half truth is worse than a whole lie. [Time limit].

We yesterday listened to three very vigorous speeches, in the course of which two Ministers, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Labour, were fiercely attacked. To the surprise of everyone, neither of these Ministers has deigned to reply. But what happened? Instead of the Minister of Defence getting up and defending himself, he got the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) to get up, and we heard a song, the echo of which is still resounding in this House. The tune was as false as the words. Then we had in this most united party the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) who attacked the hon. the Prime Minister for bringing the native question into the arena of party politics. Then he went on to attack the Minister of Labour for paying a wage of 1s. 9d. a day, after which he launched an attack upon the Minister of Railways in connection with the dissatisfaction existing on the railways. He attacked the Minister for Finance for the method in which he deals with all his surpluses, and then he made a fierce onslaught on the three Labour Ministers.

What did you expect?

Under the circumstances I expect he did the right thing. He attacked them for all they had done, and all that they had left undone He attacked eight out of the eleven Ministers personally, and on every point that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) attacked the whole of the Ministry, and yet he finds he cannot vote against them as a Government. He apparently believes in collective bargaining but not in collective Cabinet responsibility. Now I have unfortunately come to the speech of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy). I think under the circumstances we must at least refer to it. I prefer, under ordinary circumstances, to ignore his speeches. He was most angry, he was almost savage in the way he thundered forth his denunciations of deeds long dead. On this side of the House we prefer, and always endeavour, in the interests of the country, to put the past behind us. We have forgiven, if we have not entirely forgotten, the loss that occurred to life and property caused by the hon. member and some of his associates, when, according to all the laws of his forefathers, he was guilty of one of the deeds which is never forgiven by a State. I don’t intend to resurrect all the mistakes of the past, but I would like to say to the hon. member, as he so loves to delve into the mire, and to fan racial prejudices, and as he is so fond of reminding others of past deeds, that he must not forget the mercy shown to him by those for whom he has now no good word. But for that mercy, the hon. member would not be sitting in this House to-day. It is difficult adequately to deal with the many blunders and ineptitudes of the combination so eloquently referred to by the Minister of the Interior, when he was speaking against coalitions as wrong and demoralising, as a violation of conscience, as dishonest, and as raising opportunism to the level of statesmanship. The hon. Minister condemned coalitions, but immediately the coalition was formed he became a prominent member of it. I can well imagine the hon. Minister in those days, prior to his falling to the lure of position, standing in his pulpit and preaching to these texts: Conscience, dishonesty, opportunism, and lack of character. He would have been far more eloquent than he was on the occasion when he spoke against coalition. He would have been smug, quoting his Shakespeare, if by chance he would quote so foreign an authority—

He may have reminded his admirers that there was no class of man so difficult to manage in any state as those whose intentions are honest, but whose consciences are bewitched. Perhaps he has a happy conscience; he follows its dictates very much as a coachman would follow the horses he is driving. This same coalition party, even as late as yesterday we were told it is a most united party, and yet one member, and a very prominent member of the party, although, for the time being, he has left the Creswellian section, told us that there was only a section of the Government that he was against, and that he was going to vote for the Government on this motion. Another member, also a member of the party, is not quite satisfied with this Government. He told us in the Free State not long ago that the Nationalist party seemed to be at sixes and sevens With regard to the question of republicanism, and that at present it is a party of capitalists and workers ruled by the landowning capitalist section. It may surprise members to know that that authority was the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). Then there is another member of this party who is going to vote for the Nationalist section of this Government who condemns the Prime Minister. He said in a speech not long ago—

That is another of the left wing of the Labour party. Then there is another, apparently a very discerning member of this party, who told his hearers at a labour meeting not long ago—

Then, strangely enough, from this Labour party he had cheers—

Who said that?

The leader of the left wing of the Labour party in the Cape Peninsula, Mr. Cunningham. The Minister of Labour yesterday asked to be judged by the record of his work. The hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Modeley) and Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) gave him a very full reply. Another member of the Minister of Defence’s own party said—

After what I have quoted everybody will agree with the Minister of Defence when he said it was a most immoral Pact.

When did I say that?

It was at Mowbray or Observatory—one of those places which the Minister is reported to be courting just now. A little while ago when there was a little difference in the Cabinet and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) had to leave the Ministry, three views were expressed. The Minister of the Interior said that the Nationalists had severed all connection with the Madeley section which consisted of communists, Bolshevists and social extremists; the Prime Minister said he had no confidence in the hon. member for Benoni, and the Minister of Defence cordially approved of the Prime Minister’s action and declared that otherwise he would have left the Cabinet. Almost immediately after, they joined together and agreed that at the next general election they would support the candidature of the hon. member for Benoni. The Pact have succeeded in putting English against Dutch, bringing about racial animosity, pitting Dutch against Dutch and now they are endeavouring to put black against white. The Pact on their own showing are quite unworthy of any further trust. I would now like to come to the Minister of Railways. Unfortunately there is so much to say about his department that you cannot say all in the short time at your disposal, but I shall have further opportunity of reverting to the matter during the session. One of the most serious blots on the railways administration is its policy of keeping all information from the public. Previously all reports on all subjects, more particularly the branch-line statistics, were received with the regularity of clock-work. Then the statistics in regard to civilized labour have been dropped and we are told absolutely nothing on that point; in fact all the reports by the Railways Department are obscured in a mass of words and for practical purposes they are not worth the paper they are printed on. Take the last report of the General Manager of Railways. I presume these reports are seen by the Minister before publication.

Certainly not.

If not may I draw his attention to the last report of the General Manager. Nowhere in that report is there any information in regard to the earnings of the different sections of the department. The whole of the revenue-earning traffic is ignored and we are merely told that there is a record income of £25,000,000. We are not told what traffic is carried at a high or a low rate, or which class of traffic pays and which is carried at a loss. The value of these records is negligible because we have no opportunity of comparing them with previous records. We are told of a record of train mileage but nothing of tonnage carried, except that there is a record. We know that trucks are carried backwards and forwards, but we know nothing of the distances they are carried uselessly, nor do we know whether business principles are followed. Then we are in ignorance of the tractive capacity of the different types of engines and what loads they usually or can haul. We were told that certain types of engines were imported because they have very high tractive power. A little while ago great fuss was made about some wonderful engines from Germany or America which were going to haul the Union Express in record time between Cape Town and Johannesburg, but of late we have heard nothing of these engines. All I can find is that they are being reconstructed or repaired at Pretoria. Expenditure is treated in the same way. It is interesting to know the revenue being earned, but so few details are given that we are unable to say what the earnings are of any particular class of traffic. The operating ratio, however, is at the high figure of 79.83 per cent, and we have had practically no reduction in rates. The hon. member for Hoopstad boosted that the railway rates had been reduced by £1,250,000, but he forgot to tell us that the Minister’s predecessor, although faced with a falling revenue, reduced rates by over £4,000,000. There is a great decline on the expenditure on the permanent way but otherwise there is a great increase in traffic expenditure and the maintenance of rolling stock. Of course there is an increase in traffic expenditure, but it would be interesting to know how far this increase is due to the inadequacy of the provision for workshops or the poor condition of the rolling-stock. The position has become serious, because taking their cue from the Minister in keeping information from us, the administrative heads are doing the same. We have to ferret round for information. The railways after all are a Government concern and they belong to the people, and the people are entitled to the fullest possible statistics. How otherwise can we form any opinion on the economic position? The department also should be fully supplied with statistics. I cannot understand how the administration can properly carry on without having the fullest statistics to compare from day to day. We have had for some time past no branch line statistics, and the Minister seems to positively glory in withholding them from us. When he was in opposition one item he particularly asked for was the branch line statistics. The Minister’s chief man on the Railway Board tells us the statistics cannot be supplied because they would be too costly, yet not long ago when he was a member of this House, he was a party to a resolution passed by the select committee, and in this he favoured publication of these statistics, as he considered Parliament should be informed of the gain or loss on each section of the railways. To-day he has changed. That is Mr. Wilcocks. I would like to remind the Minister of what he himself said. He and the Minister of Finance were both on the Railway Committee in those days and they urged very strongly the necessity for the resumption of these accounts, The accounts were suspended during the war. The Committee favoured their resumption,.. “in as much as they appear to be essential if there is to be any effective parliamentary control of railways and harbour affairs.” To-day they tell us they cannot possibly supply these statistics because they would cost something like £15,000 a year. But if this amount is included the cost of the statistics the department itself must arrange month by month. The real reason is that the Minister is afraid to give us all the statistics because we might be able to criticize his administration, as we would be able to do if we knew everything that was going on in his department. In other countries these statistics are considered essential. They hold that they are most important because without them they could not see whether the rail ways were being run as business concerns or not. They give the following reasons: They say statistics are necessary to assist the administration and executive officers; to enable the governing body to watch and control the management and operation of the railways in the direction of efficiency and economy, and to furnish the Government and the Auditor-General with such information and returns as are requested by them. Here we get none whatever, and I think we have the right to assume that the running of the railways is so inefficient that the Government dare not give us all these statistics. The Minister is so far above any other railway administration in the world that he now finds it convenient to do without the statistics. I want to remind him once more that he is not the Minister of Railways for his own benefit. He is there presumably for the benefit of the public, and although he will be there for only a short time longer he might do something in the direction I have indicated. I want to refer to a matter which the Prime Minister brought up in his speech. We know the explanation given by the Prime-Minister when he spoke, but we also know that all the other members of his party go round the country and tell everybody that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), when he was Minister, dismissed white employees and substituted natives. They know it is absolutely incorrect, but they kept on repeating it year after year until last year when we got the report of the select committee and they changed their tune. The Prime Minister explained what he meant was that white labour was removed from one place to another and native labour put in its place. I hope that in future the Minister will see when he speaks on this subject that he quotes this report and not his own views.

I will give the facts.

This is the evidence given by the head of the department—

I asked whether any Europeans were dismissed during the same period to make room for coloured or black labour, and the reply of the general manager was—

Let me remind the Minister he had the opportunity of getting all this information long before the select committee obtained it. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) left office the number of European labourers was increased by 1,483.

And coloured?

I will give you the official figures later on.

After all, if these figures are wrong they were given by the head of the department a year ago, and they should have been corrected by the Minister before now. I want to say a few words about a matter of very great importance, the finances of the railway. I think everybody will admit the finances are in a really miserable condition. While the country is prospering and every industry is advancing we find that our railways form the only concern marked by crazy policies and wasteful extravagance. During the last two sessions the Minister, when we were discussing his vote, was unfortunately not here. While he was away he arranged a treaty acceptable, I think, to no section of the community. I find that even the strong supporters of the Government, who so enthusiastically support the new treaty, then condemned this treaty, which was arranged by the Minister. He has done the country no good, and, further, I find he has arranged to give further contracts to the country he visited. According to reports he has now given to Germany the contract for lubricating oil, without any tests such as were made in regard to oil purchased from other countries.

Nonsense.

Does the Minister deny that he has given to Germany a contract for lubricating oil?

The Board has made a certain recommendation, and I accepted this.

Does he deny the contract has gone to Germany? The strange part of it is it is taken without any tests, whereas the previous oil used was taken after three years’ tests. The ordinary railway expenditure has increased since 1924 from twenty-three to thirty millions.

And revenue?

I am coming to that. While the revenue has increased five millions, the expenditure increased by six millions. If we make allowance for betterment, contributions to pension and superannuation funds, and the reduction of interest-bearing capital, we find that where there has been an increase in revenue of .15 per cent, the increase in expenditure was 4.08 per cent.; the open mileage increased by 10 per cent, and the extra expenditure was 33 per cent. The unfortunate part is that we can never depend upon the Minister’s estimates. On not a single occasion has he been correct within £500,000 in his estimates. In 1926-’27 he was out in regard to estimated expenditure, by £867,000, and out in estimated revenue by £816,000; in 1927-’28 he was out in estimated expenditure, by £635,000 and out in estimated revenue by £482,000.

On the right or the wrong side?

Then as far as the expenditure is concerned we have no information that enables us to judge whether this concern is properly run or not; we can judge only by what we can find out by ferreting round. On the general account there has been an increase of £52,000 since 1924, and on rolling stock there has been a 10 per cent, increase compared with the train mileage of six per cent. In other countries, where there has been an increase in train mileage, the expenditure proportionately goes down, and this is the only country in the world where this expenditure proportionately goes up. There is an increase of half-a-million per annum in overtime, and yet the rolling stock is in a miserable condition. The general manager’s vote increased by £18,600, and the chief accountant’s vote by £30,000. Running expenditure increased by over one penny per mile. Salaries increased by £2,750,000, and yet, as we heard yesterday, the men are far from satisfied. Capital expenditure increased at the rate of £7,500,000 per annum, and the average increase of interest was £25,000 per annum. We have to pay the enormous sum of £5,750,000. The Minister spends very freely. He should run his railways so that he gets an income somewhat proportionate to his expenditure, which is increasing, as the Minister must admit, out of all proportion to his earnings. Very occasionally we get information, not from the department, but from those working in the department. We find that when the men are dissatisfied they do what they never did in the past—they hold meetings and state publicly their views on railway administration. Then we have the matter of accidents on the railways. I want to put it to the Minister that not long ago when central railwaymen were expressing rather freely their views with regard to the running of the railways, a letter was written by someone high up in the department to these men, in which he referred to the meeting of railwaymen—at Durban, I think it was—as being engineered from Cape Town, and as a final excuse he blamed the press. He goes on, in that letter, to incite the men against the press. [Time limit.]

I must say that the opining words of the hon. member who has just sat down, will take a great deal of beating—absolutely black ingratitude. The hon. members on his left made a present of a seat on the provincial council and the Langlaagte seat and declared themselves a reinforcement of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and all the hon. member has to hand them are jeers, slights and slurs. I am sure that during the last twenty-four hours the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has been congratulating himself upon his latest reinforcements. He is welcome to them, but I would like to remind him that he may find them reinforcements and followers who will cause him a great deal of anxiety. In politics and in war it is a very good thing to have your foes in front of you, and none but good friends behind you. We know perfectly well, of course, that this motion is not meant for this hon. House. It is really well known that the Government does possess the confidence of this House, and really what this motion expresses is the pious hope, on the part of the right hon. member and his party, that the new House, which in the ordinary course will be elected in a few months’ time, will not extend its confidence to this Government. I suppose that the capacity for cherishing hope under, the most adverse circumstances is one of the greatest gifts of beneficent Providence. We all know that my motion is the firing of the first big shot in the election campaign, and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) opened it in his best electioneering style. We were told that a very great change had taken place in public opinion, that we started four years ago with the good-will of every side, even that of the Opposition. He then told us a great change had come over public opinion. I had been reading another speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman in which he said—

Yes, sir, a very confident assurance that. It is from a speech made in Cape Town in May, 1924. When the Prime Minister thought fit to make a change in his Cabinet I reminded him of 1913, when, in similar circumstances, he did not then think of resigning but he reminded me that he went on for a further eleven years governing the country. So shall we. On the occasion when I moved a vote of no confidence the Prime Minister and his supporters did not try and say that we would move a wibbly-wobbly kind of amendment, but he and his friends voted solidly against the Government.

Why did not you vote against the Nationalists instead of walking out of the House?

As far as I can remember there have been only three votes of no confidence moved in this House, one of which was moved by the Prime Minister and another by myself, and the other is the present one.

Behold how good and joyful a thing it is, brethren, to dwell together in unity.

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) went on to say that this Government does not possess the confidence of the country. His speech was very typical of all his electioneering statements, consisting mostly of sweeping allegations quite unsupported by facts. He said that the defence force had disappeared, and was a farce.

Quite right.

If that is the case, then Heaven knows what it was when the right hon. member for Standerton left it. In the opinion of any competent judge, our present defence arrangements—they may be defective—but the force is far better organized than when the right hon. gentleman left office. At that time the active citizen force strength was less than it is to-day. Of units of artillery we had only one battery; now we have five; of departmental units there was not a single one, now we have about 500 men in training in these. And then everywhere he goes into the country he says he hears complaints. What was being done in regard to the training of youth in the country—nothing. When he was in office, there was not one single boy in the country districts getting any training, but now some 7,000 were under some training. Again I say that any competent judge will assert that our defence arrangements are better than they were in his (Gen. Smuts’) time. It is quite true that the defence force has not done any active service during our time, but that force is for the defence of our whole country, and I hope that it will not be required for internal disorder.

But does your Government rest upon force?

An hon. member interjected that the defence force was seething with discontent.

Ask the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy).

I see that the hon. member who has just spoken, while at a gathering of the Sons of England—he tries to get support from every quarter—stated that the Defence Department was being run racially.

I absolutely deny it. I have not attended a meeting of the Sons of England for many years.

How many?

You have never made such a public statement?

No; it is absolutely untrue and I ask you to withdraw it.

I accept the hon. member’s word, but I want to reassure him that if there is any doubt regarding the truth of the statement, he has my authority to contradict it. May I refer to a speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)? At Ermelo, in discussing the Namaqualand difficulty, he said that the Government had sent 300 or 400 police there with orders to shoot. Did he say that?

I did not say that.

I hope the right hon. member is going to take an early opportunity of contradicting that in the press, because he will agree with me that to say such a thing is almost the most disgraceful thing a public man could do.

I have denied that I made this statement.

I accept the right hon. member’s denial, and I have taken the opportunity of asking him to contradict it in the press. Many thousands of people have read that, and for his information I want to tell him that the most explicit orders were given that firearms were on no account to be used except in the very last resort in defence of life.

Why did you send a machine gun?

The police make their own arrangements, but those orders were explicitly given. I am coming to the more serious charges in which the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) joined in charging as a crime on the Government the treating of the Native Bills as a party question at the next election. The Prime Minister in the very first session of this Parliament was asked by the right hon. gentleman when a Native Bill was going to be put on the Table, and the question was asked in a sneering tone as much as to say “you are not going to run away from it Those Bills were placed on the Table in 1925, and the native Bills were before a select committee in 1926, 1927 and 1928, and the Prime Minister has been a monument of patience in his desire to obtain co-operation from the other side. It is quite obvious that the party sitting opposite have made up their minds that they take a totally different view from that taken by the Prime Minister on this question. This is how the right hon. gentleman referred at Bloemfontein to the matter. Addressing his congress on native policy, he said—

Then he goes on to say—

This side of the House says that the question must be tackled. What does the right hon. gentleman’s statement amount to? It amounts to this: You may talk about these native Bills at the election, but in a very still, small voice, and then in the next Parliament the Bills may be referred to select committee again, and we may go on talking about them for the next five years. Let us get away from this silliness. I have been admiring the Prime Minister’s patience. I was never sanguine that when we came to deal with this question you would have any other result but that the two parties would each stand for their own view of what could be done. I cannot help thinking of our old friend, now no longer with us, Mr. Merriman. I know how he used to describe a charge such as this as “mere childish nonsense”. Hon. members opposite don’t agree with us, and they have got to take their view and their side, and we have got to take our view and our side. Don’t let us slur the question by any such sentimental nonsense that you must not on any account deal with this as a matter of party. You take your line and we will take ours, and let the country judge between us. The next cry of the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Benoni was that they accused us of neglecting the unemployment problem. The right hon. gentleman said: “What did you say at the elections? You said you would deal with it”. Well, we have dealt with it, and unemployment there still is, of course, and relief of it receives our unremitting attention, but I defy any hon. member on those benches to deny that the amount of unemployment in this country compared with that of 1924 is negligible. We know the hon. members over there—they are in the seventh heaven of happiness and freedom from all responsibility. We, however, stand for good, solid work in the interests of the poor people of whom they pose as the champions. The civilized labour policy on the railways is another thing to which the right hon. member objects. He says he strongly objects paying civilized men 5s. a day. Will he tell us plainly if he comes into power, will he retain all these men and raise their wages? I suppose it is an open secret that I would like to see these men paid more.

You do not press your views.

The right hon. gentleman has been in a Cabinet himself. I still uphold this policy. The first step is to make it a permanent policy and not a fad of the Government, which, when it becomes too expensive, will be thrown aside and a return be made to the old kaffir labour system. Those responsible for the administration of that policy should carry it out properly and see that the labour becomes more efficient, and as it grows efficient, I hope the wages will be raised until they reach a decent level. In any case, I would sooner see these 14,000 men getting 5s. a day than walking the streets doing nothing, as most of them were under the late Government. I would like from the South African party a perfectly plain statement as to their intentions on this point. Do they propose to use detailed railway statistics as a reason for saying that this policy must be abandoned? Another great cry which the Opposition has raised is with regard to the Wage Act. Is the South African party going to repeal that Act? In the improbable event, within a measurable time, of the right hon. member coming into power, will he repeal the Wage Act and abolish the Wage Board?

Read our programme.

We shall abolish Boydellism.

I am told that in the event of the return to power of the South African party, they would confine wage legislation to sweated industries. But what is a sweated industry? Only an industry in which every single employee is underpaid would be a sweated industry in their eyes. What the Opposition really mean is that they strongly object to the Wage Act and to wage determinations, because they affect a certain little class of the population which has been their habitual supporter. What crocodile’s tears they shed over those poor men not sufficiently skilled to receive the higher wages. I am afraid, however, that we cannot take their views on that point seriously. In every case in which a minimum wage is laid down there will be some people who, in the eyes of their employers, are not worthy of that wage, and the only remedy is for the persons affected to enter some other occupation or to acquire the efficiency which will enable them to earn the wage that is offered. Every time a wage determination is made we have from the employers—not from the good ones, but from the bad ones who are doing a bit of sweating—tremendous typewritten documents proving conclusively that if the particular determination is put into force the whole of the industry will be ruined. Only a year ago we had a clothing determination, and we were bombarded with statistics showing that, as a result, the clothing industry would have to disappear. The award was put into force, but, instead of being ruined as a result, the clothing industry is rapidly extending. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) waxed eloquent about the Wage Board’s determinations causing unemployment. They have done nothing of the sort, and the bulk of those employed find that their status has been raised, and they have the security that they cannot be sweated.

Give us some proofs.

I am stating facts.

Creswellian facts.

I do not know of one manufacturer who has had to shut down because of a wage award.

Not one.

When you read that someone’s business has been shut down in consequence of a wage determination, do not always take that as gospel, any more than when you heard from the right hon. member, when he went through the Free State, of the terrible things that had happened in the building industry as a result of wage determination before the Wage Board had even been appointed. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) said that everything that was good was the result of South African party legislation. He forgot that when the late Government went out of office, half the young people leaving school could not find employment. That is what he said, and the Juvenile Affairs Act affecting that had been on the statute book for three years, but the South African party made mighty little use of it. It was only by our infusing a new spirit into the Juvenile Affairs Boards that the present results have been attained. The other Act he mentioned, the Wages Board Act of 1918, may possibly have been condemned on sufficient grounds, but I can only say it had become a dead letter under the South African party Government and was no use to anyone. I want to refer to the de Villiers award. The right hon. member averred that at the elections I had said that I would enforce the de Villiers award, an award that was not given until seven months after we came into power. That was what you were trying to make out, that we had broken a promise, that the de Villiers award gave a 20 per cent, increase all round, and we had gone away from it. Rubbish. It is not so. And hon. members over there make a great song about it. I want to tell you this, the de Villiers award, as it is called, was not the award of an arbitrator. A conciliation board was set up, and both sides asked for a mediator. Under the law, as you know well, a mediator can try and bring the parties together, but any judgment he gives is not binding on either party. He brought in a report recommending a certain thing should be done. I think I agree, perhaps, that I stretched it rather far, but I thought at the time that it was one of those occasions on which every endeavour should be made to make the Chamber of Mines listen to reason, and not be the occasion of their simply contumaciously standing out against the judgment of so distinguished a man as one of the first legal luminaries in this country. I got leave to introduce a Bill and carry the Bill through. It was the right hon. member who stopped me. I presented this Bill to Parliament, and there were objections raised at the first reading. The right hon. member himself put up a very serious point of order, and I found out very shortly that point of order was correct in accordance with the precedents of the Cape House. I was negotiating with the Chamber of Mines to try and get them to do something. I may have been right, and I may have been wrong, but I was not going to have the only instrument of pressure taken out of my hands. I was doing my best for the miners, and it does not lie in your mouths to go about saying I did not try to enforce the de Villiers award. When I had information from up there that the men were getting into a bad temper about it, that they repudiated this Bill, and that they believed it did not embody the views of Judge de Villiers, which they believed recommended a 20 per cent, increase all round, in order to try and bring the two parties together, I sent the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) to do their best to make both parties listen to reason, and my crime was that I did not send the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). May I have a few words with the hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). They are declaring on every possible occasion: “We are the Labour party.” Well, methinks they do profess too much. They remind me of a phenomenon in natural history, which used to interest me in my very early days. In the country where I spent my childhood there were some large green lizards, and sometimes as you chased them their tails dropped off. The curious thing was that after it had dropped off the tail would wriggle about full of vitality, but, alas, in a few hours, the vitality had left it and it lay dead. But the curious thing was the lizard went on quite happily without its tail.

Are you calling yourself a lizard?

I think we were all heartily amused at the amendment. It is a delightful amendment—let us steer hard a-port and hard a-starboard at the same time! I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Benoni in his ideas as to the publicity which he thinks should be given to Cabinet discussions, nor to follow him through his other remarks, except to give a general contradiction to all the impressions that he tried to convey.

What about the barracks?

I think most members received the same impression of his remarks. His expressions of disappointment with what the Government had done during the last three years, and his opinion of their shortcomings would have come very much better from a member who has resigned his seat in the Cabinet than from one who continued in the Cabinet in spite of these terrible shortcomings, and only left the Cabinet when desired to do so by the Prime Minister. [Time limit extended.] I really must deal with just one matter. With his accustomed modesty and less than accustomed chivalry, he is spreading it about the country that he alone of the Labour Ministers had any regard for unskilled labour, and that he alone fought for the shilling an hour in the building contract. The facts are that in 1924 the Minister of Labour represented to the Minister of Public Works that they should apply the civilized labour policy there. In December my hon. friend behind me, then Minister of Public Works, authorized a shilling an hour for civilized labour in building contracts which were let on the white civilized labour basis. The master builders approved of that policy. At that time alternative tenders were being called for, and the master builders wanted to know what civilized and uncivilized wages were. After that, in August, 1926, the master builders, at their congress, adopted a resolution that they felt that the department should not call for alternative tenders in the future, but only for either uncivilized labour or civilized labour tenders, and, after that, only civilized labour tenders were called for. I give the hon. member for Benoni credit for carrying it a stage further, but not credit for the policy of saying he is the saviour of the unskilled labourer.

What about the barracks?

What barracks?

You know.

I am sorry I have not a Pelman memory, like my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Boydell). No, the tactics of hon. members on the cross-benches opposite are quite clear—they want to be in opposition, and they want at the same time to get Government supporters to vote for them in their constituencies. That is what they are after. We have stood by the Government, and the Labour party in honourable alliance with our Nationalist friends has secured a stable majority which has enabled the Government to do the good work which it has done, and will enable it to do good work in the future. My hon. friends on the cross-benches opposite want to wreck the Government majority and get the support of the Government at the same time. If I know my Nationalist friends in the constituencies, they will have to wait a long time. Between the two, they will be like the lizard’s tail before long.

Because of our freedom from the trammels of office, we are in a position to deal with the matter on its merits and to place before the House what our views are of the Government and the Opposition; to give commendation where that is justified, and condemnation where that is necessary. We have taken up the attitude, in judging between the Government and the South African party, of saying that we are in a position of having to choose between two evils, and, therefore, to choose the lesser. The Minister of Defence, however, should be the last person to talk about running away from a vote. I remember, when I sat behind the Minister of Defence, and when the Minister of Labour introduced an amendment to the Profiteering Bill in 1920, the South African party on that occasion declared that they would treat the matter as a vote of confidence, and, if that amendment was carried, they were going to resign and go to the country. The Minister of Defence, in a very brave manner, stated in the House, and told it and the country, that he would stand or fall by that amendment. But on the evening after the announcement made by the Government, the hon. member suddenly ran away from those brave words, and sent his followers out into the lobby, many of them being very annoyed at being placed there. He had left the National party alone on that occasion and cleared out. The hon. member has left the Labour party too. It is perfectly true that he was expedited in leaving it by their resolution of expulsion, but there is this distinction, which is worth noting, between the Minister of Defence and others in a similar position. When the Prime Minister found himself unable to belong to the Government of which he was a member, he did the honourable thing and established his own party. He did not go about the country saying: “I am the South African party” after he had left the South African party as it was in those days. He did the honourable thing and formed the National party. Another instance I will quote is that of the right hon. William Hughes. ex-Prime Minister of Australia. When his party expelled him from office, he did not go about as the Minister of Defence does, saying he is still the Labour party, and that he is the lizard and not the tail. He had the decency to form a new party. Let me quote another instance, the case of a man greater that the hon. Minister of Defence, that of the right hon. Sir Robert Peel. After he had left the Conservative party, he and his associates did not call themselves the Conservative party, but they joined in and became members of the Liberal party—the party which they had supported in the decision in the House. If the Minister were to do the right thing, not only by his colleagues, but by his associates and the country, he would do what these other gentlemen have done, and either form a new party, which is impossible as long as he remains in office, or let him come honestly along and say that he belongs to the National party. It is, of course, not a course which would benefit the National party, because, just as the hon. Minister has endeavoured to break the Labour party, he would assuredly succeed in breaking the National party. We, being in the position in which we stand, can freely congratulate the Government where we think congratulations are deserved, and in that regard I regret that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), in the attack he made on the Government, did not have the generosity to give credit to the Government where it was due. Let me take one of the great issues which for many years has divided this country—the connection of this country with the British commonwealth of nations. The Prime Minister is entitled to the greatest credit because he has led the Nationalist party out of the arid wilderness of secession and republicanism.

Question.

If anyone was entitled to move a vote of no-confidence in connection with that matter it was the Nationalist party. I have also to give credit to the Prime Minister for having killed republicanism in South Africa, to the very great disgust of his followers. Then let us take the question of the flag. Naturally, this is a subject which no one desires to revive, but I wish to say that I do not think the Government as a whole was to blame for the flag controversy having been introduced into this House. We, on these benches, and also some of the Creswellian party, resented it strongly that a Government which had come in largely on the basis of dealing with the economic problems of the country should have taken the attention of the country away to the question of the flag. I believe that the flag question became a menace owing largely to the obstinacy of the Minister of the Interior supported by the stupidity of the Minister of Defence. It was not mainly the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who was responsible for the solution of the flag problem. The solution arrived at was owing largely to the efforts of the Labour party and its National Council, as the Government realized that if the matter came before the House they would not have had the support necessary from the Labour party. It was the tact of the hon. Minister of Justice—whose impending departure we very much regret—which was very largely responsible for the solution of the flag question. I take another question to show that the Prime Minister and his Government have done a great deal to show their loyalty in standing by the British commonwealth of’ nations, namely, the Indian question. They were going to do all kinds of things to them; repatriate them, segregate them, and establish a white South Africa, but, having accepted the position of our being a member of the British commonwealth of nations, the Government realized that any drastic steps such as those proposed would be endangering the relations between India and Great Britain. The Government, therefore, loyally accepted that position, dropped segregation and subsequently Britishers and representatives of India drafted a broadminded agreement. Members outside this House have complained bitterly regarding that agreement, but the Government showed clearly that it would not run away from its principles upon any question so as not to endanger the amity of nations and the British commonwealth. Then, again, let us take the question of the Liquor Act. For many years we agitated for Clause 104, for we said that here was an opportunity of placing upon a sheltered trade the onus of providing employment for a large number of white people, but, as a result of the antagonism of the brewers and the antagonism of the right hon. Mr. Sastri and an hon. member of the Creswellian party, the Minister of Justice was obliged to withdraw that clause. As a final example of the Government’s sincerity in standing by the British constitution, I take the case of the reconstituted Government. I remember in 1925 the Transvaal organ of the Nationalist party saying that Nationalist Ministers could not sit in the same Cabinet as the member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) because of his association on the directorate of a company with Indians, but the Government has shown its sincerity in its abandonment of its Indian policy by swallowing that objection and swallowing the hon. member for Jeppe as well. Surely if anyone was entitled to move a vote of no-confidence in the Government, it is not the right hon. member for Standerton, but the deluded and disappointed Nationalist supporters of the Government Do not we remember how, in 1921, the right hon. member withdrew the South African party opponent in order to give the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) an opportunity of getting into Parliament unopposed? I don’t remember the hon. member for Jeppes utilizing his freedom to assist the hon. member in getting back into Parliament. We have heard a great deal both from the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the Prime Minister, about the native question, and we have been shown by the Minister of Defence that he resents the suggestion that the native question should not be made a party one. He referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) as “sob-stuff.” I think he might give the hon. member for Benoni credit for a little sincerity. Many people in South Africa are afraid that the intrusion of the native question into the region of party politics is a bad thing for the country, and do not regard with favour the manifesto drawn up by an editor or ex-editor of “Die Burger.” We have very little to be thankful for, either in the attitude of the right hon. the member for Standerton, or in that of the hon. gentlemen responsible for the manifesto. They talk about a white South Africa. If a white South Africa is to be established, if a white population in this country is to be entrenched and increased, so that the disparity between the white population and the native population is to be done away with, it will not be by simply shouting about a white South Africa. It will be by establishing conditions which will give white people an opportunity of living decently, and which will encourage white immigration into the country. When the Labour party asked for 8s. a day, what were we told? If the Minister of Labour had granted it we should have heard a great deal about it. I have never yet known the Minister of Labour to hide his light. I think the Minister has always taken up the attitude that when he has accomplished anything the world should be allowed to know it. I remember that at one time he tamed a lion. “Die Burger” tells us now that the Minister of Labour has the capacity for taming lions and wild animals. Apparently the sweets of office have tamed the hon. the Minister when it comes to industrial matters. However, the Minister has not introduced 8s. a day as a general policy. In order to establish a white South Africa, conditions of labour and rates of pay must be fixed which will enable people to live under civilized conditions. An hon. member near me has read from the Mitchell report that there are to-day 120,000 people in South Africa who are living below a civilized standard. As a Labour party we say that once you have adopted the policy of doing away with the colour bar, and once you have said that everyone must take his chance, surely the right policy then is to lay down a national minimum wage, so that when a native works he should be paid at a rate on which a white man can live, and not pay white men a wage on which only a native can live. When our labour congress passed a resolution for a 10s. a day national minimum, we were told by “Die Burger”—it surely speaks with authority—that the fact that we had passed a resolution at a congress for a 44-hour week and a 10s. a day minimum, made it impossible for them to work with us. The demand of a 10s. a day minimum was one of the greatest crimes which has been committed by us. Yet I notice that the Creswellian conference, feeling that they must do something to compete with us, and pretending that they are Labour, passed a resolution for 10s. a day. I am still waiting to hear what the Minister of the Interior has to say about it. My hon. friend the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) expressed the hope that the Minister of Labour would resign from the Cabinet because he could not get the 10s. a day minimum. I don’t think he will. After all, if one looks at the matter in the light of “Die Burger” and the statement of the Minister, one discovers that the resolution of the Creswellian conference was simply a donkey masquerading in a lion’s skin. We go further and say that in order to establish a white South Africa it is imperative that such a minimum shall be given as that which we have requested. When the Labour party assisted the present Government to assume office on a white labour policy, did the Minister suggest that what he meant by the white labour policy was a policy under which white people would have to work at anything from 1s. 9d. to 5s. per day? Surely that was not the intention. At that time the meaning was a policy under which white people could work and live in South Africa. We say, without any hesitation, that the Government is to blame largely for the ineptitude, inefficiency and remissness of the Minister of Defence in not having pressed for a real white labour policy. We have always stood for limiting the hours of labour. For one thing it is bad business to have thousands of people unemployed when others are working longer hours than is necessary or is good for them. One of the causes which led to the downfall of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in 1924 was the dissatisfaction in the railway service, as the result of the withdrawal of the 48-hour week. When Mr. Burton introduced the 48-hour week the present Ministers of Defence and Labour said they were not grateful to him, because the 48-hour week had been laid down by the Washington Convention and was necessary and right. One of the issues at the last general election was the restoration of the 48-hour week. When the present Government came into office it was as a result of the conference at Johannesburg at which the Minister of Defence made the definite pledge that the 48-hour week would be restored. He certainly gave the conference definitely to understand that he was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government. Those were the days before the Prime Minister told an audience that whatever promises the Creswellian party made he was not to be bound by them. Either the Minister of Defence made that pledge without the authority of the Government and deceived the conference which put him into his position, or alternatively, the Government did not fulfil the pledge they gave to him. We did not start criticizing to-day or yesterday; as far back as 1925 we have repeatedly brought before the House the principles for which the Labour party stand. The real gravamen of our offence is that we dared, from time time, to remind the Minister of Defence of these pledges.

You should have been a centipede.

Another justifiable grievance is the non-employment of the railwaymen who were dismissed as the result of the 1914 strike. We endeavoured to get that rectified, but the Minister of Railways said he could not go as far as that. We said that the men who went on strike were entitled to the same treatment as the men who went into rebellion, but the men are still left without their privileges. But the Minister of Agriculture sitting in the seats of the mighty, gives a Government position to General Manie Maritz. That is an unpardonable distinction between workers and landowners, and the Minister of Defence should have insisted in the Cabinet that these differences should no longer obtain. As to the de Villiers award, the Minister of Defence, in a very cheap gibe, suggested that my grievance was that I was not sent to Johannesburg in connection with that award. The miners, like the railwaymen, are seething with discontent. It is perfectly true that we have had industrial peace for four years in South Africa, and I hope it may continue, but that industrial peace has been secured, not on account of legislation which the present Government has passed to improve the working conditions of the railwaymen and miners, but it is due to the loyalty of the workers, who desired to give the Government, and particularly the Labour members, an opportunity to show what they can do. If anyone has a grievance against the Minister of Defence it is the working men, who have stood aside in order to secure industrial peace, and to give the country an opportunity of progressing. Just as the grievances of the railwaymen contributed to the downfall of the late Government, so did the trouble of 1922, the miners being dissatisfied with their conditions. They clamoured for the restoration of their wages, and the Minister of Defence and every other Labour member, whether he sits on these or the Creswellian benches, pledged themselves to the miners that when the South African party was ousted from office the conditions which applied in 1921 would be restored to them. The first thing that took place was the de Villiers award. Do I understand the Minister of Defence to say that he never pledged himself to that? Was he satisfied to allow the miners to go on with their miserable wages? Very well, I will accept that.

I am merely categorically contradicting your statements.

Does he think the miners would have given him their votes unless they felt he was going to see that the conditions the right hon. member had done away with were going to be restored? The miners immediately insisted on having the goods delivered. The Minister says that the judgment of Mr. Justice de Villiers could not be binding, because he was only the mediator. I wonder if either he or the Minister of Labour told the miners that before they agreed to a Conciliation Board. No, they were given the impression that, if the Conciliation Board resulted in their favour, they would have nothing to fear, because the Government would give effect to the decision.

That is absolutely without any foundation in fact.

[inaudible].

I absolutely and emphatically deny that I ever acted so unconstitutionally and illegally as to assure the miners that I would take any measures at all beyond the appointment of Mr. Justice de Villiers.

The Minister is answering something which I did not put. I asked whether he gave them to understand that any decision which the judge arrived at would be of no value.

Certainly I did not give them to understand whether it would be of value or of no value.

Quibbling.

It is because some of the miners felt that the Minister, who was returned in a mining constituency, would see that their claims were attended to, and that if Judge de Villiers gave a decision it would be honoured, it was because they felt that that they agreed to a Conciliation Board, The Minister says the board was set up before Judge de Villiers was heard of, but he knows there was a big fight over that board. Names were submitted by the Chamber of Mines and by the representatives of the miners. [Time limit.]

Had there been the slightest idea in the National Convention, any hint in any shape or form that these Native Bills would be brought forward in the way they have been brought forward, there would have been no Union of South Africa. That is absolutely certain. Men like Merriman and Sauer—would they have gone into Union if they had known that in 20 years’ time this would happen?

I do not think you are right.

I want to say a few words about this manifesto which has been issued by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I am really astonished. It appears to me they forget the very spirit and tradition of the Dutch race. Their inclination is to trek. When they went north into the Transvaal, there was just as much danger of their being absorbed by the native races as there is danger to-day in going further north, in fact more. Yet this manifesto talks about a black state, a black republic.

What is your argument?

Have they ever been afraid of going north? No. They trekked north as far as the Limpopo. Some trekked east towards Delagoa Bay. Some trekked west to the West Coast. These are the ancestors of the present trekkers from Angola.

For these reasons they should expose themselves to being swamped —is that your argument?

Have they been swamped?

They never advocated your principle of equal rights as between black and white.

I am talking of the expansion to the north. What they want is land every time. My hon. friend the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that there are a good many voortrekkers in Southern Rhodesia. There are even some right up in Kenya and a small number in Tanganyika. I do not think I am wrong when I say there are a number of Afrikanders scattered right up to the equator. When these men began to move further north, did they worry about the black state?

Didn’t they?

I want to give these men a free hand to go on if they wish to, and not try to keep them back; and in trying to keep them back my hon. friend is losing sight of the spirit of that race for the last one hundred years. I would just like to ask what the voortrekkers and their descendants would have thought of that manifesto.

They would have applauded it.

Much as I respect my hon. friend I would not take his word on that.

I come from them.

In many cases, if my hon. friend would read their records, he will see that their sufferings were beyond endurance, as far as I can see. What would men like Piet Retief, Commandant Potgieter, Uys or Louis Trichardt and others have thought?

Piet Retief left your government because of the Cape native policy.

We will not stop them from trekking. These voortrekkers went straight on. I ask hon. members who come from the Free State and the Transvaal, had the same spirit animated these men as is shown in this manifesto, would there have been the Transvaal and Orange Free State republics? If they had not had that pioneering spirit, they would have stayed at home.

You would like the white men masters in the northern territory?

My right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) represents the spirit of the Afrikander people far more than does my hon. friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend sees what scope there is offered by the land between the Zambesi and the equator in the next few years.

Do you want a white man’s country in the north?

I want a chance of the white man’s spreading. The signatories of this manifesto have been bred and born under the shadow of Table Mountain. Has the Minister of the Interior trekked 100 yards? Not likely. The Minister of Justice went to the Transvaal only after the British flag was hoisted there. One of the characteristics of the Dutch people is their love of land.

Love of fatherland.

No, we saw that they trekked to Kenya and Patagonia. Was that love of fatherland? They can get good land further north—land on which they can live— right up to the equator. Take the United States of America; suppose the same spirit as that of the manifesto had been the rule there; is it the Prime Minister’s suggestion that they should not have crossed over from the Eastern states to. California? I honestly believe that many of the next generation, both English and Dutch-speaking South Africans, will go up north.

And sacrifice our fatherland?

There are men who live a stone’s throw almost from us, in Koeberg, who have lived there for three or four generations, and will live there for generations still to come. Quite a wrong note was struck in the manifesto. We have been told that in the days of the last Government taxation was altogether too high. Well, let us look at the figures. In 1923-’24 the taxation of the central Government amounted to £16,850,000, while in 1927-’28 the taxation raised amounted to £21,670,000; therefore, you are receiving much more in taxation than ever before. After all is said and done, it is the amount of taxation the people have to pay that matters. You have put a tax on cotton blankets of 1s. per 1b. That is a very severe tax indeed. Then you have put an increased tax on shirts, clothing, hats and caps, etc., and these have helped to swell the taxation materially. The increase in taxation during the last four years has been £4,814,000, or over 28 per cent., while during the same period the increase in white population amounted to only 7½ per cent.

If you will define taxation, I may or may not agree with you.

I should say that taxation is what you make people contribute to the upkeep of the country. Naturally the taxpayer knows only too well what he has to pay. Speaking seriously, it cannot be denied that the Minister of Finance has had ample opportunity for decreasing taxation. As the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) pointed out, the surpluses during the last four years amounted to well over £4,500,000, and yet during that same period the increase in taxation was well over £4,000,000. I think it is a reflection on the Government that, despite the fact of their having had these enormous surpluses, they have increased taxation, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that had these large surpluses been spent by the people, there would not have been so much unemployment. I maintain that it is altogether wrong in principle to take more out of the pockets of the people than is required to carry on the services of the country. It is wrong to budget for large surpluses. The best instrument the Minister of Finance can have to enable him to resist the pressure to increase expenditure is not to have so much money at his disposal in the way of surpluses. It would be far better to budget for a small deficit.

And turn that into a surplus.

In 1923-’24 the total expenditure amounted to £24,000,000, whereas in 1927 ’28 it had increased to about £29,000,000, or an increase of £4,250,000, and this by a Government that is pledged to economy. Then look at the staff, which is no less than 4,000 more than it was in 1924. No, I cannot see where the Government is to be congratulated upon the way in which it has handled the country’s finances. What I do think is that the manner in which he has made use of the surpluses is wrong. It should have been his policy to reduce taxation to the lowest possible point. He should have seized the opportunity, having a surplus, of building up a sort of reserve upon which he could fall back in depressed times, when his revenue falls. In this country we are dependent upon taxation from mining to a large extent, and that is not a permanent source of income. Has it ever struck my hon. friend what this country is going to do when that source of income partially dries up? I sometimes wonder how the country is going to pull through when that time comes, because of the enormous increase of expenditure to-day. We should endeavour to keep down expenditure to the utmost possible point, and at the same time create a reserve of sources of revenue to fall back upon. Eventually this country will have to go through a very severe crisis, and if the Government were wise they would do their level best to create a reserve of this nature.

I want to know from the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) whether he is prepared to go on with this motion in view of the Potchefstroom by-election for the provincial council. The South African party newspapers have stated that there will be a majority for their side of 200. The result of that election is the answer of one of the most populous districts of the Transvaal to the motion which the right hon. member has submitted. The right hon. gentleman has made a long speech, and if ever there has been a display of political bankruptcy, it has been in that speech. There is hardly anything in the whole of it that is worth considering. The first point he made was that he and his people had always been prepared to co-operate with the Prime Minister. Can he refer to any speech he has delivered since the present Government have been in power, in which he has shown a desire to co-operate? On the contrary, he has shown a vindictive and a wrecking spirit. The right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that it is impossible for him to agree to the native Bills, because if he did, not a single Unionist would be returned to Parliament-. Last year when the Women’s Franchise Bill was before the House, did he display any desire for co-operation when he appealed to the House to support him? What he told the House was that he was going to vote for the Bill as it stood, even though it gave the vote to native women. He spoke in Dutch, and the words he used were “Die Nasionaliste is bang vir die on ayas.” Does that show a spirit of co-operation? He says that every section of the population has been harassed.

You have told us that the diggers have been harassed.

Yes, I am not denying that, but what is the record of the Prime Minister? This Government has administered the law without the use of any force whatever. Did the administration of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) do that? Not a single individual has been shot. It is no wonder that the right hon. member twitted the Minister of Defence that he did not know whether there was a defence force, and the reason, of course, was that there was an entire absence of the use of force. The law has been carried out peacefully.

Assisted by the Opposition.

A bright lot of assistance we got from you. The next point the right hon. gentleman makes is that the Government has made service appointments along political lines. I think the country will laugh when they hear the right hon. gentleman making this charge against the Government, because it was his administration that deliberately did that, and everybody knows it. One thing our Government has tried to fight against, and that is the making of the civil service a political institution. The right hon. member asserts that the Wage Board has been responsble for unemployment. He knows perfectly well that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) introduced an almost identical Bill with the same principles. Were the principles wrong when they were introduced by this Government? I think the most ridiculous statement made by the leader of the Opposition is that nothing permanent has been done for the relief of unemployment. The Government has done a very great deal for the relief of unemployment. The leader of the party that has been in power for 15 years might be expected, when he appeals to the electorate, once again to be entrusted with the reins of office, to point out a record of past performances in the interest of his country. Instead of doing that, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) goes to Ermelo and makes a speech and discovers a new programme—a federated Africa. Why did he not advocate that in previous years? Evidently the right hon. gentleman’s programme consists first of a British Africa, second, the planting of the Union Jack at Windhoek, and thirdly, that Mr. Burton was an excellent financier. The right hon. gentleman asserted that nothing has been done by the Government for the poor whites. Let us first, however, find the cause of poor whitism. It is because the white man cannot compete with the native on equal terms; therefore, it is necessary that the native must be segregated from the white man. You must have industrial segregation. We don’t want here the position that prevails in northern Africa, where natives are doctors, tradesmen, butchers, engine drivers and so on. What hope would the whites then have of obtaining employment?

We have that law now.

The introduction of the colour bar was in the interests of industrial segregation. That segregation is being carried out to-day by the mines.

As it was before.

That is so. The colour bar was a step in that direction. Industrially the native must segregate. The time has come for that. If there is more work for the white man there is more work for the native. The present Government again and again in its legislation has directly established industries in this country. Take the diamond-cutting industry and the iron and steel industry. In both those cases the right hon. member deliberately opposed us for two or three years. Surely that is legislation which makes openings for a very large number of white employees. And these are permanent, it is not a matter of giving a dole or temporary work. There is the very important fact that for the last four years we have had industrial peace in this country. Between 1919 and 1923 there were no fewer than 122 strikes. From 1924 to 1927 there were 15 strikes. That is entirely due to the administration of this Government. In the strikes from 1919 to 1923, 168,000 men were involved. “Since 1924 only 3,000 men were involved. If the very poor people are to lose in a few years £2,000,000 in wages owing to the maladministration of the right hon. member, how can they ask those people to put them into power again? If you can establish industrial peace you are doing a greater thing for the country, I think, than almost any other. You have more income and better living, and it must mean more production, new factories, more wages earned, more capital invested—

More money wasted.

No; money saved. All over the country we have settlements which have absorbed large numbers of men, and they are a permanent thing, It was a matter to which the previous administration paid almost no attention at all. We have absorbed in the neighbourhood of 35,000 of the poor whites in work which is of a permanent nature. In settlements and in other ways work has been found for over 130,000 people. It is definitely solving the problem in the right way. We find the South African party opposed the establishment of a steel industry and a diamond cutting industry. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) does not care two straws for the future of the working classes of this country if he can assist the big mining magnates or the big diamond producers. Surely diamond cutting is the right thing to support, but the moment the effort was made it was opposed right and left by hon. members on the other side. If once we have that industry established here, it must give employment to thousands, and yet those hon. members opposed it for three years, one session after another, when the matter was introduced. Yet the right hon. gentleman claims that we on this side of the House have done nothing for the solution of that problem. Then the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) made a remark which I deny, and said that I had stated that the white man must be victorious in this country although you drown all the natives; but I would like to say that I never made such a statement. I never made a statement at all. What has always been my view is that this must be a white man’s country.

Why?

Because I do not want the white man to be absorbed.

What about the natives?

Treat the natives with absolute justice. All the time that thousands of natives have lived here they have never left a city or a civilization, and it is impossible to hand over to them the institutions which carry on civilization in this country. They should be treated justly and strictly in accordance with the state of civilization to which they have attained. It is a question of choosing as between black and white. Conditions can arise in this country when we must choose. There was a point made by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) who, in the course of his remarks, blamed the Nationalist party for having “die volk in twee geskeur.” I do not agree with him on that point, The leader of the Opposition has stated the policy he proposes to put before the country, and we have heard his ideas with regard to a great united South Africa reaching northwards. Does he realize that by so doing you will have much greater difficulties than those with which we now have to deal, because it is now quite clear that the right hon. member’s idea is to unite those provinces in the north to South Africa, and have, a great British Africa. I say tips will necessarily lead to the establishment of a great black State. Climatic conditions in the greater part of the country, make a colour bar impossible in the state pictured by the hon. member. If we were to join up with the north, we should have to abandon the policy of a white European state in this House. South of the equator alone, there are 50,000,000 natives. Are we going to try to solve the problem of maintaining a white civilization in the Union, and at the same time undertake to rule the natives to the north! When did the right hon. gentleman conceive the idea of uniting with the northern territories? It was when he saw that the European population of this country will never return him to power again, and he had some little hope that if he goes to Kenya he will get the votes he wants. I am satisfied that the whole countryside will respond to the appeal of the Prime Minister, and will support his policy. The right hon. member, however, says that we shall look for a united British Africa, and that that is a cardinal part of his policy. If ever a leader of a political party has shown that he is politically bankrupt, it is the right hon. member who has just discovered a new policy for South Africa.

When the House adjourned I was dealing with the new policy of the right hon. member for Standerton by adopting which he has said farewell to a white South Africa. Two years ago he stated in this House that if we wished to guard against South Africa becoming a black country we should spend a million a year on increasing the white population. He said this in the course of the 1926 budget debate, and I will quote his exact words from Hansard (Dutch version). [Extract read.] It is perfectly clear from that statement that the policy of the right hon. member at that time was limited to the Union. His policy was to import from Europe a white population in order to have more whites than blacks. So this support of a pan-African federation is quite recent. It is only due to the fact that the South African party have no policy whatever. I have here an extract from the report of the Hilton Young Commission which shows clearly that the construction which the Prime Minister placed upon the policy of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is entirely correct and is borne out by the finding of the commission—

If ever there should be a conflict of interests between the white man and the black man, the Imperial Government would intervene and support the native. The commission pointed out that climatically it is impossible for a white population to exist in equal numbers with the natives. The natives will always be the dominant population. I say the right hon. member has changed his policy entirely and quite recently for the simple reason that he has no policy to place before the country. He knows that with his record he dare not go to the country. [Time limit.]

This debate has shown the time for a realignment of all parties is arriving. A considerable amount of personal bitterness has been introduced into this debate and the way in which issues have been treated seems to show the time is not far distant when we shall have a new alignment of parties.

Is there no dissension in your party ’

Not yet. At the same time one has to face a motion of this kind. There is an election coming on and I have no doubt it was with the idea of that election that this particular motion has been placed before the House. By this time the mover of the motion must be deeply disappointed, because it appears from the debate that he will be left with only the Opposition when the division takes place. Before the last election the Nationalist party moved a vote of no confidence in the existing South African party administration. I voted for that motion, and during the election, although I did not stand as a member of the Pact—I was perfectly independent then as now—as I was opposed by a member of the South African party I had to define my attitude, and it was that of the two Governments I infinitely preferred that a Nationalist Government should come in. So the attitude I take up on this motion is not new at all. It is consistent with the attitude I took up at the last election. If the Pact Government had not, in my opinion, justified the confidence placed in them I should be fully justified in voting for this motion. I shall try and deal with the matter quite impartially and without personalities—because they do not appeal to me at all—but simply on the merits of the various things the Government has done. Throughout my political life there are two things to which I have always attached great importance, having regard to the way they affect people of my own race and religion The one is the administration of the immigration laws and the other is the question of naturalization. I want to point out how in these two respects the present Government has certainly done far better in my opinion and in that of those for whom I am speaking than the last Government. I am not going into the old bitter controversy that raged round the decision of the late Government to dishonour a pledge given by the late Mr. Fischer when he was dealing with the immigrants regulation law of 1913 in this House when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) got a definite pledge in regard to section 4 (1) (a) which gave absolute power to the Minister to exclude anyone without an adequate appeal. I am not going back to that bitter controversy, except to say that the late Government made a great mistake. Appeal after appeal was made to them in vain. In a time of what they regarded as economic difficulty they decided to apply Section 4 (1) (a) to European immigrants in defiance of the definite pledge given to Parliament. The matter was thrashed out time after time in the House, and applications were made to the Government, but they would not give way. In February, 1924, they were asked to suspend the operation of this for six months, but they said they would not do so; in May, just before the elections, they said that they would. This deathbed repentance failed. Before the new Government came in I asked for no pledge, and no public indication was given during the election that they would repeal it.

They did.

It is news to me, as I, who was the spokesman of these people, was left in ignorance of this at the time. As soon as the new Government came in I appealed to the Minister of the Interior to issue a public declaration that the South African party policy would be reversed and section 4 (1) (a) applied only to non-European immigrants, and at the first meeting of the Cabinet a pledge was given, which was adhered to. The effect of this action is that every such immigrant is afforded a chance now to prove, if he comes here, that he is not an undesirable. The autocratic action that was taken by the previous Government has been made impossible by the pledge given by this Government, which is a great thing for the people for whom I am speaking. Many things have been mentioned in this debate which do not matter at all, but that every immigrant who lands on these shores should be treated with justice is a great matter. Then I would like to mention the naturalization law of 1926. In the pigeon holes of the South African party Government was a Bill. It happened to be passed in England when feeling was high, and is one of the most illiberal laws on the statute book in England to-day. When it came here and those interested in the matter-scrutinized it and saw how unfair it was— it contained such illiberal provisions, that they said that unless the Bill was considerably amended one had better stick to his old naturalization and not get the new rights. The matter was referred by the Government to its legal advizers, and it was found impossible to pass our own fair naturalization law and still have reciprocity. In the Bill of 1925 there was no protection at all to holders of existing certificates, It may have been intended to protect them. But nothing was said as to what was to happen to their certificates. They could apply to the Minister for a new one but he could refuse to grant the application. After having given it the Minister could have revoked it without any redress for various reasons if for example he considered the person to whom the certificate had been granted had not been loyal, or if he thought that person might not have had a good character when he was naturalized say twenty years before. The amended Bill was brought in in 1926 and on the statute book to-day the Act is one of the most liberal Acts you can find. It was put in for example that if a man’s certificate was to be dealt with, and he had not been convicted of any crime, the Minister had to order an enquiry at which the man could be represented by counsel or an attorney to protect his rights. If the holder of an existing certificate applies to Pretoria the Minister must grant a certificate. If he did not apply, he retains all his existing rights. The Bill was turned into a most liberal one, and yet reciprocity was obtained.

made an interruption.

I understood that the Bill of 1925 was the same as passed in other parts of the empire. Then there was another little Bill with which the Minister of the Interior helped me, regarding a little error which had crept in—dealing with justices of the peace—and this was passed with the consent of all sides of the House. I got considerable assistance from the Minister of the Interior when I introduced that Bill in 1927. With regard to the exact form of legislation with regard to the Wage Boards I fought for more de-centralization for the boards. There has been a certain amount of hardship under that Bill, and there is no Bill that could be passed making such far-reaching changes as these, which would not cause hardship. There are persons who are inefficient, and under the high wages on which the board insists some persons have been turned off. But they have been given chances of becoming efficient. The acid test is, does the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition say to the House that he is going to repeal this Act if he comes into power? I would say that if he took a plebiscite of the workers of this country they would not agree to the Act being repealed. Industry is flourishing, and the Chamber of Industries has taken no hostile attitude towards the Government. There is a considerable difference between the opinions expressed by the Chambers of Commerce and by the Chamber of Industries in regard to the policy of protection. As a result of these determinations workers are earning remarkably high wages, and this includes a large number of coloured workers. I am convinced that a large amount of the prosperity now existing in trade, both in Cape Town and elsewhere, is largely due to the enormous amount of money that has come into circulation as the result of the higher wages that are being paid. Now let me speak a few words on the subject of protection or free trade. Will the opposition make a declaration in that regard? Of course not. In days gone by, the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was considered a free trader, and it being the policy of the mines to get things as cheaply as possible, the mineowners were also in favour of free trade. The present Government came out with a protection policy, and if you look round South Africa, take Port Elizabeth for example, and see how it has grown, with thousands of people employed, not only English, but a very considerable number of Dutch people, you will realize what has resulted from the Government’s policy of protection. In regard to the Government’s diamond policy, I did not quite see eye to eye with them in regard to the Precious Stones Act and I opposed practically everything contentious in the Bill except one thing, and that was the clause regarding State alluvial diggings. These have now been put into operation in Namaqualand, and as a result of this millions of pounds are going to be devoted to the improvement of the country which would otherwise have gone into the pockets of private enterprise.

Good socialism.

I say it is good business, and if the Government brings forth any more propositions of that kind they will have my support. A lot has been said about the immorality of the present Government combination. I do not propose to enter into the merits of this matter at any length, neither am I going to tell the Labour party what is their business. When I first came into public life as a young man, learning political wisdom, I was told that the enemy was the South African party, and we were told to shoot politically at the enemy. That enemy, from 1910 to 1921, was the South African party, and many of those who now have their arms round that party’s neck were shooting with me at it. Let me read an extract from a speech made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in making a vigorous attack upon the South African party Government, and when he made remarks similar to those he would now say about the present Government. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) at that time made a very violent attack upon the present Auditor-General, and he mentioned a number of other people by name, and brought forward a number of charges. That is what he said in 1912—[Quotation read.)

It was against the present Prime Minister.

Yes, it so happened that the Prime Minister was on the Government side of the House as Minister of Justice, arid, of course, he had to take Some bf the Shots. That was sixteen years ago. In regard to what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said concerning the immorality of the present combination, I will now read what he stated when he was Minister of the Interior. [Quotation read.] Within nine years, the same gentleman who made these remarks about the member for Cape Town (Central) took him into his Cabinet and gave him a most important portfolio. I am not putting myself on a pedestal. I am simply showing the hypocrisy of the argument that it is immoral for two parties to combine. What took place in 1921 when the South African party said to the Unionists: “Drop your organization, drop everything, and come in with us, into the South African party.” In 1895 there was in the United Kingdom a smaller political body called Liberal Unionists. They disagreed with Mr. Gladstone upon the question of Home Rule, and they joined the Conservative party as a separate wing. There was a cartoon in “Punch” shortly after of a tiger and the face of the tiger was that of Joseph Chamberlain. Underneath the cartoon were the words—

Now in the towns the story is that the Nationalist party have swallowed the Labour party, and in the country districts the story is that those Labour fellows have swallowed the Nationalist party. The tiger has got two faces, one in the towns and the other in the country. With regard to the public service, although there is some discontent, the principal grievance they have is the 10 per cent, cut in salaries, and that was made by the South African party. When some of us tried to restore the 10 per cent, did the South African party help us? What more is the public servant going to get out of the South African party if they come into power?

We did not promise it, and they did.

Some of the candidates certainly did, but whether it was promised by the Government I do not know; but if the hon. gentleman’s party gets into power, and if he gets that seat in the Cabinet which some people have spoken of as a possibility, the 10 per cent, will not be restored. On the question of breach of faith, if my hon. friend reads his political history he will find that people at elections promise more than they should, but I do not think the wily elector believes all he hears. If the public servants of this country think they are going to be in any better position under a new Government, they are making a great mistake. I am not speaking with my eye on the electors in referring to this matter, because what I have said will riot gain me any votes, but may lose me some. Let me say a word about old-age pensions. I think they are too small, and when the Bill was introduced I did not like the differentiation between white and coloured and the Way in which natives and Indians were excluded, but still anybody can see that a number of old people do benefit under this measure, and when you are counting up the good deeds and the misdeeds of the Government the old-age pensions measure must go to their credit, There has-been we are told by hon. members on the other side of the House, a great increase of taxation and no relief, and I want to give one or two instances to show that there has been a substantial reduction of taxation. From 1924 to 1925 there were reductions of taxation amounting to £135,000, in 1925-’26 there were reductions amounting to £660,000, in 1926 ’27 the reductions total £220,000, in 1927-’28 they total £215,000, and in 1928 ’29 £1,273,000. There has been a gross reduction over the period from 1924 ’25 to 1928-’29 of £2,503,000. There have been increases in 1925-’26 amounting to £600,000 and thus there has been a net reduction over the period since the Government assumed office of £1,903,000. The reductions in the customs tariff are included, and they are indirect taxes. There have been amendments of the customs tariff involving reductions amounting to £40,000, a reduction of the tax on roll and pipe tobacco of £20,000, and the abolition of the patent medicine duty £75,000. There has been an increase of income tax abatement, in the year 1926 ’27, to married taxpayers amounting to £205,000, and a surrender of revenue through increase of rate of interest on Guardians Fund of £15,000, making a total of £220,000. The total reduction for the five years amounts to nearly two millions. Further, I would like to point out that the debt of this country is being more and more held by people of this country. In many respects I am not in agreement with the native and non-European policy of the Government. Coloured education comes under the provincial councils, but the figures are interesting. They show that in 1922 in the whole of the Cape Province the coloured pupils and pupil teachers numbered 48,309, but in 1926 that number was increased to 56,822, and for the five years (1922-’27) there was an increase of 12,367. In the Cape division the figures are: 1922, 16,848; 1927, 20,954, an increase of 4,106. Although this is not such a large increase as I would like to see, it shows that the talk of oppressing coloured people lacks confirmation. Steady progress has been going on since the new Government came into office. Under these circumstances, and having considered the matter perfectly impartially, I have no hesitation in saying that my vote will be cast against the motion.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) on his speech and the Government on their new mbongo. At the conclusion of his speech he gave the figures in regard to the increase in facilities for coloured education in the Cape, but forgot to mention that education was under the control of the provincial council, where the South African party had the majority. This afternoon we had for about half-an-hour nothing but abuse of the alleged misdeeds of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) from the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees). I do not intend to attempt to argue with the hon. gentleman, as his statements were so involved and so incorrect that when he reads them in the newspapers he will not believe them himself. His reference to the Labour Department will show what value can be attached to the rest of his arguments. He said that the absence of strikes in 1925 was due to the Labour Department, but the official year book of the Union says there were stoppages of work on a very small scale, but owing to the Industrial Conciliation Act, they were checked before a strike occurred. That Act was passed by the South African party Government. As this is one of the very few opportunities we shall have of discussing the ministerial policy with regard to railways, I deem it my duty to bring forward certain matters which will show that a large portion of the public and every section of the railway service are profoundly discontented. On the last two occasions when we discussed railway matters in this House the responsible Minister was absent, which, no doubt, accounts for his ignorance regarding certain matters affecting his department. However, his place was courteously filled by the Minister of Finance, but it was a very dull and unprofitable affair when the chief villain of the piece was absent. Unfortunately, many of the general public have to a large extent lost confidence in the railways, and use them only when they are compelled to do so. While this is very regrettable there, is no doubt that those who control the railways are very largely to blame. In the past, when there was no competition, our railways became slack, disobliging and careless, and in many departments the old order of things exists to-day. The general manager’s report shows the effect of motor competition, which is beginning to assume very serious dimensions, and will increase unless the railways are prepared to meet the public. One section of the public—the non-European section—has never been considered, although it has been one of our best paying sources Of revenue. The sooner we realize that their money is as good as the money of anyone else, and that they are entitled to what they pay for, the better it will be for the railways. Even today the coloured people have to submit to many indignities, and if we are not careful we shall before long see motor-buses specially catering for this class of traffic. In regard to the native traffic, the present policy invites trouble, and in many cases the treatment of native passengers is inhuman and disgraceful. To snow to what an extent this is being carried on, I will quote from “Imvo,” a native paper published at King William’s Town on August 28th, 1928, which states—

Is this something new?

Fancy that—is it something new! Here is the father of the natives, as he calls himself when he visits the native reserves, asking a question like that. Whether it is new or not, it is time he did something to alter it.

I thought you had fourteen years in which to do it. Why did you not do something?

This paper, which represents native opinion, says that things are going from bad to worse. Does the Prime Minister understand that? I hope the Minister of Native Affairs is proud of the treatment of the natives on the railways.

It shows how badly things are arranged in the Cape.

All this sounds incredible, but it is true.

How do you know?

I know it is true.

Was it brought to the notice of the system manager concerned?

The Minister is asking me something about his officials. Before I finish he will have quite sufficient about himself and his officials.

That is begging the question.

I now wish to bring up certain matters to show how lax the department is in regard to things which could easily affect not only the lives of railwaymen, but also the lives of the general public. I have here the minutes of the conference held at East London on the 9th April, 1928, between representatives of the running staff and representatives of the Administration. In discussing the working of trains, Driver Smith said that the system manager had that morning referred to the numerous accidents which had recently occurred, and had said that a good deal of responsibility rested with the Administration in this regard. He said it was laid down on page 4 of the general appendix that the speed of trains over branch lines was 45-lb. and 46-lb. rails must not exceed 16 miles per hour. In the Blaney— King William’s Town section it is impossible for railwaymen to comply with the regulations and at the same time comply with the running time schedule. This also applies to the speed of main line trains. Mr. Rhynes, the representative of the Administration, said that soon after his arrival on this system tests were made on various sections, and where there was to be excessive speed it was necessary that they should be made safe. That is a clear statement by an officer of the Administration that there was excessive speed. Driver Smith said that on the Blaney—King William’s Town section there are forty curves in ten miles and to maintain time a driver had to travel at 25 miles per hour, when, I believe, the regulation provides for 16. He stated that some of the rails on this section were worn out. This was brought to the notice of the system office by a ganger, but no action had been taken. The ganger had asked for the rails to be tested, because he was afraid to use the jimcrow for fear of breaking them. They had been in use for 20 odd years, and it was considered they could no longer stand the weight. Driver Smith also asked whether the ganger could keep a line 10 miles long in order, and would the Administration accept responsibility if an accident happened due to excessive speed. I would ask the Minister, if there is any accident due to excessive speed, will the Administration be responsible.

I have every confidence in my officers.

What about the poor engine-driver?

The question of the signals of the King William’s Town—Cookhouse branch was also discussed, and Guard Baker stated that the general manager had promised at the conference in 1924 that this matter would be attended to. Driver Smith said that the worst place on the section was Fort Beaufort on the narrow gauge. Mr. Rhynes, the representative of the Administration, stated that the train service on this section was very light, and, with the new engines which were on order, there would be no necessity for trains passing one another. He would do everything possible to have the signals on the western side of Fort Beaufort provided. The provision of signals at every station would involve great expense. Just fancy a question of expense, when the lives of the men and the public are at stake! Evidently money can be found for dud German engines, defective rails, useless steel fire-boxes, disgraceful continental coaches, but money for headlights and signals to guarantee the safety of our running men and of the public is not available.

Oh, for a Jagger.

Let me tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) did better. I must say I am surprised at the interruption coming from the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). He ought to represent the railwaymen.

I just said: “Oh, for a Jagger.”

Every section of the staff has lost confidence in the administration of our railways. I will quote from the “Salstaff Bulletin”—

The editor of the “Locomotive Engineers’ Journal” of October, 1928, goes on to say—

With regard to the workshops, I regret to say that absolute chaos prevails, and that the men are being bullied and badgered as never before. Rights and privileges are being ruthlessly set aside, and even the rights of the Fixed Establishment of the Cape have not been respected. I will give you instances. No one knows what to do; everyone shirks responsibility, and it is a case of drifting along. Recently, while I was visiting a certain depot one of the mechanics said to me: “We are now slaves. We work in the blazing sun all day with a policeman at our elbows, and a spy of Charlie’s at every corner.” That is a very different thing from the spirit prevailing a few years ago. Only recently a case was brought to my notice when an engine was sent to a depôt for some slight repairs. The rods were taken off and the brasses in the small ends Were renewed, but the big ends were left untouched, and when the mechanic called attention to the fact that the big end brasses were defective, he was informed that only the small ends were to be attended to, and that he was to do what he was told. Luckily for the public that mechanic was a man of some spirit, and he said: “If you compel me to do the one job and not the other, I will report the matter to the resident magistrate, because it is endangering the lives of the public.”

Are you definitely charging the foreman mechanic?

I am not charging anyone; I am merely stating facts.

Where was it? Give us the facts.

I will give you many more facts. I am not bringing these things up out of mere pleasure; I am trying to get the Minister to take an interest in one of the departments he controls.

Where did this happen? Has this been brought to the notice of the responsible officer? Let us have the facts.

Is that my business?

But I thought you were interested.

Of course I am interested. In the minutes of the conference I referred to Driver Smith said the engines were not being properly repaired in the shops, and it was stated that in the case of one engine the boiler-brackets had been lined up on one side and nothing put in on the other, and the wheels cut into one side of the fire-box only. As it cost between £800 and £1,000 for repairs, they should be done properly and not have to be given attention in the running sheds soon after release from the shop.

What did the local foreman have to say?

I am not controlling the railways, but if I ever take over their control there will be a different state of things. Employees are not being treated as human beings; they are merely treated as machines. Instead of a steady flow of work to our workshops it is either a feast or famine making super-human efforts one week to cope with the work and the next week having to apply for leave of absence because there is nothing to do in spite of the fact that there is tons of work awaiting repairs. In this way men who have accumulated leave in the hope of enjoying an extended holiday with their families at some appropriate time have had to fritter their leave away owing to the mismanagement of the department which the hon. Minister controls. The men know they have to take their leave at a time when they can be spared, but they resent being compelled to take their leave at an unsuitable time to themselves merely because some official has blundered.

Where does that happen?

It is happening in all your workshops. Practically every year I have drawn the Minister’s attention to the need of a comprehensive building scheme for all our carriage shops, and the answer from the Minister has always been that our carriage shops have enough work for the next three years, and it is impossible for them to undertake any more. Yet we know that to-day in some of the carriage departments there is hardly any work to be done, and you can see some of the finest coach-building artizans in South Africa doing work that can be done by an ordinary labourer merely because the department has not provided sufficient legitimate work for them to be occupied on. I now wish to bring to the notice of the House the manner in which old tried and trusted servants are treated. I will bring forward two cases which, I am sure, will interest the so-called representatives of labour. I am sure the Minister of Labour will be interested, because he was at one time a railwayman. The first case is that of P. J. van der Westhuizen, who joined the railway service sixteen years ago. By merit he worked his way up until nine years ago he was graded as a holder-up at 14s. 4d. per day. I may say that this man was employed on work which necessitated being in a cramped position. About two years ago the railway medical officer recommended that he be given work of a standing nature owing to rheumatism of the knee. He was then put on a drilling machine. [Time limit.]

The previous speaker has shown the press the hollowness of the attack. He might have attacked the Government on any misdeed during the last four years, but could actually do nothing else than quote a long article in the paper by a Sap. candidate. He has only accused himself of negligence by doing that, because it was his duty to bring the grievances to the notice of the Railway Department, which he failed to do. But I want to confine myself more strictly to the attacks made by the leader of the Opposition. While I was listening to his speech I recollected the words of a well-known Frenchman: Speech is given to men to hide their feelings”. If those words are true of any one in the world, then they are of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). How otherwise would he have had to speak differently? If I were in his position—if I had such a chapter of bad government and incorrect prophecies behind me I would rather bury my head in shame than act as accuser. But it seems to me the hon. member has seven skins. Fortunately the people already know him too well to attach any belief to his aspersions. These imputations were misleading. They were all worded most vaguely. The hon. member would cut a sorry figure on every point if cross-examined. I want to give some instances? He dared to refer to “the enormous growth of public expenditure”, carefully avoided letting out that during the last four years of the South African party Government the annual expenditure mounted faster than was the case during-the four years of the Nationalist Government, and he forgot to mention that this Government has incurred no unreproductive debts. He also omitted to say that he did not vote against the Nationalist expenditure, although he had every opportunity of doing so. On the contrary, he wanted to make it much higher. He wanted, for instance, to add £1,000,000 for the importation of settlers from overseas. Several of his comrades also expressed the wish that we should increase the yearly contribution of the British fleet. What did the Government spend an extra £4,000,000 on? £1,167,000 for grants to the provinces; £816,400, interest on public debt; £378,000 for higher education and vocational education; £402,500 for pensions; £229,500 for justice, child welfare and more police; £164,000 public health; £269,000 posts and telegraphs, and so forth. Those are all things which were absolutely necessary and for which the Opposition themselves asked. As for the public debt, £23,055,000 of the increase of £30,000,000 was for new railways. Did the South African party vote against any of those railways? £3,158,000 was for the Land and Agricultural Bank; £3,541,000 was for loans for provinces; and telephone extensions accounted for £2,215,000. All that expenditure was approved by the South African party. The country must be developed. In 1924 there were only about 3,000 miles of telephone, to-day there are 22,000 miles. Such things cost money. When some member complained last year about the extra loans the Government was making the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Sir William Macintosh), the chief financial critic of the South African party replied as follows—

The hon. member for Standerton must first convince his own financial expert that loans for development are wrong before he attacks the Government about it. Then the hon. member for Standerton says about the Minister of Finance—

Now no minister, can precisely estimate in advance what the expenditure and revenue for the following twelve months will be. The estimates of Minister Burton in 1921, were out by £399.000, in 1922 by £1,208,700. in 1923 by £998.000 and in l924 by £299.000. In the last mentioned year he said that he had a surplus, but he admitted that he had used £525,000 of borrowed money that year for meeting current expenditure. This amount must therefore be subtracted from the revenue. Minister, Burton used £1,760,000 of the capital of the country to cover current expenditure. His deficit for four years would otherwise have been £5,140,000. His successor has also been out in his figures every year; but the amount he was out was less than that of Minister Burton, to wit, £808,000 in 1925, £672,000 in 1926, £1,215,000 in 1927, and £1,750,000 in 1928. Altogether £4,445,000. And the important difference between the two cases is that in Mr. Burton’s case there were always deficits, but in the present Minister’s case always surpluses. The hon. member for Standerton also said—

But he again forgot to give the figures. During their last five years the South African party increased taxation by £3,201,000, while the Nationalist party has reduced it by over £4,000,000. That includes the amount of reduced railways rates, £1,281,000, and the Provincial Council taxes which the Government has abolished. How do these figures look? The hon. member mentioned the mining policy of the Government. The gold mines last year again exceeded all further outputs by one million pounds sterling. How does that compare with what the hon. member said in his manifesto in 1924—

Where were the economic crises? Our friend also carefully avoided speaking of diamond cutting. When the factory at Kimberley was proposed he fought it tooth and nail. Our climate would not be suitable, nor our young men. At Kimberley in 1924 in a public speech lie said it would be a calamity for Kimberley if a diamond cutting factory was established there. Such an undertaking would presumably be suicidal! Why, then, in his attack on the Nationalist policy, did he not complain again about their conduct in establishing a factory at Kimberley? Why is he silent about it now? I hear that factories are being established by our friend’s own comrades, and I should not be surprised to learn that he himself had taken shares in them! He also complained about the number of white labourers employed by the Government in the railways at low wages. It is remarkable. Did not the same gentleman a short while ago complain that the Minister of Railways was attracting the boys from the countryside to the Cape by the high wages he was offering them? And did not the previous Government pay a little less to those people than what they get now? Not only does his party speak with two voices, but he does it himself. One argument is meant for the public, the other for the workmen. We now have 10,000 more white labourers on the railway than in 1924. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth calls them “white loafers”, and I do not doubt those men will be discharged to make way for natives if the South African party comes back into office. The former Minister of Railways (Mr. Jagger) forced several of the white labourers in the Piquetberg constituency out of the service by ordering them to Natal at impossible wages, and raw natives were appointed in their places. They will do the same again. The hon. member for Standerton also mentioned the Wages Boards, but he ought first rather to settle with the principal organ of the South African party, the “Cape Times”, before he attacks the Minister of Mines about it, because that newspaper expressed the following view about the matter—

Then mention was also made of the public service. The hon. member said that our Government was not treating the English speaking population in Natal fairly. Why did he not give the figures? The Minister of the Interior has frequently enough mentioned those figures. During the period 1920-’24 the previous Government appointed 3,071 English-speaking people and 1,760 Afrikaans-speaking people. The present Government between 1924-’28 appointed 3,152 English-speaking people, and 3,097 Afrikaans-speaking people. Does that appear unfair? The English newspapers are not overanxious to publish the figures. The hon. member also said something about preferential rates. Apparently we have not treated England fairly! The British preference, granted to the Union, amounts to £275,000, while our preference to Britain is £420,000. Where is the unfairness? If Britain wishes it can do infinitely more for Union produce than is the case. Take, e.g., our tobacco. There is an overproduction here. In 1927 England imported from here less than one two-thousandth part of the tobacco imported from the United States, and America actually had put high tariffs against England and the rest. Mention was also made of the customs’ duty on readymade clothes. But hon. members forget to add that the customs’ duty on piece goods has been proportionately reduced. The two things balance each other. In accordance with our protection policy we wish the work to be given to the local tailors. So we desire that our own employed should be preferred to the unemployed abroad. According to the South African party no money must be employed for importing the surplus population from England to come here and take the bread out of our own poor people’s mouths. Bad enough!

It appears to me that during the course of this debate the Government has represented the appearance of a rather shady band of company promoters trying to foist a salted gold mine upon an unsuspecting public. All is not gold that glitters. I want to apply a test to the beautiful glitter of promises and performances we have had held up before us during the last two days; and I want to take the acid for that test from one of the Pact laboratories. It can, therefore, be guaranteed chemically pure. The test comes from the Minister of the Interior, and can be found on page 266 of last year’s report. There I find this extraordinary fact—that when the South African party handed over to the Pact, the purchasing power of the pound sterling in South Africa was 15s. 3d., whereas to-day that purchasing power is only 14s. 10d. During the whole of these 4½ years of glorious performance, the Pact has succeeded in knocking off 5d. in the purchasing power of the £. And that is not included in taxation. I am concerned only with the purchasing power of the pound, as set out in the Pact Government’s statistics. This test, therefore, cannot be suspected of being tainted by the South African party. The purchasing power of the pound in Australia is 1s. higher than it is in South Africa despite all the high tariff walls and labour troubles we have heard so much about. That fact is going to take a lot of explaining. What has happened is that the Pact Government has succeeded in making every spender of a £ give them the price of a drink out of it. During the last years of its administration, confronted by all the upset and financial problems following on the war, the South African party brought the purchasing power of the £ sterling from 11s. 3d. to 15s. 3d. And it was still rising when that party went out of office, as these records show. If the South African party had continued in office, the purchasing power of the pound in South Africa to-day would be equal to what it is in New Zealand, namely, 16s. 10d. I say definitely, and I challenge any hon. member on the other side of the House to dispute it, that as a result of the Pact Government 2s, in every £ spent has been lost to the workers of South Africa. And in this connection it should not be forgotten that conditions have been much more favourable for a rise in the purchasing power of the pound than when we were in office; yet the simple fact remains that the Pact in 4½, years has lowered the purchasing power of the £ to 14s. 10d., which means that every citizen in this country who is earning £20 a month has lost £2 a month out of his pay.

£2 per month?

If the Minister would only take the trouble to study facts, there would be more work for people in this country. The Pact Government has taken practically 10 per cent, off the wages of every worker in this country. That, will take a lot of explaining to an intelligent public. The Government have refused to face ordinary economic facts. The Minister of Defence, when he was Minister of Labour, set out to appoint an economic commission to tell South Africa how to increase its wealth. But he did not trust anybody in South Africa. He said he would get away from the moneyed power and go abroad. So he obtained a noted economist from England and one from Australia of the right frame of mind. But when they came here and reported on our conditions and what should be done, the Government ran away from the report! So to-day we have the result I have stated. The greatest condemnation any man can bring against Pact rule is that in 4½ years they have reduced the purchasing power of the £ to 14s. 10d. Despite the wonderful discoveries of diamonds, the wonderful field at Lichtenburg, which gave employment to many thousands of Europeans, despite splendid rains and good seasons, the only result is that the Pact have taken 10 per cent, off the value of the wages of every worker. Another remarkable fact emerges from this test —wages have not risen. They are lower to-day than they were in 1923. They are not a penny higher than when the South African party were in power. So there is no counter balance in that direction. The alarming thing is that the purchasing power of the pound sterling is going down, and if we have another 4½ years of this Government it will be down to 10s. The Mozambique treaty, which takes away 40,000 natives from the gold mines of the Witwatersrand, is not going to help. The Wages Board will not keep up the purchasing value of the £. Only sound government will do that. Only policies designed to increase the wealth of the country will do that. But it is hopeless to expect sound government from a Party which prefers to wander in the morass of political high constitutionalism. Personally, I think that this vote of confidence is long overdue. I think the South African party have been extraordinary patient; but the country has had to realize by many examples driven home, of one section being set against another by racial turmoil, by flag Bills and colour bars and German treaties, that it is time the Government went. This motion of no confidence is forced into this House by the anger of the people outside.

Potchefstroom.

If the Pact is proud of Potchefstroom with all the filthy lies which we have heard have been dished up during that election it is welcome to it. It is indeed sufficient commentary upon the condition of our political life when a political party can use to create prejudice the disgusting stories about fish hooks in bully beef—a story which is an insult to every English-speaking South African. I say this motion ought to have been unnecessary. If there had been any common decency in the Government it would have resigned long ago. The Government assumed office originally by a trick, and it has carried on by trickery ever since. On the day of the poll the people of this country were promised that the Pact would cease on the evening of the poll. That was the understanding on which thousands of the people walked into the polling booth. They woke up the following morning to find that all the promises made were broken by the two members of the present Pact. In similar circumstances, when in England the balance of power went in favour of the Labour party it did not occur to the Liberals to join in coalition with that party. They assisted in the work of the government of the country, and when they found that the Government was not carrying on the work as they thought it ought to be carried on, then the Government were put out of office. As the Government began so it has continued. I say without fear of contradiction, that there is utter demoralization to-day throughout the civil service. Merit is no longer the cause of reward; espionage is enthroned throughout the whole of the country. I know from my own personal knowledge, that fear stalks through the Union Buildings. Officials whom I knew before the election, whom I have spoken to, have told me that they dare not be seen speaking to me. What is the result? I see from the Government year book that in 1924 the total of the civil service pension vote was £653.000. In 1927 it amounted to £1,125,000. That is the acid test as to what has been going on in the civil service. The measure of the displacements. The member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) has referred to the discontent on the railways. I know something of the discontent on the railway too. The railways have become merely a Nationalist organization to-day. A little while ago I was in Canada. Canada also has a government railway, but strangely enough, not one of the employees on the railway considers himself a government servant. The management of the Canadian Railways lies outside of politics. In South Africa it is nothing if not political. Here we know of numerous young and efficient men, who should have a future before them, who are leaving the railways, going to New Zealand, Australia and Rhodesia, We know that the older men are afraid to enforce discipline, because of what would come to them if they did. The railways are becoming the despair of many of the old experienced men. But there is an economic test by which we can measure the political control of the railways. It is a commonly accepted axiom in all industry that the greater the production the lesser the cost. The greater the production in any unit, the lower the cost of production. It is so all over the world; but by some extraordinary working on the railway, though the traffic has doubled since 1914, the costs have gone up. Presumably the assumption is that the lower the traffic the lower will be the cost. To consider one striking instance alone. In the Auditor-General’s report, on page 15, it will be found that the price of carriage of bunker coal has gone up 108 per cent. The price of coal at the pit head has not gone up. It is very much like it was in 1914, having only varied a few pence. The cost of carrying that coal to bunker our ships has increased more than the value of the coal. Who is paying that increase in value? Obviously every person who ships goods overseas has to pay that extra cost of coal. One of the principal items in the working of ships is the price of coal. The Government has tried to fix up freights with the shipping companies, not realizing that they are very largely responsible for the increase of freights themselves. You can’t rail against the shipping companies for rising freights when the Government itself is chiefly responsible for the increased cost of working the ships. I am now going to apply another acid test to the work of the Government, the acid test of good faith. We ought to be able to look to the Government for good faith. Can its word be trusted? Is it possible to conduct negotiations with the Government in the certain knowledge that its word will be honourably kept? We have, unfortunately, a priest in politics. Personally I do not believe in priests in politics. Priests in politics have been a curse in every country which has harboured them. In most countries priests in polities have been long since done away with, but we seem to have a penchant for them. A priest in politics was responsible for cutting off King Charles’ head, another priest in politics was responsible for populating South Africa with Huguenots; it was a priest in politics who ushered in the Russian revolution. If we have much more priestly government in South Africa we are going to be in trouble, Let me deal with an instance of priestly guidance. The House will remember the Flag Act. The flag settlement was arrived at on an honourable compromise. The Natal section on this side of the House asked for an undertaking from the Prime Minster that the flag would fly as heretofore in Natal. The Leader of the South African party (Gen. Smuts) went to the Prime Minister to get that assurance, and he came back to us and said: “I give you the Prime Minister’s unqualified assurance that the flag will fly as heretofore in Natal”. This assurance was published in the Natal press on the day the Bill was brought into this House, and it was sufficient to induce the people of Natal to agree to the flag settlement. As a result, the flag societies were dissolved, and there was no more trouble about the flag. We all advised the people to accept the settlement as an honourable compromise. Then we come to the flying of the flag, and before the day of hoisting arrived there were constant rumours that the Government was not going to carry out its undertaking conveyed to us from the Prime Minister.

You had better leave that alone.

I will not leave it alone; I will tell the truth about it.

You can’t.

Listen to the Prime Minister, who is convicted almost every month of an equivocation. It is unworthy of him. I am trying to show the duplicity of the Minister of the Interior in the carrying out of an honourable obligation. We heard from Natal that some other arrangement had been made than that which we understood was being agreed to. We were asked to see that the Government carried out its promise and we appealed to the right hon. member for Standerton. The Leader of the Opposition went to the Prime Minister and asked him to carry out the undertaking. The Prime Minister repudiated ever having given such an undertaking.

Can you say where I gave that assurance?

I will not argue with you; that is not the point.

I deny that I ever gave any such undertaking.

I am not going to argue that point—I leave that to the conscience of the Prime Minister. The point is the duplicity of the Minister of the Interior. After the Leader of the Opposition saw the Prime Minister, and the latter repudiated ever having given that undertaking, the whole of the Natal members saw the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. I read out to the Prime Minister a paragraph in the “Natal Mercury” of October 26th, setting out the terms of the compromise—then four or five months old—which had never been repudiated and which the people of Natal assumed was the correct position.

I told you it was incorrect.

I said the Prime Minister repudiated it.

Of course I did.

I am not arguing that. On that night we saw the Prime Minister, he agreed in my hearing that the flag would fly as hitherto in Natal.

That is not true.

I know you will deny anything. I remember very well the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) taking the Prime Minister by the buttonhole of his waistcoat and saying to him: “Now we understand each other, General, the Hag flies as heretofore in Natal,” and he said: “Yes.”

No, I deny that. It is a 1—

Order.

No, I won’t say it here, but I will say it outside here.

Is it in order for the Prime Minister—

Sit down.

Shut up.

I ask you to keep these people quiet, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister in order in saying that a statement made by any hon. member is a lie?

I deny it. I was on the point of saying so, but I did not.

He did say it.

I ask your ruling on that. He did say it. Is he in order in saying such a thing?

I deny saying that. Half the word was already out but the rest I swallowed and I said no, I would not say it. If it has been taken that I did say it, I withdraw it at once, but I repeat I am quite prepared to say it to the hon. member outside.

We are accustomed to these things outside.

The hon. member denies he said it and his word must be accepted.

Let me pursue the story. It is a sorry story too. While we were at, that interview the pressmen were waiting outside. They know—they are in the gallery— and they can bear out the truth of this. They were waiting for news and we were asked by the Prime Minister not to give any word whatever to the press and we did not. I went outside the room when I heard the Prime Minister say: “Yes” and I left the other members in the room discussing matters with the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. What took place then I do not know, but the Prime Minister said this: “Go and put in writing what we have agreed to,” and I went back and typed a statement showing what was agreed to. When we went back half-an-hour later the Minister of the Interior started to argue and said he had not understood what we meant.

You were absent. How do you know?

When we went back I handed the Minister the document I had typed and it was then the same evening half-an-hour after the other meeting. Is that correct?

No, it is not correct.

I ask the Minister of the Interior, is that correct?

Certainly not. It is a tissue of misstatements.

Did we not see you twice that evening between eight and eleven?

Yes.

Let me pin the Minister-down to this. The Minister said: “I will take this document away because I would like to alter the wording to suit the Government.”

I accepted nothing of what you drew up.

You took the document away and the following morning the Minister gave it back to me in his own writing and I have that document. We continued discussing this matter for two more days. I met the Minister on the following Wednesday—he had his birthday about that time—when we learnt for the first time that while the negotiations were still going on and we were typing the documents setting forth what we had agreed upon, the Minister went behind our backs and authorized the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Jansen) to wire to his constituents to take down the flag —the Union Jack—at Vryheid. Let us take another question—a question also of faith. I am not going into the whole question, but I want to give one or two facts to the House. It is the native question. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Native Affairs and Native Bills for the last few years. The Prime Minister has stated to the country that the South African party has not co-operated with him in his work on these native Bills. There is one fact hidden from this hon. House—the report of the commission which sat in Pretoria, which is not yet on the Table, and which contains the following—

That document was originally written by the Prime Minister, who was the chairman of the commission, and every member of the commission present in Pretoria has signed that document. Everyone believed that when the Prime Minister said that good progress had been made, he meant it, and that the only reason why further progress had not been made was because of the limited period the commission had been able to sit. I would like to ask, in the eyes of any ordinary man, not blinded by party prejudice, whether there is the slightest sign of obstruction there. After that the Prime Minister spoke of the iniquity of the South African party in refusing to co-operate.

Was there not the Bloemfontein congress after that?

There was a Bloemfontein congress at which the South African party adopted a platform of native policy since it was drawing up a programme, and that native policy read as follows—

Where in that resolution does the Prime Minister find grounds for his action? The Minister may see something in a newspaper, and hang a lot upon it. I am convinced in my own mind that the Government did not want those Bills to go on, and if any proof were needed there is this manifesto. Let me take another instance of breach of faith. A couple of days ago we were discussing the Kellogg Peace Pact. It was agreed on all sides that the Kellogg Pact depended solely upon the good faith of those who signed it. Without sanctions of any kind, it was essentially a declaration of good faith. I could not help thinking of the similarity of that declaration with another. The Prime Minister signed another pact two years ago in London—a pact of co-operation with the empire. On that occasion the Prime Minister in his address to the Imperia] Conference—I have his speeches here—told the assembled empire statesmen that, if they would only declare the independent status of the dominion to the world, the empire would win the undying loyalty and co-operation of his Nationalist supporters. And afterwards, in this House, only last session, he preached the doctrine of cooperation with the empire. I should like to read what the Prime Minister said to this House—

A little while later, with those words still on his lips, he brings forward a treaty which is going to strike a blow at the very foundation of the empire, a blow which is going to damage the whole framework of empire, and which gives the lie to everything he said at that conference.

I am only giving the lie to the empire group.

This House can remember the Prime Minister coming back from London and saying: “Empire, I can say the word ‘Empire’ very well now.” Empire then was something good, something which offered some virtue to South Africa, but since then I suppose the omnipotent of the priest at the Cabinet has been responsible for this great change that has come about.