I intend to devote the greater portion of my remarks to a criticism of the Government’s financial policy, but before doing that I want to allude to a matter which has occurred since the session began, and that is the decision of the Government not to refer the Kellogg pact to the Upper House for its concurrence. I listened to the Governor-General’s speech, put into his hands by the Ministry for him to declare the policy of the Government, and that speech is addressed to “Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Senate,” and in it appears in plain and most unequivocal language that this treaty will be referred to the Senate for its concurrence. Within four days of that pronouncement by the Governor-General, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, on behalf of the Government, goes to the Senate and tells them that it is not the intention of the Government to refer that treaty to them. We want to know where we stand. Are we to take the solemn declaration of the Government in the speech from the Throne as being of any importance, or not, and we want to know what the Government policy is in regard to the Upper House, because for some years they have successfully dissembled their love for the Senate and now, apparently, they are proceeding to kick it downstairs. If they had not brought this treaty before Parliament at all one could have understood it, but it is without precedent in the constitutional life of this country, to bring a matter of this kind before the House of Assembly and then calmly to tell the Senate that they have no voice or say in it, and they will be ignored. Some of us are wondering whether this action is the precursor of the violation by the Government of its promise and pledge so far as the Senate is concerned in regard to other treaties, and other matters referred to in the speech, because in the Governor-General’s speech reference is made to other treaties which will come before both Houses in due course. I should be glad if some member of the Government would explain the reason for this wanton and entirely unjustified slight on the other House. Our constitutional position is plainly laid down in Section 19 of the. South Africa Act. [Section read]. It is entirely without precedent in the legislative life of this country to refer a matter of this sort to the House of Assembly and then, with the Senate waiting for work, to inform them it is not proposed to give them any voice or say in the matter. I want to come now to the Minister of Finance and his financial policy. If it was merely a matter of a popularity test I would rather take Mr. Havenga than Mr. Burton, but popularity is not the best test of financial policy, and we should remember it was the task of Mr. Burton, during the last years of his office to pilot this country through one of the greatest economic crisis it had ever faced. He was not voyaging in the calm water through which the present Minister of Finance has gone. He had to face a revenue which fell by over £2,000,000 in one year. I ask myself who is the better pilot, he who will bring you safely to port through stormy weather, or he who simply sits at the helm and guides the ship of State through calm water? I would say that though the ordinary elector in a popularity contest will vote for the present Minister, I would before an impartial jury plead the case of Henry Burton rather than that of Nicolaas Havenga. There is no doubt that in the present Minister of Finance they think they have a trump card, but you do not hear much about the Minister of Mines and Industries or the Minister of Defence. I want to try to analyse the claims which are made on behalf of the Minister of Finance. I find that the claims in regard to the present Government’s financial success made during this debate are based mainly on two things—firstly, surpluses and secondly, reduction of taxation. It would be idle to deny that there have been surpluses—in 1925-’26, £670,000; in 1926 ’27, £1,215,000; last year, £1,750,000; and I hear on good authority that the revenue has been so buoyant that this year the Minister hopes to present to this House a surplus of close upon £2,000,000. If that is the case, in four years the Minister has accumulated surpluses to the extent of £5,500,000. From another aspect, what does this mean? That the taxpayer of this country, has been made to pay a £5,500,000 over and above the practical needs of the country. Although a surplus is better than a deficit, a balanced budget is still better. These surpluses have not resulted from economy. There has been no reduction in expenditure. If they had accrued from reduction of expenditure, I would take off my hat to the Minister and acclaim him a financial genius, as his followers claim him to be. This years estimates of expenditure are £28,500,000. As opposed to 24½ millions four years ago. I admit that a great deal of that expenditure can be justified, but there has not been that control of public expenditure which the Minister promised us when he came into office. I will give you one instance. We all remember the case in which the hon. member for Pretoria district (South) (Dr. van Broekhuisen), on a popularity stunt, moved a motion to give certain ex-Republican officials extra pensions, and will you believe it that the Minister of Finance accepted the recommendation of that Committee, not knowing in the least its real implication, and when he came to work out what it cost, he found that it cost the country a bill of £331,000 in additional estimates for that year, and an increase in our Annual Pension Bill of £17,000. I remember the late Mr. Fichardt, speaking from almost this bench in 1923, moving on behalf of the Nationalist opposition in that year a motion refusing to go into supply, and referring the estimates back to the Government for consideration—in the direction of economy. His words still ring in my ear. He said that the country was groaning under a burden of taxation which it could not bear; and, unless they threw out the South African party government, the country was faced with financial ruin. That year the burden on the taxpayers was about £15,800,000, and this year, six years later, it is £21,500,000. His successor has increased the burden by £6,000,000. Verily, if the South African party chastized this country with whips, the Nationalists chastize it with scorpions. I want to go on now to this famous Treasury memorandum. On the strength of it on every Pact platform and in this House members have got up and said that the Government has reduced taxation by £2,000.000. I can remember a speech by the Minister of Agriculture, and did he not claim this?

Is it not so?

That claim is based on this Treasury memorandum which was issued to hon. members at the close of last session, and it is claimed that there is a reduction of taxation of £1,900,000. This document reads more like a Pact electioneering manifesto than an official document and I say that this claim is absolutely mendacious and misleading.

I defy you to disprove any statement in that memorandum.

I am going to do so. I will leave this country and the House to judge. The Minister need not look so happy; let him hear me state my case first. He proceeds to give some 12 items, as a result of which he makes a claim that the net reduction of taxation is £1,900,000. I will take only one or two items; I will take first the item of “£15,000 — surrender of revenue, guardians’ fund.” We found in the Public Accounts’ Committee in 1925 that the Government was taking compulsory charge of minors’ money left to them by parents and others and paying them 4 per cent., although they paid 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, to the investors in public stock, and we found that the profit over 4 per cent, was going into the Government’s pockets, and that in that year the exchequer made a profit of £78,000 at the expense of the orphans of this country. On our recommendation the percentage was increased from 4 per cent, to 4½ per cent. We felt that it was a monstrous thing that the Government should pay this low percentage. The Government then got £15,000 less than it had been getting and this is now claimed as part of the reduction in taxation! I will now deal with another two items—“return to penny postage, £400,000, return to farthing newspaper postage. £30,000.” I have looked in the books in the library at definitions of “taxation” but I find that there is not one which defines the rate of postage on letters as such. If the Municipality of Johannesburg reduces its tram fares, does it reduce taxation? If the Minister of Railways reduces railway rates, does he reduce taxation?

Certainly.

Nonsense. It is a reduction by a trading department in its charge for services. During the great war, when wages went up, it was found necessary to put up the rate of postage to twopence. Our Government in 1923-’24 took off the war bonus, reduced the cost of running the post office and in 1925 it was found possible to return to the penny postage. Yet this item of £430,000 figures here as reduced taxation.

You are splitting hairs; the public benefitted.

The claim is made by Pact speakers that the Government has reduced taxation.

Of course.

Not to the extent of what they claim. I now come to another item. Every item on this list, whether you agree with me or not, represents a permanent reduction in taxation—except one. Let us look at it: “income tax, £770,000.” The impression conveyed by this document is that this, like the other, is a permanent reduction of taxation and it is put into the total of £1,900,000. And yet when the Minister spoke in this House last year about this particular reduction of taxation this is what he said—

In other words he made it clear that the reduction was a purely temporary one, for one year only. A temporary refund is included and made to appear as if it was a permanent reduction, and Pact speakers have been claiming that it is a permanent reduction. If you eliminate that £770,000, and also eliminate those other items, what is the result? It comes to this, that in four years of unexampled prosperity, with surpluses amounting to the huge total of 5£ million sterling, the total reduction in the rate of taxation is £688,000. But do not let us be deceived. In the last year of the South African party government the taxpayers paid in taxation to this country £16,800,000; in 1924-’25 they paid £18,365,000; in 1925-’26 they paid £19,590,000; in 1926-’27 £21,000,000, and in 1927-’28 £21,670,000; and after this year’s buoyant revenue we may expect that the yield from taxation will be in the neighbourhood of 22½ million pounds. There has been a reduction in the rate of taxation of £688,000, but on the other hand there has been an increase in yield of over £6,000,000. Therefore if we are taxed less, we are certainly paying more. That is one of the reasons why the cost of living is going up year by year. I want to give some of the figures that I have taken from the Union year book. They show that the cost of living is steadily going up. In 1926 the official index figures of wholesale prices for food and groceries was 1,328, in 1927 it was 1,387. For retail prices of food, coal and light in 1926 was 1,325, while in 1927 it was 1,345. Bread in 1910 was 2.75d. per pound, in 1927 it was 3.90d. Flour in 1910 was 4s. per 25 lbs.; in 1927 it was 7s. 6d. Sugar in 1910 was 3d. per lb., in 1927 it was 4½d. Then take the taxes on food: Wheat 1s. 7d. per 100 lbs., ground wheat 3s. 8d. per 100 lbs.; patent foods 25 per cent, ad valorem; sugar 8s. per 100 lbs.; blankets 25 per cent.; ready-made clothing 20 per cent. It all comes to this—that we are paying three to four million pounds more in customs than when the Pack took office, and that the necessaries of life, food and clothing, pay nearly £4,000,000 sterling in customs. That is one reason why the cost of living is going up, and the customs dues have reached the £10,000,000 mark. I want, in conclusion, to say a word or two on the result of the Potchefstroom election, which has been referred to as showing that the Government does still to a large degree possess the confidence of the country. I want to say that in the ordinary way when we have a good fight; the losing side congratulates the winner on his victory. But let me examine the figures of former elections. In 1924 there was a majority of 127 on a total poll of 2,319. At the last provincial election the former Nationalist member was returned by a majority of 41, and the. Nationalists managed to hold the seat in, the recent election with a majority of 31 on an 80 per cent. poll, where every voter was beaten up from the highways and byways. The result shows an increase of the South African party vote by nearly 100, and a decrease of the National party vote. But it is the method that was employed to bring about that result that I was particularly to speak about. You can read a description of the methods employed in the Nationalist and South African party papers. According to the correspondent of the Star, never before has there been such an undisguised orgy of racialism as took place in the Potchefstroom election, and never before have such methods been used. I would remind the House that the newspaper reports are signed. And this is what it says—

This is another extract—

One final appeal concludes—

Where it is from?

That is from a Nationalist manifesto reproduced in the “Star.” That is a signed report. Now I want the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) to listen to this—

It is a fact—I hope the hon. member for Potchefstroom will tell me whether it is or not— that just on the eve of this election he went to these labourers and told them that they were to get an extra 1/- a day?

They got it from the 1st of January.

On the eve of the election.

Not on the eve; they knew it long ago.

This newspaper report says that they were promised it. All I can say is that this offer of 1/- per day to these white labourers turned the votes of some 70 of them, and if the Government of the day chooses to adopt measures of that sort in order to buy votes, then it seems idle to have a Corrupt Practices Act. Did the hon. member for Potchefstroom get on the public platform and hold up to ridicule the Afrikaans accent with which his English-speaking opponent addressed the meeting the night before?

No.

He is reported to have done so, but I am very glad to hear the hon. member’s denial. That comes very nearly home to the English-speaking people of South Africa. Many of us are trying our best to learn that tongue, and up to now our efforts have received uniform courtesy from Dutch-speaking people. I accept the hon. member’s denial. I am glad that the denial has been made, because, had it not been made, it would have left the very worst impression behind. The hon. gentleman who opposed Mr. Barnard in his very election manifesto made a direct appeal to racial prejudice. This is what he said in his manifesto—

If that is the spirit—the Potchefstroom spirit —in which we are to fight this election, then God help South Africa. I say most earnestly that we English-speaking people in South Africa are most anxious to co-operate with the other race. But we want this election to be fought on purely economic issues. We don’t want these appeals to racial prejudice. If I had my way this would be an election campaign in which the Government would go to the country on its economic policy. Is the Government ashamed of the results it has achieved? If not, why cannot it be content to make an appeal to the electors on its merits? Why was it necessary for “Het Westen” of Potchefstroom to state in its columns that the British had killed 25,000 people on the concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer War, and put fish hooks in the food of the prisoners of war? Let us have a clean fight on economic issues. Do let us get away from this “Potchefstroom spirit,” for if the election is fought in that spirit the South African party or the Nationalists may win, but the country will be the loser.

I say on behalf of the Government, that we are prepared to accept the challenge and fight the issue on economic questions. But let me draw attention to the speech of the last speaker’s leader, who dragged in the flag issue on the very flimsiest grounds—no grounds whatsoever. The right hon. gentleman who leads that party must shoulder the responsibility. We are prepared to leave the flag issue where it was left about eighteen months ago.

And the native question?

The native question has been dealt with by the Prime Minister, and will be dealt with at a joint sitting in a few days.

Why did you issue the manifesto?

The hon. member will have an opportunity of saying what he has to say later on.

It is a wicked document.

The hon. member has been saying that for three or four days. Why does he not stand up and say it publicly? Let me deal with a few points made by hon. members opposite with regard to railway policy. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has dealt with a number of most interesting subjects, but they might very well be debated when we come to deal with railway questions. He should state whether he is speaking for his party or himself when he attacks the Government on the question of the carriage of drought-stricken stock. He surprises those of us who know the conditions under which the unfortunate farmers have struggled manfully under the most direful conditions of drought.

Do not misquote me.

The hon. member knows that under the policy which the railway administration has followed for many years it is a charge which legitimately falls on the railway administration.

What about the Act of Union?

The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) read an extract from “Imvo,” containing a large number of complaints against the department regarding the treatment of natives. If the hon. member had the real interest of the natives at heart, he would have, in the first instance, brought the complaints to the notice of the system manager concerned. Then, if he had not received satisfaction, he could have brought them to the notice of the Minister. No sir, the hon. member keeps the complaints for nine months in order now to attack the Government. All complaints are carefully investigated. If any hon. member has a complaint on behalf of any section of the community, the railway management will always be glad to hear where the shoe pinches, as with 96.000 employees we are bound to have some complaints. Our railway employees, on the whole, are giving every satisfaction. In regard to the general question of the treatment of natives, the conditions have improved enormously during the last few years. We are now carrying most of the natives in third class passenger coaches, and the conditions under which they are being conveyed are improving tremendously, and we are doing our best to further improve those conditions. The hon. member made an attack on our workshops. I very much desired to hear where the bad conditions he alleged existed, but I could not get it from him. Do they exist at Uitenhage, at Salt River, at East London? The hon. member makes a number of loose, irresponsive statements, but when I challenge him, as I do now, to mention the place where these things occur, he cannot reply. He reflects, in a most grave manner, on our employees in all our workshops when he makes allegations of that sort, which he is not prepared to prove. I say deliberately that as the result of the appointment of Mr. Watson as assistant chief mechanical engineer, the conditions in the workshops have improved tremendously. Our efficiency has increased and the conditions have improved. I pay tribute to the good work which has been done in that regard by the assistant chief mechanical engineer. If the hon. member has anything he wants to bring to notice, let him give the facts, but do not let him come forward with a lot of loose, irresponsible statements which do no good to either the railway employee or the railway administration. But we had a further exhibition from the hon. member. Driver Smith, Mr. Donaldson and the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) were so jumbled together in the statement he read that I challenge any member who heard him to say when Driver Smith, when Mr. Donaldson and when the hon. member for Uitenhage was speaking. As far as I could ascertain, the complaint was that our runing on the eastern system was not safe. All I need say is that the eastern system is under the control of a system manager and the system engineer, who are doing excellent work, and I have no reason to think that the conditions under which we are working that system are not as good as those on any other system. Why does the hon. member not come forward with real facts? Why does he come forward with a jumble of statements and then ask the House to pass a vote of no-confidence on such slender evidence? I now come to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He gave us a very long statement and attacked the Administration on a number of subjects. I am always interested to hear a prospective Minister of Railways. He has attacked on the usual lines. He wants more statistics. He wants train mileages, the capacity of engines and other things. But may I ask the hon. member whether he has taken the trouble to read the report of the general manager? If he wants information on train mileages he will find it on pages 3 and 41 of the report. If he wants information about the capacity of engines, he will find it on page 132. I am afraid the hon. member makes statements when he has not taken the trouble to ascertain the facts which are available to him. I am not referring to information which is not available. Did the hon. member see the testimony of Sir John Thornycroft, an impartial witness? He made a public statement quite unsolicited, in which he said the general manager’s report contained far more information that was ordinarily given by a private company. Is less information given now than was given formerly under my predecessor?

Yes, much less.

My point is that as much information is given, and given very fully. If there are points on which members desire further information, if it is possible to give it without too great cost, we are prepared to give it, but we strongly object giving information which is unnecessary. With regard to the statistics of branch lines, about three months ago the Administration felt that the time had come when we should again give statistics, but for a definite period. We are not giving statistics as it was done formerly, but, in order to test the position and to give the information to the House, we are taking out test figures, and I hope, in a short time, to be able to lay them on the Table for the information of members. It will be compiled for two months’ peak and two months’ normal working.

Is that a fair test?

I considered the question of giving the full figures but the chief accountant estimated the cost at £15,000. Just at the present moment we do not want to waste any money—we never want to do so as far as that goes—and we thought it was too much to pay and the amount was reduced to £6,000.

Is that what you call waste?

It is not waste, but it would be waste to spend £15,000 every year in collecting information which is not of much value, except to the operating officers who, in any case, must watch the position on the branch lines. Hon. members last year threw doubt on the estimate of the chief accountant. I tested it again. The hon. member made a big point about reduction of rates. He said my predecessor reduced rates by £4,000,000 while the present Government had only done so by £1,250,000. But the hon. member has evidently not been able to grasp the very essential fact that when my predecessor took over, the rates had been inflated to such an extent that the position had become unbearable. Mr. Burton had inflated the rates by, I think, over £6,000,000. My hon. friend, in desperation, had to reduce, but surely my hon. friend appreciates that the time comes when it is impossible to reduce further. It is easy enough when rates are at the peak to reduce by £4,000,000, but when you are at bed-rock, it is not easy further to reduce then. That is the whole point, which the hon. member does not seem able to appreciate. But he will be glad to hear that, as a result of the excellent position in which the railway system is at the present moment—I will give details at a future time—I hope we shall be in a position further to reduce rates. My hon. friend evidently thinks that the election has something to do with it, but he forgets that last year we reduced rates by over £150.000 when there was no election. I now come to the charge of my hon. friend— the action of this “wicked Government” in placing an order for oil with a German firm. The hon. member most solemnly affirmed that the Government had placed an order with a German firm for German oil. Of course my hon. friends from Natal and Rondebosch (Mr. Close), thought that here was ground for a new scandal. My hon. friend also Said that we did it without making fests. I asked myself “can this be the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), a leader of the South African party?” If he will take the report of the Auditor-General—on page 176 of last year’s report—I want to assist him as much as possible—he will find that this whole subject is fully dealt with. It is pointed out that we had a contract which was not satisfactory, and as a result of very careful tests over a period of twelve months the matter was put up to tender and the Tender Board considered the matter. They recommended the tender of a particular firm which the Railway Board confirmed and we are saving £15,000 to £18,000 per annum. If I may give a word of advice to the hon. member, it is not to depend on the South African party press in Cape Town. Why does he not go to the real source—official documents. If the hon. member would only read “Die Burger” he would not be at sea, as he is now. I know hon. members will at once recognize the good German names of Fraser & Chalmers—and Galena oil from the U.S.A. The hon. member, if he desires to carry weight in this House and in the country, must make sure of his facts. I may safely leave the hon. member in the hands of his party after this. What is, after all, the real attack on the railway administration? It is not what has been so loosely stated on the other side, but the grounds were stated by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition—it is the policy of giving the European an opportunity of making good in this country. That is the” attack the right hon. gentleman made when he moved his motion. Let us get down to bedrock with regard to these matters. I put it to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who I take to be a fair-minded man; is it correct to say that natives can be trained to do far more responsible than labouring work? Of course it is admitted. Go to Tanganyika, Kenya the Congo, Mozambique and other places. What do hon. members desire? They say we should not employ European labourers as we are doing.

Who said that?

Oh, I am glad to see hon. members are beginning to run. We are making progress. The position is that if we do not take steps to give the European and the coloured man an opportunity in the railway service their places will ultimately be taken by the native who works at lower wages; because his standard of living is lower than that of Europeans. Hon. members must face that fact and state clearly what their policy is with regard to this. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), has again in the course of this debate, as he has done on many occasions, denied that it was his policy gradually to get rid of the European labourer. I have on other occasions given the House the facts, and I do so again this afternoon. I am prepared to place the file in the hands of my hon. friend for verification. He will find that on September 25th, 1922, shortly after he took office, a minute from the general manager states clearly what his policy was as Minister—

The general manager went on to say—

The hon. member is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, definite instructions were given as to European labourers on branch lines. I had many cases to bring to his notice. Men living in a comfortable house on a branch line would be transferred to the main line with no housing, and naturally these men resigned. A question has been asked me by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie), and I am laying on the Table of the House tomorrow official returns giving the numbers of white labourers, and hon. members will be satisfied if they study it that the policy of the hon. gentleman was gradually to get rid of the white labourers. My hon. friend will have an opportunity of studying these figures and seeing if that has been the actual policy. [Interruption.] Of course it will again be the policy when the S.A. party return to power. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) likes sitting on two stools. He said that the S.A. party were carrying out the policy of the late Mr. Sauer in connection with giving employment to European labourers on the railways. But has this Government had one word of assistance from that side of the House? No, nothing but sneers and jeers from the beginning. Now that the general election is looming in the distance they are going back on their policy. I shall give them their policy when they were in power, and prove that their policy was not to carry out the policy of Mr. Sauer. Here are the records. The Government fixed a rate of 4s. 6d. per day for Europeans.

Under what circumstances, and at what age?

I only want to point out what was done by the South African party Government. Now we have the leader of the Opposition shedding crocodile tears over what this Government is paying. Now what is the Government policy of to-day. Do we pay them 5s. a day?

No, 3s. 6d.

The hon. member who has just spoken has no knowledge or conception of the matter, and I am not going to waste time-on that. European labourers on the railways now receive 5/- a day. In addition they receive a free house and other privileges, amounting in all to approximately 7/6 per day, and, in addition, we have placed them on our fixed establishment, and they now share in all benefits. When the South African party was in power, they adopted a policy of gradually getting rid of these men.

That is absolutely wrong.

This is really most disheartening. I am giving you facts. It would be far better for the hon. member to admit his 4/6 a day policy; and yet it is now urged that hon. members on the other side of the House are the wonderful friends of the white labourer. No, the hon. member and his party have a very black record. The policy of this Government in regard to the white civilized labourer forms an integral part of its whole railway policy.

interjected a remark.

Does the country want to know what it would cost to employ native drivers and checkers?

Should it not know—

That is an admission that we should gradually bring natives back in place of white men.

I said nothing of the kind.

The hon. member is running away now. But we shall chase hon. members on the other side of the House on this question right up to the time of the general election. Let me put it again, the hon. member says that the country desires to know what it would cost to employ European instead of native labourers. I would like to know whether the country is also interested to know what it would cost to employ native drivers and native checkers. If the country had not saved itself from the policy followed by the hon. member’s party, we should not have advanced as we now have done.

That is exaggeration.

It may be exaggerated in the opinion of the hon. member but it is the truth. These statements by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and those who followed him to the effect that they have suddenly become the great friends of these European labourers will not be accepted. No, we will leave the country to judge on the facts. I say that this Government has no intention of departing from that policy. We will face the country with that policy and leave the country to decide.

In this debate one feels that hon. members are indulging in the operation of broadcasting, and that it is to a much wider audience than this House they are making an appeal. Hon. members are speaking with a view to inducing their constituents to return them again, and perhaps I may also be guilty in that respect myself. I was elected to vote for the Pact Government, and on every occasion where there has been a division I have voted with the Government. Oh, there was one exception, and that was when the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) brought in a motion in regard to carrying out the promises that were made to the railwaymen and the civil service generally, in regard to the eight-hour day particularly, and to the cut in their wages and salaries. I admit that I voted against the Government on that motion, but there was not one member of the Government not pledged up to the eyes in regard to those promises. The Minister of Finance shakes his head in contradiction and he is quite right. The Government is in a fortunate position in that the only promises they are responsible for are those made by the Minister of Finance, who made none, being returned without opposition, therefore no Ministerial promises have to be kept. With regard to the relationship between the two parties in the Pact the Prime Minister says that in the next Parliament, if they have the good fortune to continue in the seats of the mighty, they will not be bound by any promises made by his allies of the Labour party. That is a very nice intimation to the Minister of Defence, who must appreciate that position of inferiority very greatly. In respect to my constituency I have a record in an assurance from the whole of the countryside that on my winning the seat there was the greatest orgy of intoxication that has taken place in this country. It is reckoned that nearly 150,000 men who voted Pact went to bed intoxicated that night. I may perhaps claim the support of the liquor interest at my next election; and I have no doubt that, as far as my Nationalist friends are concerned, should I be unfortunate enough to lose in that contest, there will be another orgy, and I shall then have another claim on the liquor interest. The hon. the Minister of Defence gave us an interesting story of his researches as a boy into the characteristics of the lower reptilia. That surely did not end his researches; for evidently the lessons of boyhood in getting lizards to drop their tails was accompanied by a study of another small “beastie,” the chameleon, and he has made good use of that example. May I be permitted to draw his attention to a little thing I noticed in Toronto It was one of those happy families in a cage, where animals which are usually hostile to each other harmoniously agree. In an upper portion of the cage there was a monkey and a parrot enjoying themselves by eating together out of the same dish of nuts, but what attracted my attention particularly—I thought it had some bearing on local political life— was a delightful cat, quite a good-looking, sedate, benign animal, and there in its enclosing paws was a dear little mouse resting quite comfortable and unconcerned. I thought of the Minister of the Interior, and of the Minister of Defence lying so contentedly within those claws. I asked the showman how it was done, and he was good enough to inform me that it was very simple. The cat was well fed before the show began, and they just gave the little mouse a wee drop of whisky! I leave my natural history story to the hon. gentleman to put alongside his of depriving lizards of their tails. I listened with great interest to the Minister of Labour’s defence of the white labour policy. That is the one bright spot in the otherwise rather inglorious career of the Labour party within the Cabinet. It will always be to their credit that they initiated and carried out a wider employment of white labour, a policy that will have to be carried out to a still greater extent if this country is to prosper as other countries are doing. I was pleased to hear the hon. Minister with his usual modesty claim that he himself initiated the eight shillings a day unskilled labour wage, and not the ex-Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, but I may express profound regret that the Minister of Labour did not stand by his colleague when that colleague was trying to bring it in as the general rule for all Government departments. Until we get a decently high wage established we can never expect success because we shall always have a very restricted purchasing power in this country. Let us give the credit due to that portion of the Labour party which forms part of the coalition Government. It is not a waste of money, although some people think that if we increase wages we have less chance of progress, because they argue that everything should be based on a low economic basis. It is, however, no use preaching thrift if we do not give people a chance of earning a sufficiency of money to leave a margin which can be saved. It is to the discredit of the Government that it is still employing men at a non-living wage, the result being that men have to turn to other sources to obtain means to increase their meagre incomes. I admit that the fault is not entirely with the Minister of Labour who would have done far more if he had the means, but his trouble has been a want of money. That is where we come to the initial failure of the Government, because the Minister of Finance has a soul wrapped up in surpluses. He can think of nothing but sitting on the money bags and producing a surplus with which to dazzle the country.

And pay our debts.

The Minister of Finance should have given his colleagues funds to enable them to extend their useful work. The basis of prosperity is production, and I am delighted that the Minister has been converted, partially at all events, to the benefits of protection. The Minister of Labour has also been converted, for I well recollect his lecturing me on the virtues of free trade. I am not blaming the Nationalists in any sense for failure in regard to the administration, or even for the wave of racialism again sweeping over us, or for pursuing a policy which is not in the interests of the country generally, because the whole blame rests on the members of the Labour party within the Government. The English members of the Cabinet, I take it, are proud of belonging to the Empire, but instead of stopping this wave of racial hatred and bad feeling they sat perfectly quiet, although they had been sent to the Cabinet with a definite mandate to promote peaceful progress. The written agreement is signed by Col. Creswell on behalf of the Labour party, and confirmed by Gen. Hertzog. The Pact expired on the night of the general election, but the agreement specifically laid it down that should the Nationalist Government come into power, no Nationalist member of Parliament should use his vote for upsetting the then existing constitutional relations between South Africa and the British crown. I think that condition was fairly well kept; at all events it may be claimed that the secession issue was not proceeded with. It was definitely laid down that Parliament should devote itself entirely to economic and domestic measures required to promote the prosperity of the people. A mutual pledge was given that every member should have the right to express his own views in this House. When that definite Pact was not observed, if the Labour members of the Government had not been suffering from political cold feet, they would have said “Drop all this racial trouble and get on with the work.” The Labour party would then have been satisfied. Instead of doing so, Labour Ministers were weak-kneed enough to say “We don’t want to do anything within the Cabinet that will cause a disturbance.” They even got to the stage of asking us whether we wanted them to hold a pistol at the heads of their Cabinet colleagues! Take this belated Pension Act for an instance. We wanted old age pensions four years ago, and should have got this, had we had a courageous leader. Belated and insufficient as it is, those who criticize socialism will at least have to admit that it is an entirely good thing for the country. We take from those who have abundantly and give to those who have not, which is the root doctrine of socialism. What was the cause of racial unrest? It was due to the malign influence of the Minister of the Interior, the Balaam of his party, the man sent forth to curse those who have got too mighty and too many in the land, and I hope indeed that the Minister of Defence will find a voice with which to rebuke the prophet. The trouble is due to the Minister of Defence being too weak and servile and subservient to the Minister of the Interior. The trouble we have had is due to that cause, and so the Labour party—the great Labour party, I may say, because it had considerable influence throughout the country,—was sold for three portfolios—just for a handful of silver they sold us.

Very poor indeed.

The Minister of Defence stated at Brakpan that there is a price too big for Labour to pay for its alliance to the Nationalist party. It sounded very brave, but one wonders what price he considers too big to pay for the alliance. I think we should find it would be the price of the surrender of his own portfolio.

That is not correct.

We have had from the Prime Minister a pronouncement so singular in its tone that one wonders the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Labour can stand such cheapening patronage. The Prime Minister speaking at Pretoria West on January 5th, said (and I hope Creswellite members will, appreciate the patronage)—

He went on—

In other words, they will just whistle for Col. Creswell and he will respond with alacrity to the whistle. I am certain the Prime Minister was perfectly right in his deduction. He continued—

If the Creswellites can put up with that sort of patronage, then all I can say is they have lost every vistage of the independence they may have had in the early days. They are not concerned with Labour principles or promises or anything else, but when we are finished with we are just to be scrapped. That is what Creswellite Ministers of the Government may be proud of! Well, we on these benches are not. We resent it. We were either worth working with or not, but we are not content with callous statements like that from the Prime Minister. The Labour portion of the Cabinet, and particularly the Minister of Defence, have lost a great opportunity. I say confidently if the Minister had had the courage to merely raise his hand he could have ensured political peace to this country. The people are weary of all this needless strife and are sick at heart. Great masses of the community, and particularly the industrial section and the large cities, and all who have any wish to improve social and economic conditions, would gladly see racialism ended, and would use every possible endeavour to bring it to its burial, but the Prime Minister, from whom we expect great things, speaks in two voices. Here in this House he says what we are quite content with, and if they do not allay all causes of suspicion at all events tend to remove feelings of unrest. But he then stirs up again what we hoped was entirely ended. We thought to hear no more of secession, but speaking as late as October 16th at Clocolan, he says quite calmly: “secession will come one day.” After rebuking republicanism and saying it must end, he says at Winburg, also in October—

I quote Reuter’s correspondent report. I ask, how can the country have rest when the Prime Minister in the back-veld stirs up that racialism, and then innocently asks why it should still exist and why it should not be ended. The Prime Minister is responsible for setting the tone of the country. When he took office he claimed to represent all sections of the people. Then we have this continued turmoil, which is unsettling to our peace as well as to our credit. Hon. members congratulate themselves when a loan is put up for subscription that we are getting capital on easy terms. Of course, when money is abundant, we do get good terms, but when one questions business men they ask why they should take an interest in the country, and prosecute business in it, when it is suffering from acute political unrest. On top of all this we all were to have the native problem, which it is agreed should never be made a party matter, dragged into the political arena. In the words of a celebrated diplomat—“It is worse than a crime; it is a blunder.” This action will not assist the Nationalist party, and certainly be of no benefit to the country. Quite the contrary. The Prime Minister places the responsibility for this folly on the Opposition. It is not the Opposition’s business to proclaim a policy for the country; it is their business to criticize. They may have an alternative policy. Even if the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has been injudicious in his attitude on the native question, it was for the Prime Minister to have said—

Did the Prime Minister do that? No; he stirred up more strife in the country. Where does the influence come from that changes Governments? It is from the man in the street, it is he who decides the issue. I am perfectly sure, knowing the country as I do, having been born in it, that “the man in the street” will not sanction making the native question a contentious matter in the coming election. It is a vain attempt to force a false issue which the country will not accept. I remind hon. gentlemen on the Nationalist benches, with whom I am in sympathy in so many of their movements, and in their desire to make this country great and independent—though I have no wish whatever to see it go out of the British commonwealth of nations—that the votes which turn elections are often small in number, but great in influence. While the respective parties cast their votes solidly, the Government is in power to-day because of a majority of 2,800 votes over its rivals, and who can guarantee that those votes will be cast again in favour of the present administration? There is ever a love of change, and while that balancing party is often apathetic, it has a strange faculty of knowing what the country wants. The country is sick and tired of certain actions of the Government; it is sick and tired of all that makes for racialism. I say to the Minister of Defence, who is himself responsible for almost all that has taken place in regard to unrest, a great trust was placed in his hands in the Pact, and the coalition, to which we were induced to consent, and if he had acted on that specific agreement and been brave enough to say—

We can have it now if only he stood up and boldly said—

We should rise entirely above all this “slimness,” and in the interests of everybody there should not be any playing up to ignorant forces simply to get votes. We have to consider what are the best interests of the country. I appeal to the Minister of Defence to give up the task put upon him of being window7 dresser with German treaty goods and ask him to use his great influence in the best interests of the people. If he does that the whole country will gladly respond. We should singlemindedly go in for the economic legislation which the country needs, sweeping aside all vexatious questions that divide us. I am sure that the country will refuse to be stampeded on the native question. I feel certain that is just the one thing on which the country will definitely decline to be stampeded. If the Government of to-day does not come back to power, and I feel far from confident that it will come back, because its members have not sufficiently considered the precarious nature of that majority balance of 2,800 recorded votes, of last general election, should the Government lose the opportunity of again administering the government, it will be due to the subserviency of the Minister of Defence, the fanaticism of the Minister of the Interior, and to the hatred of everything British of the Minister of Mines and Industries.

I want more particularly to confine myself to two speeches made during the debate. The first was that of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), who challenged me, and said that I could not speak in the House because, as he alleged, I had too many marks against me. What does the hon. member mean by that? I want to point out to him that, if he goes into the bad marks, he will see that I need not be ashamed about them, because many of them are the cause of my being the representative here to-day of my constituency, and many of them have contributed to make our country happy, as it is to-day, and many hon. members here have assisted in creating a condition which gives the hon. member an opportunity of sitting here. The hon. member ought rather to read the speech of the Prime Minister at the Delville Wood memorial on the occasion of the unveiling. There he acknowledged that it was not the people like the hon. member for Hoopstad who had refused to serve their land, but the people who sacrificed their lives whom we had to thank to-day for the happy position the country was in. I should not have harked back to those incidents if it were not for the imputation of the hon. member that I should preserve silence in the House because I had too many marks against me. It is generally known to-day that those who rake up old history to play on the sentiments of the people do more harm than anyone else. The people are tired of sentiment, and old occurrences which are dug up. The other day we found that the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen), who is now probably going to stand for Gezina, referred to old incidents at a meeting, and tried to play on the sentiments of the people. They told him that they wanted to know what he was going to do in future, and that if he wanted to trade in sentiment he should go back to the pulpit. The children learn history at school.

Are you ashamed of the history?

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) must not interrupt so much; he has a lot to his account which I shall not mention, so much that his hair is already beginning to stand on end. I want to refer the hon. member for Hoopstad to a speech made by the Prime Minister at Pretoria West on the 5th December. The leader of the Nationalist party, the first man among the people, is keeping the Afrikander people apart. The Prime Minister’s speech there was nothing but poison, hatred, and envy. Even strong Nationalists walked away with a smile and said: “Is that the speech which we in the country expected from the first citizen?” We came to listen to his policy and heard jokes and insulting language and untruths.

And what did he say?

He said that the S.A.P. were engaged in making South Africa a black country. What more interests has the Prime Minister in this country than we who sit here? Will anyone get up and say that I have the idea, and that we here have the idea, of making a black land of South Africa? What we want is that we should not oppress the natives. The Prime Minister said that we intended to oppress the Europeans in South Africa, and to raise the natives. I have never yet read such a thing of the first man in the country, and I hope the Prime Minister was ashamed of his speech the next morning. The people went, to listen to him and get a lead on political matters, and enlightenment on the great problems of our country, and they got such chaff and untruths. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar), has said that he will give £1,000 if anyone can prove that his party and he himself have ever supported the republican principle. How dare the hon. member speak in view of what has happened in the past?

He did not say so. You know it quite well. He spoke of the constitution of the party.

Very well, but we surely all know what was said at the meeting, especially on the countryside. It was spoken about on every platform. I believe the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) will in a minute also deny that a deputation never went overseas to get a republic. The public is tired of that kind of piffle. The children at school learn the country’s history, but do not let us any longer try to mislead the people with such stories. Then I want to give the hon. member for Hoopstad a few figures. I just want to show what the position was when the present Government came in, and what it is now. I come, in the first place, to the promise of retrenchment by the Government. During the last election the people said that we must disappear because the Nationalists were going to economize. What happened? In 1924-’25 the current expenditure (which had to be paid by the taxpayers) was approximately £24,000,000. To-day it is £28,500,000, nearly 4½ million pounds more in 4 years. Every year the cost of administration, officials, etc., has increased under the present Government by more than £1,000,000. What will the position be if this Government continues another 5 years? It will increase by £10,000,000. The country will not permit it. The population has not increased in the interim. If that were the case, or if the population were increased by one-third through immigration, the increase in the current expenditure could be justified.

You wanted a further £1,000,000 for immigration.

In 1924 the national debt was approximately £214,000,000. Four years later it had risen to £238,000,000. Those are the people who said that the South African party was wasting money. The Minister of Finance has large surpluses. He took over surpluses, and is still using them to-day.

What rubbish.

Will the hon. member for Heilbron deny that the Minister of Finance found money in the Treasury? I think the Minister of Finance regrets such remarks by hon. members behind me. He knows better. I now come to the repeal of taxation. I say myself that certain taxes have been taken off the people. The tobacco tax, for instance, but can the Minister of Agriculture deny that the dissatisfaction in the Transvaal about the tobacco position is greater than ever before?? He himself, and the Ministers of Lands and Labour, hired farms and people. They had ploughing and cultivation at Government expense, and told the people only to plant tobacco. Those Ministers are the cause of our to-day having 20,000,000 lbs. of tobacco too much, and which cannot be disposed of. There has been a reduction in taxation, but from whom have the taxes been taken off? There was the medicine tax.

The income tax.

From whom was it taken off? I see that almost £800,000 has been taken off income tax. Has that been taken off the poor man? The poor man cannot pay, he does not pay income tax.

How can a tax be taken off a people who are not liable for it?

Taxation is levied on coffee and other necessaries of life. The poor man, the workers, etc., are the people who drink coffee, and it produces £92,000 in taxation. 3d. is levied on every pound of coffee. I am in favour of taxing imported products which are sufficiently produced in the country. Another article is rice, which actually is not so much eaten by the poor man and the farmer, but the taxation it produces amounts to £50,000. On tea it is £176,000. Why is this not taken off by the Government who want to put everything right? Take the item of clothing. In 1924 it produced about £1,000,000. Last year about £2,600,000. It is the poor people who wear those clothes.

Presumably the rich people go naked.

It is a tax on the poor man which the Government has raised so high. The Government has had a good time, but I want in this connection to express my disapproval of the remark by the hon. member for Marico that we, on this side of the House, should be quiet: “Because in your time there were hail storms and wind which destroyed everything, while now it rains splendidly.” Such remarks should not be made in defending the policy of the Government. What benefits have the farmers had under the Government? Let me assure the House that the farming population has never yet in my experience been in such a position.

Flourished so!

The Minister of Agriculture constantly says that the farmers should consult the Agricultural Department. It is good advice to consult people who are good with pen, paper and pamphlets, but how does it assist the farmers when there is an overproduction and they cannot sell their produce. In this respect the Government has done nothing.

What could the Government do?

You are in power, and it is for the Government to say what the people must do when there is no market for their produce. Take the case of the drills. The boring costs have indeed been reduced from £5 to £3 10s. per day, but if the time of the boring work is remembered, you see that the Government bores do not go away before the bill has run up as high as £60. I have seen a Government bore and a private one, on the same farm, and after 10 days the private one left, and the work cost £50, but the Government bore stopped till the cost was £60. The belt sometimes breaks, but the bore holes goes no deeper. The farmers are done down in every way. Take for instance the railway rates. When you want to have something carried you have to pay the highest rates. Nothing has been done for the farmers under the present Government which I can mention to its credit. We passed an Act, and I voted for it to give farmers loans for buying ground, but I never thought it would be administered as is being done to-day. The people buy ground, but subsequently lose everything. When they are a few instalments in arrear they receive a demand, and are sold out and the ground taken back. Is that assistance? The money for cattle and tools is collected with an iron hand, and if the people cannot pay, they are ruined and turned into poor whites. Go to Hartebeestpoort and you will find great discontent there because the right control does not exist. The reason is that the officials of the Departments of Agriculture, Lands and Labour, are entrusted with the supervision, and that there is a lack of uniformity. Is that right? Why cannot the work be placed under one Minister? Then there will be less dissatisfaction. If we look at the tobacco position we find that the Rhodesian Government sent people to Great Britain to look for markets, and the Government paid their expenses for more than a year. The result is that a market has been created for Rhodesian tobacco. What, however, has the Union Government done? Has it assisted in covering the expenditure of the people we sent two years ago? No, not a penny. But the tobacco farmers have to pay up themselves with the result that the co-operative society was not strong enough to have propaganda made for South African tobacco. The surpluses of the present Government are referred to, but they ought not to have been applied, e.g., on £5,000 for the Trades Hall in Johannesburg, and to pay for an expensive motor for the High Commissioner. If we do not learn to appreciate that there must be more unanimity in the country, the affairs of the country will be sent in a wrong direction. Probably I am too primitive for the young generation, but I continue to stand by the policy laid down in 1910 and 1913 by the late Gen. Botha, namely, that unanimity should prevail, and that mutual consultation in the interests of the country should take place so that our difficulties can be straightened out. The Prime Minister said that he would go to the country on his protest about the native question, but I say that it will cause bitterness, and will cost the country dear. I hope the Prime Minister will bethink himself before he gives effect to his words.

After the gruelling that the Minister of Railways gave to members on the opposite side of the House, I will limit my remarks to a few points only concerning railway matters. I want to show what a hopeless state the railways were in when we took them over in 1924, and to refer to the state of bankruptcy some of our funds were in. As long ago as 1919 the actuary of the railways reported that the pension fund and the superannuation fund were practically insolvent. In that year the pension fund had a deficiency of £1,700,000, and the superannuation fund a deficiency of £1,804,000. In 1924 there was a greater shortage still. In the case of the pension fund it had gone up to £1,962,000 and the superannuation fund deficiency had gone up to £1,944,000 When we took over there was a deficiency in these two funds of no less than £3,904,000. No attention seemed to have been devoted to these funds to try and stabilize them. This Government realized the seriousness of the position and we immediately started to place these funds in a more satisfactory position, with the result that from 1924 we have been paying towards the pension fund a sum of £162,000 and towards the superannuation fund £125,000 per annum.

Is the fund solvent now!

We are making it so. By 1942 both funds will be solvent, if this policy is carried out. Take another fund. We had over £30,000,000 of money carrying no interest. Nothing was done to try to redeem this amount, or to have a sinking fund, until the present Minister in 1924 introduced a scheme by which we contribute £250,000 per annum. The result has been we have contributed over £1,000,000 in the last four years, to the reduction of this non-interest bearing fund. If there has been nothing else the Government has done for railwaymen than passing this amended superannuation Bill, the railwaymen have been very well served indeed. Under the old fund a man earning £300 would have drawn a pension of £1,001. Under the new scheme he draws about £200 a year. A servant who reached £500 would under the old scheme have drawn £160 a year. Under the new scheme he draws £333 a year.

The fund cannot pay it.

That shows you how the railwaymen have been attended to and have had their grievances remedied by the present Government. In regard to civilized labour, what surprises me from members of the Opposition is that any attempt that is made to elevate our white people should not receive full encouragement and respect from our fellow South Africans. Instead of helping us and encouraging us to elevate the lower rung of men in the social and educational scale, we get nothing but jeers and adverse criticism. If you went to Johannesburg before 1925 you would have found that hundreds of trolleys were all driven by kafirs. To-day you will not find a single black man doing this work; they are all driven by Europeans. We never dismissed a single native to put a white man in his place, but when there was a natural wastage we put a white man in the position instead of another native. Reference has been made to the wages these men are being paid. The Minister mentioned the sum of 5s. The information I got in Johannesburg was that they start unmarried men at 5s. 10d. for unskilled white labour, while the married men get 6s. 10d. Is not 6s. 10d. a day better than nothing at all a day? It is a fact that a large percentage of these unskilled white labourers have passed into the higher grades of the railway service.

Very few.

I think it is something like 60 per cent. What was the policy of the South African party in the early days to relieve this distress? It was relief works, a dead-end service which meant that when the work was finished the men were on the streets again. Under our scheme there is a chance of a man working himself up. I say that instead of criticizing and sneering at the attempts of the Government to employ white men on the railways, even at this low wage, the policy ought to be encouraged by the South African party. One thing I would like to ask the Minister about, a matter which is a source of great grievance to railwaymen in Johannesburg, and the Transvaal in general, is this system of reorganization which is going on there. I quite realize a system of reorganization is necessary.

It is a question of getting rid of them.

Not a single man is being dismissed, but I still feel that the men have a legitimate grievance in the way in which the authorities are putting this scheme into operation. I would like to see the management adopt a more sympathetic and tactful way of carrying out this reorganization.

They have some grievances.

Yes, I admit it. There are men who look only to the immediate effect if they get 9s. 6d. instead of 10s. a day, but as they realize the effect of the reorganization they will be more satisfied. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition as to the de Villiers award, I remember after he, as mediator, had given his award, there was some confusion on certain points, so much so that he had to give an interpretation of certain points. As an indirect result of this enquiry before the Lucas Committee was appointed the miners of lower pay secured an additional £50,000 per annum with the concurrence of the Chamber of Mines. When the Lucas award was made this amount was confirmed, and another £25,000 was added. Some benefit has been derived by the miners from this award, as will be seen. As to what has been done with regard to miners’ phthisis, so many select committees have been sitting upon this important subject, and I understand another is to be appointed, that it seems to me as if there will never be an end to miners’ phthisis enquiries; but I do claim that our Government has done more to ameliorate the lot of the miner suffering from the disease than any previous Government has done. I do not say the law is perfect, and that there are not points here and there which cannot be improved, but I do say the law has done tremendous good. Before 1924 the Miners’ Phthisis Board paid out to sufferers, or the widows and children, £500,000, whereas to-day, as the result of the Act of 1925, which the Government put through, the amount has been increased to £1,000,000.

Paid to the same number?

Of course. It has been increased. The men get 100 per cent, more than under the Smuts Government,

The same Act.

We are compensating a larger number of women and children than before.

Three thousand more.

For instance, take the case of a man who dies from chest disease; if the bureau is satisfied that miners’ phthisis was a contributory cause of his death his widow gets a pension. Formerly cases like that did not get a pension.

Yes, they did.

Then I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Industries to use a little friendly pressure, if I may use that expression, on the mining people with regard to Dingaan’s Day, a great national day, which is being respected and observed, not only in South Africa, but in America and London amongst South Africans. Before the 1922 strike there was an agreement between the Chamber of Mines and the workers, under which that day was observed as a national holiday, the same as Christmas Day. They did not work, but got paid. After 1922 that privilege was taken away. Cannot the Minister use his influence to see that that privilege is restored, seeing that 85 per cent, of the miners are South Africans? Many attacks have been made because of the surpluses of the Minister of Finance, but there are two things which were initiated in this country, which will always redound to his credit; first, the restoration of the gold standard to this country. I honestly believe that if no steps had been taken in those days, the gold standard would not be in existence here to-day. The Government, it will be remembered, imported two famous experts, Messrs. Vissering and Kamerer, and a lead was set to the whole world which stabilized our position in the market. The other instance is that for once you have recognized and established in South Africa a policy of protection, which has made countries like the United States of America and other countries where new people come in, great. George Washington founded the Republic of America; Abraham Lincoln consolidated it; McKinley made it rich by his protection policy. With regard to the expenditure increasing, I have yet to learn that when business increases you must not incur more expenditure. If a country flourishes you must have more officials and spend more money. Instead of criticizing, the Opposition ought to be pleased to see that more money is required to pay for the services of the country. I am sorry that the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not here, because I would like to bring up some extracts from speeches he made on the native question. If there is one thing I applaud it is the courage of the manifesto, to which reference has been made. I say that in the future historians will look upon this manifesto in the same way as we look upon the manifesto of Retief when he left Grahamstown. Judging by the speeches of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at Bloemfontein and elsewhere, and the speeches of members of his party, his views have somewhat changed on the question of the native franchise. In May, 1917, they honoured the right hon. member with a dinner at the Savoy Hotel, London, and at that time he was of the same opinion as most of us were regarding the question of the native franchise. I will read a few extracts from his speech on that occasion to show that the views he held in 1917 are not the views he now holds—

It will be seen that there the right hon. gentleman was in favour of separate representation, but now he is reverting to the old Unionist policy of retaining the franchise. In 1906 they gave a dinner to Sir Arthur Lawley upon his relinquishing the position of Governor of the Transvaal, and in the course of his speech Sir Arthur Lawley used these words: “See to this question, for it is the greatest problem you have to face.” It was in 1906 that I wrote a pamphlet on this question when I was living at Winburg, and I want to show that at that time my views were the same as those then held by Gen. Smuts. The article appeared in the “African Monthly,” and in the course of it I wrote as follows. [Quotation read.] [See “African Monthly, Vol. I, 1907, p. 708.] On the other point of this great dominion in the north, the right hon. member has not changed his views. One of the grievances of the Prime Minister was that the words “South Africa” have to disappear out of our vocabulary. At the Savoy dinner, to which I have already referred, Gen. Smuts, in the course of his speech, said—

That shows that in 1917 he had at the back of his head the absorption of South Africa in the great north. He has now adopted a slogan of the late Cecil Rhodes: “Equal rights for all civilized men,” in other words, the mongrol and the negro must have equal rights with the white man. It is a well-known fact that it is impossible to mix the mongrol and the Caucasian. What will this black African dominion lead to? It will lead to equal rights for all civilized men, but it will also mean a gradual absorption of the white man by the black. Of that there can be no doubt. If these people were given equal rights, if this idea is perpetuated, any child can see that in the course of a few generations the kaffir will outvote the white man. What would be the result of this policy contained in the slogan of Rhodes, which is supported by the British Government, and the Hilton Young Report? I am glad to see that even some of the inhabitants of Kenya are objecting to that report. This policy is a danger to the white man in South Africa, and it will be a danger to the white man in Rhodesia, and when the Rhodesians wake up to what is being proposed in the south they will protest against it. If the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) came forward with a scheme for a black republic for Africa, extending from Sierra Leone to a point opposite Aden, I could understand him, because a scheme could be evolved whereby, under the control of the League of Nations, a black republic could be established in a portion of Africa. I am the son of a voortrekker, and in my consulting-room is a document of which I am very proud. It is a memorial to my revered father, who for nearly 25 years was the chairman in the Free State Parliament. In that document it is recorded by the writer of the “In Memoriam” that he asked my father what he thought of the future of the South African nation, and my revered father answered in Dutch [translated]—

Those are the words of a man who played a prominent part in the founding of the Free State. Do you think that we, the descendants of the voortrekkers, knowing the history of our people, are going quietly to allow ourselves to be swallowed up by the black population? Our heritage is not going to be bartered away by a lot of sloppy sentimentalists. I want to know whether the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), also men who are descended from the voortrekkers, think in their hearts of the speeches by which the South African party and their leaders want to hand over white civilization to the negroid race. I am one of those men who look upon the right hon. member for Standerton as a danger to the white civilization of South Africa, and I should like him to be transferred to some other part of the dominions, or appointed Governor of Palestine. The right hon. member reminds me of Themistocles, who was an opportunist and indulged in duplicity.

Order.

I withdraw the word “duplicity,” but I think the ego of Themistocles must be living again in the right hon. member. The Prime Minister reminds me of Aristides, who was a very different character, and of the incident when Themistocles wanted to do something comparable to what the hon. member for Standerton wishes to do now. Themistocles went to Aristides and said: “What do you think of this scheme?” Aristides replied: “It may be a good thing for your army and the Persians, but I do not think it is a good thing for the Athenians.” In the same way the Prime Minister says to the right hon. member for Standerton: “Your scheme may be a good thing for your party and the blacks, but we are not going to have our country made into a black dominion.” I say that the Prime Minister is a man who loves his people. When his mortal remains are laid at rest next to the place where his great brother South Africans are lying at Bloemfontein, a future generation will place on his tomb the epitaph: “This is a man who fought for and maintained white civilization in the country he so dearly loved.”

Listening to the hon. member who has just sat down, I am reminded of an ancient tag: “And still the wonder grew how one small head could carry all he knew).” We have even had the Greek classics called in by the hon. member to support his views. His speech was a most amazing medley of discordant ideas. I would not like to have the task of writing an epitaph descriptive of the versatility of the hon. member. With regard to the speech of the Prime Minister, for the first time in my knowledge of him he has been perfectly lucid in a definition of policy. He has the faculty of saying a great deal without conveying much meaning, but very soon after the debate began the Prime Minister was perfectly lucid in certain things he said about the relationship between Europeans and natives in Africa. I was amazed to note the “fear” complex in the Prime Minister, and to see how he, with his knowledge of his country, seemed to be in real dread of a future black domination in South Africa. May I remind him that the race from which he and most of his followers have sprung have nothing of that “fear” complex. The people of Holland are governing in the Far East 51,000,000 with less than 200,000 Europeans. There is no “fear” complex there.

They have a Holland to go back to, we haven’t.

The people who administer the affairs of 51,000,000 Asiatics are doing their utmost to treat them with justice, kindness and consideration.

But they have not the franchise.

Many of these Asiatics, especially in Java, occupy high official positions, and they influence the enlightened policy of men of the same race from which descend many hon. members opposite. Many on this side of the House have no other home than South Africa. Hon. members opposite talk of “ons land,” “ons volk” and “ons taal,” as though they only had rights in South Africa. I am as good a South African as any man opposite; I claim to be better than some, because when the national existence of this country was in danger I did not skulk at home, but went on active service three times. It hurts me to think that men of any European race can allow themselves to talk about being swamped in what they are pleased to call “the coming black Africa.” Have they no pride of race, no conviction of moral leadership? We who represent long centuries of civilization are trustees of that civilization, and we hold that we have a great deal to do with the moulding of the lesser peoples. The British people in India are just a handful, but they govern 300,000.000 of Asiatics.

What about the vote?

I am less concerned about the vote than about moral obligations— the governing of people along just and enlightened lines. There should be a great deal less talk about the vote, and if we started to revive the conditions under which it is given, many among the white section of the population would cease to have the vote. I am not concerned so much about the extension of the franchise to native people, because I admit that in the mass they are not yet fit for it, but there are some who are fit for it, and there are some others who ought not to be deprived of a vote given to their fathers three-quarters of a century ago. That is the iniquity, to try and set the clock of progress back, to undo what an enlightened policy did 75 years ago. What I am concerned about is this, that South Africa, the land I have called my own for nearly 46 years, should have the headship of the African problem. From what direction can light, prosperity. wisdom, reach the centre of this great problem? From the west—no. From the east—no. From the north—no. It can only come from the south. It ought to be our glory to make it possible for expanding communities in the north to make common cause with us. We ought to claim what we are entitled to, the headship of all these colonies and protectorates, and to make common cause in the advancement of white civilization and the lifting of these black people out of the darkness of age-long degradation, for we who have civilization are not to hold it selfishly. We are to pass it on as those before us did. That is our bounden duty, and we dare not do less. But no, the interest of party politics demand that slanderous things should be said of the South African party, that our respected leader should be accused of having attempted to establish a black republic in this country. All sorts of things are said about the South African party congress held at Bloemfontein. There were 250 delegates there, and most of them were not of my racial origin, for among those present were men who fought us on the veld of South Africa during three years of war, middle-aged men, old men to-day, but they and we are in the same political party as brothers. We are the only party of reconciliation. No other party can reconcile. The other is a party of antagonism, of racialism, of racialistic manifestos and legislation. Let us sink these foolish, these criminal, policies. Not even the Prime Minister ter, or the leader on this side, is going to succeed in solving the problems of South Africa. The only way to approach that is by disdaining party politics, and by remembering that you and we are alike the trustees of civilized humanity, and see if in the council chamber we cannot do what in this debating chamber we fail to do, and that is to get some sane, healthy, just and judicious idea of how to legislate best for the native people and for ourselves as well. I cannot see leadership on this native question on that side of the House. I look for it, but I fail to see in the present Cabinet any real policy to treat with this native question, and for that reason, I support the motion of no-confidence.

What astonished me most in the speech of the last speaker, the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) was his remark that he was less concerned about the native vote than about something else. The concern of the Nationalist party is just that a great federation will arise in Africa with the native franchise as a general principle. In this respect the hon. member will find that 95 per cent, of the people differ from him. I thought that when we introduced the native legislation there would be a harmonious co-operation to put through the segregation principle. That was the impression of the whole population, and the general impression that they would assist us. As for the countryside, and I think I can speak a little authoritatively for it, I am certain that the supporters of the South African party will also agree with the segregation principle. It is said by hon. members opposite that we must not do an injustice to the natives, but we do not want to do any injustice by the Bills. But if injustice is to be done, then it must not be done to the white man, but to the native. It is an injustice to the white man not to introduce segregation, and to separate the natives from the whites, and it is no injustice to the native. It was the custom of the Afrikander people to trek to the north, so said the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), but he forgets that we trekked to barbarous areas. If we were now to establish a federation of African states, the northern states would have to be represented in our Parliament, and eventually the white man would be swallowed up by the native. The hon. member shakes his head in denial, but he knows it just as well as I do. It has always been my argument here in the House, and still is, that we must not make a political matter of the native question, and whatever solution may eventually be found, if both sides want to accept the principle of segregation, it will be very fortunate for the people of South Africa. I heartily agree with the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) when he says that if we wish we can come to agreement on native affairs. There are the Bills, and I am convinced that a way of co-operation can be found. I was always a supporter of finding work for white men, and I say that we must raise them in every respect so that they can live happily on the countryside. Hon. members opposite know little of the countryside, of how people are thrown into misery by drought, and of how, notwithstanding all adversity, they try to make a living there rather than run to the towns. To criticize the Government then for drawing the people away from the countryside is nonsense. I wonder whether the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is not very much concerned about his policy as it has been explained by the Minister of Railways and Harbours namely, that he has given the preference in the railway service for labourers’ jobs to natives over white men. Does the hon. member think that the people would look for work on the railways if distress did not drive them there? The people want to remain on the farms, and if they get a chance they will go back there, and live on less there than what my hon. friend there proposes. I want hon. members opposite to accept the principle that we must assist these people. If we cannot keep them on the railways, the Minister of Lands must provide more than £500,000 a year —even if it is £5,000,000—to raise the poor whites to remain on the countryside and make a living. Farming has been altered and improved, and old ways and methods belong to the past. We can get water more cheaply and build dams more cheaply, but the people are in the depths of distress. I invite hon. members opposite to come and see in what condition the people prefer to live rather than to go to the towns and villages, even if the wages there are high. These are people with a feeling of self-dependence, and I hope that the day will soon come when the Government will say that £500,000 a year is not enough and that £5,000,000 must be spent in assisting the people. There will be weaklings who will go under, but the great principle must be the raising of the poor whites, even if it is not on the railways. I cannot strongly enough condemn the attitude of the South African party. I do not want to attack them too bitterly, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has attacked us. I say that if there is one law that ought to exist in South Africa, it is the Colour Bar Act. It existed from 1911 to 1923, and hon. members opposite said not a word against it. As soon, however, as the present Government decided to re-establish it, there was a great fuss.

Why have you not put the Act into operation?

Because it does exist. The mining magnates know that it will be put into operation if they contravene the provisions. It will actually be employed as soon as any intrigue goes on by those who want to contravene the Act. Is the hon. member opposed to the Colour Bar?

Absolutely.

Possibly because the hon. member is now standing for Queenstown, instead of Graaff-Reinet.

He will not stand for a long time yet.

But what I deplore still more is the attitude of the South African party with regard to the women’s franchise. Quite 95 per cent, of South African women are opposed to it, and I am one of those who do not believe in the franchise for women in South Africa, but to say that, if the franchise is given to our women, then it will also have to be given to the native women, is a startling position, and then the hon. member for Standerton says: “We will make the qualification high.” Do they only want to apply educational qualifications or others? What about the women on the countryside who carry on their farms under distressing circumstances and do not want to go to the towns? Are they, then, according to the hon. member for Standerton, to have no chance? Are then the qualifications of the white woman, and those of the native woman to be kept parallel to each other, and are they to be treated as one? Are then the white women who have been deprived of the privilege of educational facilities which the urban women enjoy, to have no franchise? I thought that the flag question was now behind our backs, that we should no longer quarrel about it, but I see that little “gallant Natal” wants to quarrel about it again. I see that the chairman of the empire group in Natal has called upon Britons in Natal to co-operate and to form a new Natal party which is to be the germ of a British South African party for the whole Union. He wants a solemn promise to be asked from the members to hold high British sentiment, language, etc., and not in their inspirations to be subject to people who do not belong to their own race. He finds that race hatred has become deeper, and thinks that by the new flag which he now keeps in view every day the racial stream has become entirely unbridgeable. He argues that the old Unionists made a great mistake allowing themselves to be swallowed up by the old South African party And what must I say of the speech of the hon. member for Zululand? He is possibly a brilliant man and speaker, but he wanted to create the impression in the House that the Prime Minister’s word cannot be taken, that the Prime Minister has not kept his word; that is a regrettable attitude to take up. I see the “London Observer” differs from the hon. member. It says that the Londoner cheered the new national flag of the Union on Trafalgar Square, as the new symbol of the Union which was born out of the great difference. But here is a Mr. Thackeray, C.M.G., D.S.O., possibly a compatriot of the hon. member, who said that, as Afrikanders we respect the new flag and accept it in the same spirit as we accepted everything in the past, that has helped us in our attempts to become a great nation.

What I said before the adjournment about the attitude of the Natal members on the flag question, I had possibly better clear up again. I said that Col. Thackeray said that “As Afrikanders we respect the new flag, and accept it in the same spirit in which we have taken everything in the past, which has assisted us in our attempts to be a great nation.” How does the hon. member for Standerton then dare to say that it is the duty of the future South African party Government to repair the injustice done by this Government to the British section of the population with regard to the flag. What injustice? The agreement was made, and we are abiding by it. What injustice is the hon. member for Standerton going to do the Afrikaans-speaking people if he intends to repair an imagined injustice to the English-speaking section? Let the fire-eaters in Natal on the flag question rather follow the lead of the sub-leader which appeared in the “Cape Times” last year. It said—

What do hon. members say of the remarks by Sir Abe Bailey, one of their greatest leaders. He says—

I do not want to deal with finance, but if members of the South African party want to hold public meetings in the country, they must not merely give admission to members of the party. Ticket meetings are unknown on the countryside, and that people may not put questions is also an unheard-of thing. On the countryside they do not know what hooliganism is.

Potchefstroom.

I am talking of the places which the hon. member for Standerton visited. If the Prime Minister were to hold similar closed meetings, 99½ per cent, of the Nationalists would disapprove. Let us look honestly for a moment at the position from a farmer’s point of view. There was a time when the hon. member for Standerton and leaders of the old South African party were regarded by the people as the fathers of the farming population, but it was not long before the farming population were treated in a step-motherly fashion. For a time we cherished the hope that the South African party would harmoniously co-operate in the best interests of South Africa, especially in the best interests of its white population. Let us say a few frank words in connection with the provincial councils. Will hon. members opposite be honest enough to rise and say that their former Minister of Finance so kneehaltered the provincial councils that they were obliged to introduce proposals for the most unfair taxes, especially in the Cape Province? No one can deny that an official gazette was ready for issue in Cape Town on the 13th April, 1924. There was a deficit of £600,000 in the provincial Treasury. The proposals were that schoolboards would have to go, and all increases of salary to white teachers would be suspended; this would effect a saving of £40,000. Salaries of white teachers would be reduced and a saving of £58,000 effected. Grants to agricultural societies would lapse, which would mean a saving of £8,000, the countryside would have to bear a poll tax, which would mean £194,000, and a property tax of 5s. per £100 would be levied on buildings. This was to enable the Minister of Finance to get a surplus. The countryside knows that the present Government saved them in so far as the education of their children is concerned, and continued education without extra taxation. We are very proud that the present Government immediately noticed that emergency loans were necessary in 1924, that a large section of the people were going under, as a result of a five years’ drought. What did the previous Government do to help the people? In 1925-’26 £50,000 was voted for emergency relief. The present Government has granted £1,000,000 during the four years of its regime.

You neglected your duty towards the people.

How much more then did the South African party neglect their duty? The losses to the South African party Government were only 1 per cent, on the £50,000. The whole country knows how irrigation works were messed up. One mistake was made after the other, and the present Government had to write off at least 2 to 3 million pounds to put them on a sound basis. A large number of them were political jobs.

Which?

Victoria West. The Sunday River scheme cost £100,000.

That was cheap enough.

It was a terrible failure. The original intention was to use the settlement for 1920 1820 settlers, but now it has fallen on the hands of the present Government. This Government has to write off large amounts day after day. I want to urge the Minister of Agriculture to put £5,000,000 on the present estimates for irrigation works, but not to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Standerton to use large sums for bringing in immigrants. Within a month there was nothing left of the £500,000 which was voted for settlements.

It was used for Zoutpansberg.

Anyone could apply to buy the ground on easy terms. The largest nail in the coffin of the South African party is that they gave natives the preference on the railways.

That is nonsense.

If it is nonsense, then the Auditor-General’s report is nonsense. At page 83 of the report for 1922-’23 he says that the number of Europeans in the railway service, excluding South-West, decreased during the year by more than 3,000, while the increase in the number of natives was 6,017. My hon. friend, who is so fond of the truth, ought to admit that my statement is not nonsense. What fighting methods are adopted by hon. members opposite? The South African party organizer at the Cape talks of the extra tax on boots and clothes when the protection of our industries is the objective. What does Mr. Willoughby-Fry, an influential Port Elizabeth man, say about it? What are the views of the industrialists about it? Then it is stated, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) did, that the railways are nothing but a Nationalist organization. We also find in Natal that the registration of railway labourers is objected to, which will prevent many of them from voting. They are poor men who are driven by necessity to work on the railways. They will no longer work for 10s. a day so long as they can live on the countryside on the smell of an oil rag. When hon. members opposite come to speak in the country, the doors of the halls should be thrown open and everyone given a chance of being present. Do not hold ticket meetings. It is impossible for the South African party to be put into power again because they will never get the support of the countryside farmers in eternity.

May I, with the leave of the House, make a personal explanation? This afternoon in dealing with the rates of pay of railwaymen, I made the statement that the South African party had made the rate 4s. 6d., which was based on a minute of March 11th. [Minute read.] I made that statement perfectly bona fide. I am now informed that subsequently the whole basis was changed, there being a minimum of 4s. 6d., and a maximum of 6s. without any privileges, and the men became casual employees. I think it is only right to make this statement.

This debate has raised a considerable number of subjects, and we have had the opportunity of listening to a number of hon. members on the other side who intended to rebut the charges made on this side against the present administration, and they have been at some pains to show that the Government is the best of all possible governments in the best of all possible worlds. I do not think they have made good this defence. We have heard a good deal about the native question and about civilized labour. The attention of hon. members opposite seems to have been concentrated on an attack on the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), if they were at a loss for a subject. We have had that from the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), who strove to justify his attack on the right hon. member by some references to ancient history; but “if he will look it up he will see that when he compared the right hon. member with Themistocles and the Prime Minister with Aristides, Aristides was ostracized because the people got sick of hearing him called “the just.” I think the general impression which has been left on the country by the five years’ nearly, during which this Government has been in power amounts to this—they have had considerable good fortune as regards their finance. They have had very good years, which have put them in a very good strategic position. We have had some reduction of taxation, and I will not be surprised if, before the election comes on, a statement of further reduction of taxation is not made by the Minister. But there is an uneasy feeling about in the country, the Government are giving an impression—I hope I do not do them an injustice, and I do not think I do—that they are inclined to use their power as a Government to promote their own political ends in the public service, and nothing has given more cause for alarm than the statements which were made when the Government first came into office that there would be jobs for pals and they would see that there were people in the public service who would carry out their policy. Secondly, as regards their finance, it seems to me that they have taken full advantage of the good fortune they have had; but as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) warned them they have not taken sufficiently into account that a time will come when there will be lean years, and when there will be a different story to tell. Take the railways, for example; they are employing an enormous number of men—I think the Minister this afternoon said 90,000—and every day they are embarking on fresh spheres of activity. They are now taking charge of the fruit stalls and bookstalls on the stations, and actually, I am told, on the suburban lines they are selling cigarettes. I do not think that is quite fair to the ordinary trader. All this leads to an increase in the number of Government employees, and if this goes on we shall have an undue proportion of the population in the service of the Government, which leads to a loss of individuality, loss of effort and of enterprise, and generally lends itself to political organization. Then take the case of civilized labour. The Minister tried to make capital by a comparison of costs, and he confirmed what he said on previous occasions that it was the decided policy of himself not to shirk what the extra cost to the country and the users of the railways was. I think the Minister is making a great mistake. If I were in his position I would have done exactly the opposite. First of all, the users of the railway are entitled to know whether the railways are being run on business lines. Working costs have increased enormously by the adoption of his civilized policy. I am not going into the question as to whether this policy is right or wrong, but I do say that it is a great mistake, that we should know what the actual cost of a great service like this is. Similarly there is the question of the service rendered by the railway to the farmers by carrying animals about the country in times of drought. I say that the loss incurred in this respect should be shown. There is another reason. As I have already indicated, the time will come when the country will not be in such a prosperous position as it is to-day. It is common knowledge that a number of the higher grade mines on the Witwatersrand on which the country depends will be soon approaching the end of their life, and unless there are new discoveries the mines will be driven to the position of working the lower grade mines. But we have started on a policy which is opposed to lowering the cost of production; we have gone in for a policy of expanding our secondary industries and paying high wages, very much on Australian lines, and the policy to which the country has been committed by the present Government is inevitably going to tell against the cost of production both on the mines and in the agricultural industry of the country. Let us take the case of the mines. As I have already said, presently the greater part of the higher grade ore will be exhausted, and it will be a question whether they can work the lower grade ore. Then again it is perfectly obvious that the cost of native labour will not come down; indeed, speaking broadly, it is bound to go up, as under the treaty which has just been entered into with the Portuguese Government, the supply of native labour from Mozambique will be less, added to which there is a greater demand for native labour in the north, and, thirdly, as we all know, the native is becoming more and more organized, and it is perfectly certain that in time he will demand and will receive more for his labour than he does to-day. When that time comes, the Government are going to be faced with a demand to do something which will come to the rescue of the mines, and enable the low grade ore to be worked and the money distributed from the low grade mines to continue as before. The obvious thing to do is to reduce railway rates. The Minister says he has embodied in his system the employment of white civilized labour, so how is he going to reduce his rates? It is certain that the demand for relief will come when times are bad, and I make the suggestion to him that he should charge the extra cost of his civilized white labour policy to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and automatically reduce his expenditure. By this means he should be in a better position to reduce his rates when the time comes. I think he is acting against his own interests by refusing to do the obvious thing, and to let the users of the railway know what they are paying, and also what the taxpayer is paying.

Is that the policy of the South African party?

I don’t know; I speak for myself. I hope that the Prime Minister and his friends will not be in power when that time comes, but if they are in power they will surely suffer for the mistakes they are making at present. The same arguments apply exactly to the agricultural industry. I have heard it stated in this House that it would be a very good thing if production went up, because the farmer would get more for his produce. It is of the highest importance that the cost of production should be kept as low as possible. The fact that railway rates are kept high must affect the cost of production, and also the charges for conveying produce to the ports, which are at present extremely high. That is wrong. I may be told by the Minister that he cannot help the high port charges, because of the large amount of money sunk in the construction of the ports. If that is so, it is perfectly obvious there is all the more reason to keep down working expenses. One would think that in the interests of farming the Government would take these things into consideration. The Government seems to go on under the impression that we have nothing to fear in the way of competition. I have seen statistics quite recently which show that the export of grapes, for example, from the Argentine, is increasing by leaps and bounds. The export of citrus from California and Brazil competes with us in the European markets. All these things point to the fact that we have to meet competition, and in order to do so, we must enable the farmers to produce as cheaply as possible. We are loading the cost of production with charges which are unnecessary, and, although the immediate effect is not so easily seen as in the case of mining, the effect is there all the same. Other countries, Australia, for instance, are going through the same phase, and, in my opinion, it will not be long before the farmers will awake to their real interests, and will see that the policy which is increasing the charges of the railways and the ports, is not good for agriculture any more than it is for mining. One would have thought that these problems coming along, because they must arise, would have led the Government to do what they could to secure markets. We spend a good deal of money on trade commission in various places. For example, we have had a trade commissioner in America. I have seen a good many of the reports which give particulars of these commissions, and I think it would be very hard for anybody to show that the expenditure incurred by the establishment of a trade commissioner in New York has been remunerative. Why should it be? The Americans are not going to take our products, and allow them to compete with their products. We would have done far better to spend the money in places where there are people who are willing to take our goods. It may be that, as the result of the activities of the trade commissioner in New York, there are more American goods sold in the Union, but I take it that was not the object with which the trade commission was established there. The same arguments apply to the treaty which has just been made with Germany, which we shall have another opportunity of discussing. It seems to me an astounding thing that this Government should run all over the world, making treaties, or trying to make treaties, or contemplating the making of treaties, and that they should do their best to antagonize people who have hitherto shown us the most active goodwill. It seems to me a part of the Government’s policy of thinking that we must concentrate on South Africa alone, and that in our external relations we must show that we are entirely independent. That drives us to adopt an attitude towards the north which is doing harm to this country. I do not know what has passed between the Government here and the Southern Rhodesian Government. I shrewdly suspect that it cannot have found much favour with the Rhodesian Government, because if it had we should have heard a great deal about it, and there would not be any question of it being confidential. I think it will probably take a good deal of effort to drag any information out of the Government on that subject. Surely it is a mistake to do things which will cause Rhodesia to turn their backs upon us, and instead of looking south, to look north. Because my right hon. friend ventured to say the other day that we should look north, and aim at extending the influence of the Union in the north, he is held up to execration for wishing to turn the Union of South Africa and all the other territories into a great black state. That seems to me the most ridiculous thing that ever was. Is Rhodesia to-day more a black state than it was twenty years ago, or less? As the white people go into Rhodesia and these other territories, do they keep up the position of the white man? Is it to be supposed that if they had not been in a position to maintain the status of the white man the people of Southern Rhodesia, with a population of some 40,000 people, would have been entrusted with full powers of self-government? If there is one place where the white man’s position is being maintained with safety it is on the uplands of Rhodesia. We should not take the narrow view. Because the right hon. member suggests something in the way of expansion, something which one would have thought would appeal to hon. members opposite, he is held up to execration. That bears out the argument that this Government does not mind what argument it has recourse to, if only it can say something which it thinks popular. I think the Government made a mistake in producing an argument like that so many months before the election, because I am quite sure that the people of the country are not going to be taken in by it. I do not think it is going to do any execution, because people will see that there is a flaw in that argument. Why should we damage our prospects, endanger our trade and abandon the chance of extending the Union northwards, because we are afraid of a few natives? I should have thought that the policy of extending the influence of the Union is one which anyone can advocate with safety. If we believe in our own civilization and methods of government, surely there can be no harm in wishing to extend our influence over adjoining territories. On the other hand, if we are ashamed of our administration and civilization, by all means let us draw a hard and fast line and leave the north to take care of itself. That, however, will be a suicidal policy. It will probably tell against our trade, and undoubtedly it will react against our prestige. All this is Simply part of a policy of saying: “Let us be satisfied with what we have; don’t let us look outside our own borders and, above all, let us show our independence.” That is surely a mistaken policy. I am not going into the argument of how far co-operation between the Union and the rest of the empire is desirable, for we can deal with that when we discuss the German trade treaty, but I do say it is a great pity that it should go out to the world that the Government of this country takes such a narrow view, not merely of things in South Africa, but things throughout the rest of the world that it is against extending its influence beyond its own borders. I have no objection to the Government making trade treaties with any country, but do not let us weaken our efforts in stimulating commerce with our best customers. The wheel is bound to turn. We cannot go on indefinitely on a policy based on expediency instead of efficiency. For the reasons I have mentioned I am of opinion that the Government have not made out their case, and I heartily support the motion.

When the leader of the Opposition introduced the motion of no-confidence, we expected that the members on the other side of the House were going to condemn the policy of the Government. I thought that the industrial, the financial policy, in short the whole policy of the Government would be condemned, but we find that only attacks on the administration are forthcoming. One or other member stands up and attacks this, just like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who to-day has been jumping round like a cat on hot bricks, and in the end has been able to find nothing but the alleged statements of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick). The South African party has never had a programme, and in the recent congress, too, they drafted a borrowed programme. This is not the first time, however, because in 1924 as well they came forward with a more or less borrowed programme. In this they mentioned the abolition of the medicine tax, and the tobacco tax, while the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has again spoken against it to-day. Then again the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) spoke disapprovingly to-day of our trade commissioner in America, but in the programme of the South African party of 1924 we find the appointment of a trade commissioner in America. On all the different points they have criticized us during the last four years, but here is the programme of the S.A.P. out of the mouth of their leader, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who in a speech at Pretoria on the 22nd April, introducing the election in 1924, among other things proclaimed what I am going to discuss here now. Under big letters: “The Choice before the country,” the speech was spread through the length and breadth of the country. The then Prime Minister said there—

He proposed then that they should abolish the medicine tax. A month afterwards when we proposed this, hon. members on the other side fought against it. And five years afterwards they are still fighting it as the hon. member for Witwatersberg has done this afternoon. As a further point the hon. member for Standerton promised a new railway programme. Much cannot, of course, be said about it except that an hon. member only recently said that political lines were being built by us. Now, however, comes the best of all—

Yes, but how?

That is just what a leader never says. He never says how he is going to do a thing but always talks vaguely and has illusions in connection with his schemes as also in conection with other things. But in addition he announced in 1924 that a trades commissioner would be appointed in North America. Just imagine. The hon. member for Peninsula South opposed the appointment this afternoon. If then the S.A.P. had come into power in 1924 and the promise by the hon. member for Standerton had been fulfilled (which they would of course have done as an honourable party without political scheming) and had appointed a trades commissioner then the hon. member for South Peninsula as an honourable man must have opposed his leader. How much have we not heard about the appointment of an eleventh Minister. The hon. member for Standerton in the same speech said that a Minister of commerce and industries must be appointed, an eleventh Minister. That was the S.A.P. programme of 1924, but we would remember that when that speech was made the programme of the Nationalist party was already printed and they borrowed it because they knew that the confidence of the people could only be gained with that programme. The Nationalist party got the victory because the people even then knew what value could be attached to a borrowed programme such as that. Here are a few more nice things. The hon. member for Standerton in the speech said that they could not put the future of the country into the hands of a Prime Minister who loudly preached secession. The S.A.P., he said, had beaten secession at previous elections, but the Pact still stood for it. The hon. member for Standerton said that the present Minister of Defence was apparently prepared to make Gen. Kemp Minister of Defence, a strange statement. The hon. member for Standerton spoke in opening this debate about political honour, the country has seen how the Opposition has fought all those items in its 1924 programme when our Government introduced them. At this stage the hon. member actually comes and speaks about such lie legislation as e.g the “socialistic” Wage Act. In that connection I just want to refer to the political honesty of hon. members opposite. The Wage Act has been condemned by them since 1925 almost up to to-day. At Ermelo the hon. member for Standerton has now stated that if they come into power again they would repeal a portion of the Wage Act. To show the House how the Opposition systematically wanted to deceive the people I want to refer to a pamphlet on the 5th November, 1926, published by “Die Volkstem.” There they tell the farmers how much loss they are suffering as a result of the Wage Act and the action of the Wage Board. They mention a suit of clothes which previously cost £4 10s., and now costs £5, of a waggon—possibly it was the South African party hearse—which formerly cost £85 and now £100. But unfortunately at the time that the South African party pamphlet was printed the Wages Board had not yet given a single decision. The hon. member for Standerton stampeded the people in Barberton. It is a warm part and the people do not lightly shiver, but on that occasion he managed to make them. He so persuaded them that the Government would not remain more than a few months in office, that the office of the South African party in Barberton as long ago as in 1924 nominated a candidate for the next election.

And is that why you are now running away from the seat?

The South African party is still very frightened of Barberton because I see that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is so nervous about white labourers going to work on afforestation in the district. That is because he knows that he will get no support from them, because the South African party has never sympathized with the poor man. I think it is necessary to especially draw attention to the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton to the Asiatic question. When the matter is discussed in the House, he always carefully avoids saying anything about it, but on the countryside he never loses an opportunity to whip up the people against the Government and against the Asiatic agreement. Allow me to quote what he said at a meeting in October, 1928—

That is highly dishonest. He continues—

Further, he tells the countryside with gusto—

Allow me to mention what his own daily, the “Cape Times” says about this. It recalls that the Indian agreement was approved by the House with practically not a word of objection, and states that the cases of illegal immigration ought to be brought to the notice of the Minister of the Interior so that it can be stopped. The paper expects loose statements like that from Col. Mentz, but expects something from the hon. member for Standerton. The point is that the hon. member for Standerton had two or three opportunities in the House of debating the Asiatic agreement. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who was Minister of the Interior in the last Government, quite rightly, and I think he spoke for the party, approved of the agreement, and I do not think that he has once tried on the countryside to make party capital out of it. Now, however, the hon. member for Standerton dares to speak of political dishonesty. In the House where he should speak he is silent, but in the country he tries to make political capital out of a thing his party has officially approved. The South African party has not yet attacked us on our general policy. The criticism only runs on administrative matters. To-day we have the hon. member for Witwatersberg speaking of a Government bore which does not leave your farm even if it breaks everything, until an account of £60 has been run up. Everyone who heard it knew it was the greatest nonsense. The hon. member knows that there is not only a reduction in the charge for boring, but that there also was an extension. The farmer was given the opportunity to get terms from the Land Bank. The hon. member knows that there are farmers who have had bore holes sunk for £7 10s., and that the State has suffered in consequence of its policy. Yet the Irrigation Department decided, owing to the drought, to assist the people. I am a farmer myself, and we know that we have had writings-off in every department. It was the work of the former government that the valuations of ground were too high, and in his election programme, he himself admits that the valuations were too high. The previous Government paid too much for the ground and allowed citizens from England to find that they had been deceived. They accordingly at once felt not at home here. If the South African party Government had seen to it that overseas settlers were not deceived in that way, then it would not have been necessary to take over the Sunday’s River valley and to write off thousands of pounds on ground bought by the South African party Government and sold to settlers. Then it would also not have been necessary to write off £400,000 from irrigation loans. The hon. member for Witwatersberg also referred to railway rates, but we have had reductions amouting to £429,000 on almost every article which the farmers produce or require. The Minister of Railways and Harbours announced this afternoon that there would probably be further reductions, and I hope they will be granted the farmers. The other people are not satisfied any way, and we, at least, appreciate it. Over and above the railway reductions the agreement with the shipping lines means a further saving to the farmers of nearly £34,000, which will make the benefit from transport rates amount to £463,000. Another criticism was the appointment in the public service. That always comes from eavesdroppers, and therefore always look for other people there. I notice in the report of the debate here in 1912, to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has referred that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) stated he knew that various persons through the influence of prominent people, including members of this House, had been offered Government appointments to the detriment of the permanent officials. That is the charge which is being made to-day as a cause for the motion of no-confidence. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) mentioned the name of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who now sits next to him.

Why are you going back into old history?

Hon. members opposite are more afraid of ancient history than the devil of holy water. The man with a good past has no reason to be afraid of it. The other day the hon. member himself quoted ancient history and gave the reason why Retief, Potgieter and Uys left the Colony. I will revert to that later. In the 1912 debate the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) went further, and, in connection with a certain Mr. Naude, an assistant white labour inspector, said that that man had assisted the then Minister of the Interior the hon. member for Standerton) in his elections, and that he accordingly had been appointed as a high official with an increase of salary. Let us now look at the appointments which have been made since 1920. Formerly everything was in order when the proportion of English-speaking persons appointed was much higher than that of Dutch-speaking persons. Then the position was sound, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the people speak Afrikaans. Between June, 1920, and June, 1924, 1,760 Dutch-speaking people and 3,071 English-speaking people were appointed to the public service. That was “fair play.” Then there was no favouritism. The appointment of natives in the railway service by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was not policy it was an ordinary occurrence. Even to-day the proportion is net even equal because during the last four years a good many more English-speaking than Afrikaans-speaking have been appointed.

It is a question of capacity.

Am I to take it then that English-speaking people have the monopoly of that? When a man looks at the South African party you may possibly have to say so, because there is hardly an Afrikaans-speaking man among them.

There are many.

Do you still speak Afrikaans?

There are 339 native votes at Queenstown.

Then I want to mention the attempted deportation of Kadalie in 1920. It is not irrelevant here. The first notice is 27th November, 1920. Kadalie appealed but his appeal was dismissed. Now I come to the hon. member for Standerton’s political honesty! In reply to a question he said at Bethal in January that his Government found it legally impossible to expel Kadalie after the administration had investigated the matter. In spite of the Appeal Court dismissing Kadalie’s appeal, the hon. member found it legally impossible to deport Kadalie! That is political honesty! The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) tells us in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Standerton and the kaffir state from which they are now running away, that the hon. member for Standerton has a much better conception of the views of his people. He says that it is in the national spirit of the Afrikaans-speaking people to trek, and in this connection he quoted Retief, Potgieter and Uys. The reason they trekked, however, was entirely different from the reason why the hon. member for Standerton now wants to go north. They just wanted to trek away because they wanted to establish a white state, and because they would no longer put up with the policy of equality which prevailed here. To-day we have a free white state, and we refuse to leave l½ million of whites to the mercy of “a couple of million natives” (according to the hon. member for South Peninsula) who actually amounted to 20,000,000, including the natives of Central and East Africa. The best answer is the report of the Hilton-Young Commission on the position there, made to the House of Commons. It says—

What does the big state of the hon. member for Standerton mean? Does it mean a “duality of interests”? Here at the Cape the hon. member for Standerton says that the doctrine of Rhodes: “Equality for all,” must be carried out, but in Ermelo, in answer to a question by Mr. Bekker he said that he was referring only to the south. Mr. Bekker asked a number of questions and, inter alia, wanted to know if it were true that the hon. member for Standerton declared equal rights to be the best. To this the reply was: “For the Cape.” He is the man who wants to create the central state, but to catch a few native votes he wants to confine equal rights to the Cape.

It is the Unionists who bring that about.

He no longer knows what he says, but Mr. Bekker cornered him at Ermelo. Now he only wants the franchise for the Cape, but the Hilton-Young report clearly says—

But it goes further and says—

As the final and conclusive point he then says—

That is the place where the hon. member for Standerton would like to be Prime Minister. The report says that it will never be a white man’s country. Now I think we also know, apart from the report, how things there are. We need not accept that report as the latest law of the Medes and Persians. We know the thing is absolutely impossible. A small group of people have actually trekked there, but whether Afrikaans or English-speaking, we feel that we have enough to do in our own country. In 1926, during the debate on land settlement policy, the hon. member for Standerton thought it necessary to say the following. He suggested that £1,000,000 should annually be paid out of revenue to encourage immigration. The Minister replied that, although he was in favour of immigration, he could do nothing in that direction until the Europeans in the country had been given ground. That is what the people of South Africa want. Those immigration schemes are one of the visions of the hon. member for Standerton, but he knows that the Europeans in South Africa have not yet been given ground. Still, he wants £1,000,000 a year spent to encourage immigration. If he came into power he would possibly do it, because the money is now available. He says it is necessary to import Europeans into South Africa to keep it a white country, and what does he want to do then with the countries in the north with their few Europeans? I am sorry that the hon. member is not in his place, because there is something I wanted to ask him. He dragged in the flag question and criticized the Government on the administration of the Flag Act. I want to ask him whether, if he and his party come into power again, he would alter the administration? One may not bet, but I would bet anything, however they shout here and in Natal, they will make no alteration in the administration of the Flag Act. They will possibly in certain parts of the country perhaps with overwhelming English population, should about it, but it will lead to nothing, because they themselves know that the matter is over and done with. Then I want to mention another thing. The hon. member for Standerton imagines that the mantle of Gen. Botha has fallen on him; he actually says so. I say that the mantle of Rhodes or that of Mr. Bissett has fallen on him. I want to quote here the official debate on the Native Administration Act of 1917. Mr. Bissett commenced, and the contents of his speech are given after which Gen. Botha answered that the then member for South Peninsula had announced a principle with which South Africa would not agree. Mr. Bissett urged a native policy for South Africa of equality for all civilized people, black as well as white. Gen. Botha said: “The hon. member surely does not mean that,” and went on to say that the member was unwittingly inspiring the natives with a false hope with regard to equality, and Gen. Botha said: “I am certain that he does not mean it.” In conclusion he asked what the Labour party would say about it, and what would happen in Johannesburg if the Colour Bar were abolished. And then the hon. member for Standerton still says that the mantle of Gen. Botha has fallen on him. The hon. member must not make the mistake of believing anything that he cannot carry out. Let me just refer to the speech of the hon. member at the A.P.O. conference which was held last year. At that conference the same principles of Mr. Bissett were laid down, which have been so destructively attacked by the late Gen. Botha. Now just a last point. The hon. member for Standerton accused us of wanting to drag the native question into party politics, and the hon. member for Zululand said the same. In this connection let me refer the hon. member for Standerton to the same speech to the coloured people at the A.P.O. conference where he said that he was not going into details about the Bills of the Prime Minister, because (he said) we are still negotiating with the Prime Minister. That was in April, 1928. Now I should like to know why the hon. member found it necessary not to discuss the Bills at the conference, but to do so at the South African party congress later in the same year. Why the sudden change of front? Why had it to be dragged in at the party congress? [Time limit.]

I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) and it seems that he lives more in 1923 than in 1928, because he rather gave the impression of debating a motion of no-confidence in the time when the hon. member for Standerton was Prime Minister. His speech was rather a charge against the hon. member for Standerton than a defence of his own Government. I do not wish to speak about general policy, but confine myself to a small number of concrete cases in connection with which the population, at any rate in my province and my district in particular, are not satisfied with the action of the Government. I want to deal with a few points about which hopes were cherished, but were disappointed. I do not say that promises were made, because I cannot say so, but there have been disappointments at what was done. In the first place, I come to the administration of the Native Land Act of 1913, which was entrusted to the Prime Minister in his capacity of Minister of Native Affairs. Clause 1 expressly states that natives shall have no right to buy or hire ground outside locations and reserves, without the consent of the Governor-General. That means, of course, the consent of the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole. Now the general view is that the Government has given too much exemption from that clause in the law. The object was to retain labour for the farmers, to see that natives living on farms should be available as workmen. Only in the case of natives in locations was there a difference, and they could purchase and hire ground from the Government and from companies. I have just gone through the list in connection with Section 1, and found that, to at least 1,200 natives, consent was given to leave farms where they were engaged as workmen, and go to companies’ farms, and those of private persons, so that the chief object of the Act with regard to labour was thereby destroyed. The position is severely felt in my district, the district of Zoutpansberg, and also in Rustenberg, about which the Minister of Lands already knows. There is a scarcity of labour on the farms, and it is becoming difficult for the farmers to get workmen, in as much as they cannot employ the natives from Portuguese territory because of the provisions of the Portuguese Agreement. The natives can only be employed on the gold and coal mines. The result is that a large number of labourers leave the farms. The police are not strict enough in this connection, and the farmers are complaining. Secondly, there is the satisfaction at the fact that too little protection is given to the wheat farmers. For eight or nine years I, together with the hon. members for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) and Caledon (Mr. Krige), have been pleading for more protection. Last year the customs’ duty on wheat was raised 5cL, but that is inadequate, yet it cannot be said that the wheat farmers are of less importance than manufacturers of boots and other requisites. The Minister of Lands has not yet done much to support us, and the Minister of Agriculture, who is proud of always having done his best for the sheep and cattle farmers, has also given us very little support in trying to give the wheat farmers a better living.

We have given more than the South African party Government.

I am not going back to the South African party Government. I do not say everything they did was perfect, but it was the South African party who established the import duty of 2s. a bag. There is now an increased protection of 5d., but the need is greater now and the prices are constantly diminishing. The protection policy referred to is more a protection of the manufacturers than of the farmers. Then I want to quote the statement of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar), namely, that the farmers are more prosperous than ever before. I should be very pleased if it were so, but it is not the case. I cannot recollect more farms having been sold and bonds called up than in the past two years. Of course, I do not want to blame the Government for this, but yet it is incorrect to state that the farmers are so prosperous, and then to attribute it to the Government. In the Land Bank report it says that £12,000,000 was lent the farmers and quite £8,000,000 was for bonds on farms. A farmer who is really prosperous does not mortgage his farm, but tries to hold to the old tradition that a clear title is a farmer’s best possession. If the title deeds of farms in my own and other districts are examined, it will be found that there are few clear titles. When a farmer uses a motor-car it is thought that he is flourishing, but it is only as long as he sits in the car.

Is the Government to be blamed when farmers travel about in motors?

No, I do not do so, but I am against exaggerated statements of prosperity. I only see what the position of the Lydenburg Co-operative Society is—how much the debt is, and how difficult it is to get it in.

What is the reserve fund of the society?

I am coming to that. The reduction in income tax was mentioned by which a revenue of nearly £800,0000 a year was temporarily sacrificed, but the farmers as a whole get no benefit from the reduction of 20 per cent. The increase of the exempted amount to £400, and the raised exemption for children has met a large number of border cases, but the reduction of 20 per cent, only benefitted the rich farmer. Then there is a complaint that the Minister of Mines did not do what was expected of him by the small mines in his constituency. The asbestos, chrome and small gold mines did not get the support they deserved. Trouble was not taken to build further small railways and good roads, and the asbestos and chrome mines are not allowed to employ natives from Mozambique. As for urban dwellers, the Asiatic agreement has not had the effect which was anticipated in my district. So far no Asiatic has left there, they still have their shops in the towns and on the farms, and I think the number will go on increasing. According to Mr. Sastri’s statement in Durban, the Indians who have returned to India are dissatisfied with their treatment there, and Mr. Sastri said in that connection that the 3,000 who had returned belonged to the poor class and had not made previous provision. This fact will cause a still more reduced emigration. The Government cannot be blamed for that, because the agreement was practically entered into as an experiment, with the approval of the whole House. If it does not have good results then the Bill which was before the House will have to be re-introduced. I do not think the carrying-out of the Indian Agreement will in the long run be a success. Then the urban dwellers complain of the high licences. A man who, with the assistance of his wife and daughter runs a small business and attends to his bakery himself pays, including his licence, to the Town Council as much as £40 a year, and with a turnover of £200 a month that is too high. Much has been said about the large surpluses of the Minister of Finance, but it reminds me of a meeting of our co-operative society. Our society had about £30,000 to £32,000 as a reserve fund, a thing which looks very nice at first sight, but when it was discussed and the board congratulated, a very simple farmer rose and made a comment which was not so entirely wrong. He said that it was quite pretty, but it is our money which is in the fund. Every year we have paid 5 per cent, commission on our wheat, we have paid 5 per cent, on our agricultural implements. We had to put 3 lbs. more wheat in our bags, but, he said, altogether there is £300 of mine in that fund which otherwise would be in my pocket. That seems to me to be the case with the surpluses of the Minister of Finance. All the money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. If the tax is reduced, and the railway rates a little less, and other burdens were reduced, the Minister’s surplus would not be so large, but the money would be in the pockets of the people. Then there is a statement so often heard, that under the present Government it is so easy to borrow money, as much as one wants, and more cheaply than formerly. I am not such a financial expert as some members, but when I look at the list of Government and other loans and obligations I cannot say that money has become so much cheaper. If we look at the Union Government stock we find that the proceeds of a loan of £100 always stands at 96, 97, 98 or 99 percent., that is, always more or less the same rate. I cannot, therefore, see that the money is so much cheaper, but the most important point is that it is stated, but let me here immediately add that to my knowledge the Minister of Finance has never himself said so, that loans are so easily obtained, because there is now a good Government in power. That is certainly not so, because it is with the credit of the country as with that of a private individual. A person does not have a good credit in one year, and the country in four years. It is the inheritance from other Governments, I do not even say only from South African party Governments, but further back. Who has ever heard of a man who has not received his interest or repayment from the old Cape Colony, Free State, Transvaal or Natal? At the establishment of Union the debt of the Cape Colony was £35,000,000 to £36,000,000, the Free State and the Transvaal £35,000,000, and Natal £18,000,000, and who has ever heard of anyone in Europe or elsewhere having sustained any loss by lending money to one of the South African states, or to whom no interest was paid by one of these states. It has never yet happened that we have been in default. From the first days that the old Cape Colony and the old republic borrowed money the repayments have always been punctually made. In the old happy days of the South African Republic, shortly before the first annexation, President Burgers borrowed £55,000 to build a railway. After the re-establishment of the republic it was regarded as the first duty in 1881 to repay the £55,000; it was regarded as a debt or honour. I myself and all in the Transvaal had for years to pay 5s. per head railway tax to wipe out the old debt. Therefore, if the credit of this Government is good, then it is not exactly because this Government is good, but that it has always been a matter of honour to pay off the debts and to pay interest promptly. The Government benefits by that habit of previous Governments.

But you did not pay any debts. You borrowed in order to pay.

When the due date came the money was there. We also will give the Minister of Finance credit for it, when we come into power again, because he has followed the policy of previous Governments so far as prompt payment of interest and capital on the due dates is concerned. When we come into power again—

You hope.

It makes no difference. Nothing is impossible in South Africa. When we come into power again we shall be grateful for our credit still being as good as before.

Now we see the truth of why the South African party hope to get into power again. The hon. member says that nothing is impossible, and that is their hope, and only hope, of coming into power again. When we notice how 8 days ago the-motion of no-confidence was introduced with hope and fire, and we now see how the hon. member speaks quietly and sweetly, then we see that the enthusiasm over the motion has considerably cooled off. The hon. member who has just spoken created the impression of addressing a Sunday-school conference rather than of debating a motion of no-confience. The other day a South African party newspaper in Cape-Town said—

When one looks at the paper one sees that he had observed the opening of Parliament and had especially taken notice of the South African party. He then asked—

What about your bald head?

Then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in his opening speech says that the country is tired of the Government, but the critic in the paper referred to says—

No, the hon. member for Standerton should rather drop his motion. I have listened to the hon. member and he rose and started with these accusations and statements that the country was sick of this Government. He says that the Government has not given ear to the clear voice of the country, but has clung to the Government benches. I then thought that he would prove where the voice of the country had been so clearly heard, and where it has been so clearly stated that this Government should resign. What proofs were given? Not a single one. Did he hear it in the various results of the bye-election since 1924? I remember the results of Beaufort West, Graaff-Reinet, etc., and more recently the Transvaal provincial election of Waterberg and Potchefstroom. Perhaps the hon. member heard the voice in Langlaagte, where, through divisions, a seat was lost by Labour. Did not Waterberg, however, indubitably show that the time had not yet come when the country wanted to see the power in the hands of the South African party again? Or did the hon. member hear the voice at the meetings when he went through the country? I met the hon. member at a few of the meetings. In Riversdale the Nationalists were so numerous that the leader of the Opposition had to hold his meeting on the market square. At Knysna, an essentially English-speaking town, the Nationalists came in such force that the South African party supporters had to be admitted by a back door to fill up the hall so that no Nationalist could enter. At Humansdorp there were so many Nationalists that the leader of the Opposition had to give up the meeting. At Graaff-Reinet a private meeting was held, so private that not even the member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) knew where it was being held. The hon. member, however, could not even get to the meeting. And when questions are asked they are not permitted. The leader of the Opposition could only answer questions by voters. Are those meetings a proof that the country is tired of the Government? The hon. member for Standerton is now highly indignant at the “wicked document” of the three Ministers. We have read the manifesto, and it is no more than a true statement of the actual extent and meaning, and the actual results which will follow if the policy of the hon. member is applied, and what he calls the cardinal point of South African party policy. If that document is so “wicked” then the doctrine of the hon. member is no less so. It is a pernicious doctrine to us and our civilization, and for our nation. It is the declared policy of those states which, according to the hon. member, must join in a federation, that if there is a conflict between white immigrants and natives, the natives must be given the preference. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) said that we must not be afraid of the few natives. The Europeans there do not amount in all to more than 64,000, and the natives exceed 13,000,000. Then the hon. member says that these difficulties have not yet occurred in Rhodesia, but he forgets that the natives have no vote there. The fact that my hon. friends opposite are so sensitive over the manifesto, proves that they themselves appreciate that we have opened the eyes of white South Africa to the perniciousness of the doctrine they preach. I also had the honour, like the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) of being a member of the select committee on the Native Bills. The hon. member for Standerton accuses the Prime Minister of wanting to drag the Bills into party politics, but that is precisely what the hon. member is doing, as the Prime Minister said. For three years we tried to get the co-operation of the South African party, and we were led to believe that they would co-operate and assist in finding a solution. Consultations constantly took place in the select committee to arrive at co-operation, and the Prime Minister also consulted separately with the hon. member for Standerton, and after all this the leader of the South African party allows the South African party congress to discuss the matter and to pass a motion that the franchise of the natives must not be tampered with. That is the declared policy of the South African party, they will not assist. Segregation was their ideal in 1921. The “Cape Times” then said that the South African party were committed to the segregation policy. Now the Prime Minister says: “Very well, you say that the position must remain as it is, I am not prepared to permit that, I am going to introduce the Native Bills.” And now the charge is that the Native Bills are being dragged into politics. The whole thing is that the hon. member for Standerton and his party have only played for time, and it seems to me that they never seriously thought of co-operation, that they never strove for an agreement. They played for time, and hoped that we would get so frightened that we would abandon the policy and not introduce the Bills, so that they could say at the next election that we had been dealing with the Native Bills for five years and still had effected nothing. We must now put the legislation through. It was our declared policy and must remain so. Let the public decide whether they agree with them, or want to reject them. The hon. member further referred to the Wage Act, and said that it increased unemployment; that is the reason which the hon. member for Standerton does not give in his speeches outside Parliament. Here he comes and maintains it. On what grounds? We are waiting for proofs. The official statistics do not support it. In December, 1924, there were over 7,000 unemployed registered, to-day they number under 2,000. The hon. member makes a loose statement about unemployment. On the countryside the hon. member said that the Wage Act and Wage Board exercised a pernicious influence, and that it was particularly dangerous to the farmers, but the hon. member’s own chief organ argued, as the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) has already quoted how well the Wage Act has worked. The “Cape Times” say that minimum civilized wages are now fixed in every civilized country and that it is necessary. It is said that our industries have retrogressed and then the numbers of factories in 1924 are compared with those in 1926. There were about 26 less.

Of course.

Of course the fact that a number of small factories which arose after the war are disappearing or being absorbed into larger undertakings is not taken into account. The test of the whole matter is that on the same page on which the number of factories is given one also finds the number of workmen from which it appears that the 66,189 in 1924 had increased to 75,987 in 1926, an increase of nearly 9,000 whites working in factories.

What wage do they get?

That the hon. member must know, but the increase in wages was £2,100,000. Up to the end of 1927 the increased value of the production in comparison with 1924 was as much as £18,000,000. Those are the figures we can go to the country with and it will not believe in vague charges. The evidence of Messrs. Fry and Seals-Wood is something quite different from what is told the House. Another big thing the hon. member was so concerned about is that we still maintain the Colour Bar to-day. It is an old bogey, because the Act was passed in 1924. He himself acknowledged in answer to a question that he maintained a colour bar by regulation, and if you were asked where the shame is then he says that you must not put such an Act on the statute book, but should rather carry the Colour Bar out by regulation. Now, I should like to know from the hon. member, and I think that the country and the workers are entitled to know: if the South African party gets into power as they allege they will, will he then repeal the Colour Bar Act? Is he going to do so and leave the workmen in the Transvaal to the mercy of the mines? No, he will say that he will again apply the regulations. But they were declared ultra vires, and we therefore must have an Act. Not one hon. member opposite dares give me a decided answer. The coloured people also would very much like to know whether the Colour Bar Act will be repealed, because if the old regulation again prevails, they will fall under them as well. The Act clearly excludes them. The hon. member for Caledon with deep feeling described how the Prime Minister was tearing the people asunder by the secession question. He said: “Here we have the statement of the Imperial Conference in which the Nationalists have accepted equality of status with England,” and he says further that the Prime Minister caused the Hereniging congress and other attempts to unite the people to fail by the secession question, but that to-day he was prepared to subscribe to the declaration. If one were to take that speech, then it looks like an injustice and that the Prime Minister did keep the people apart while he now accepts the status. That as not the reason, however, for the failure of the Hereniging congress. Let me refresh the memory of the hon. member for Caledon. I see from the report of the Paarl congress what the position actually was. Are hon. members opposite satisfied with the declaration of the Imperial Conference. At the Paarl congress the representatives of the South African party asked what we meant by Article 4 of our programme of principles. The reply was—

These principles include:

1. (a) The acknowledgment of the existing relations between the Union and the United Kingdom;
2. (b) the loyal maintenance of the rights and liberties along constitutional lines;
3. (c) the extension of such rights and liberties along constitutional lines;
4. (d) the equality in every respect even in practice of the Union, as a state, with the United Kingdom;
5. (e) the opposing with all lawful means of any movement, action or policy which has the tendency of curtailing the said rights and liberties or of closing the door to the eventual sovereign independence of the Union;
6. (f) complete freedom and sovereign independence as the final aim and object of South Africa.

That is the explanatory statement which we have attached to Clause 4 and to which we ask the South African party to agree. The answer, according to Senator Conroy, who reported to the South African party congress, I quote from “Ons Land”—

Mr. Hofmeyr had to report to the Nationalist party congress as follows—

That is the reason why the people are still kept apart. Now the hon. member for Caledon says with much gesticulation and a tragic tone that the Prime Minister has kept the people apart through secession, and it actually is about the question of equality which we to-day have recorded in black and white. Who, then, is the sinner? It is hon. members opposite who took part in the congress. The hon. member for Caledon will possibly say further, “but what about the Bloemfontein congress?” Here are the minutes signed by the secretaries of both parties. I see that Professor de Vos makes the report which reads—

The South African party accordingly refused to accept independence and self-determination. They can now say that it is only Professor de Vos who said so, and therefore I want to quote the words of Senator F. S. Malan, which follow immediately after, as his explanation—

Here we actually see again that they would not acknowledge independence and they would only admit self-determination itself on condition that all sections of the people agreed with it. Thus even if there was a small section of one-tenth there could never be any self-determination, for ever. Now they say that it is the Nationalist party that has kept us apart and caused a split. No, if we re-read the thing we see more and more how great the sin of the South African party was, which always denies and negatives what we have striven for. Now just a few words about finance. The hon. member for Standerton spoke very glibly of £4,000,000 more expenditure. He does not mention the larger grants to the provinces, the higher expense of vocational education, and the interest on the national debt as a portion of it, the deduction of which will make the increase only £2,000,000. He pretends that the £4,000,000 has been wasted. When one speaks of finance then the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) shouts: “What about the national debt?” I reply, what about it? Wo have increased the national debt during the four years by £7,600,000 a year, on the average, but if we go back to the S.A.P. time we shall see that they increased the national debt between 1913 and 1924 by £8,200,000 a year.

That is not true.

Come, I challenge you. In the report of the Auditor-General the figures are given on pages 10 and 13. In 1913 the debt was £117,828,993, and in 1924 it was £208,282,528. The difference is £90,403,535, and divided by 11 it gives £8,200,000 a year.

Deduct what went in repayment of debt and on the sinking fund.

That is excluded in my calculation of the national debt. I mentioned the page and then the hon. member still argues. Will he be surprised to learn that we paid less interest last year than in 1924? Will he admit it? He is afraid. If we have so astoundingly increased the national debt that would not have been the case. Let us go into it. According to the Auditor-General’s report, page 283, we paid £3,952,638 in interest on the national debt in 1924, and according to Hansard for 1928, page 1918, we last year paid £4,769,000. That is an increase of £816,400, but if the additional amount of £250,000 which we put into the sinking fund is taken into account then the nett increase is £566,000. What have we now received? According to the Auditor-General’s report for 1924, page 55, the interest received in 1924 was £1,068,421, and in the financial year 1927-’28 it was £1,658,000. On this count therefore there was an increase of £589,579 which can be compared with the increase in interest payment to an amount of £566,000. There I have proved what I said, and no hon. member opposite can controvert it. I could have enlarged on the criticism of the hon. member for Standerton on the Asiatic agreement when he is outside the House, though here he does not say a word about it.

The Indians have the franchise here.

There is another matter on which the hon. member now preserves silence, namely, the Act to establish an iron and steel industry. He fought the Government tooth and nail and forced us to pass it in a joint sitting, but has he now given it as one of the reasons for no-confidence in the Government? No, now he is quiet as the grave and says nothing, because the S.A.P. leaders in the Transvaal have said that it will assist the business and that people need not be afraid to invest their money in it, although they warned the people last year. If you analyse what hon. members opposite have said you can aver that you have never yet heard weaker, lamer, and flabbier arguments why the Government should resign.

I move—

I am very sorry, but we must hurry on.

I do not press the motion for the adjournment. I would like to tell this House in the short time at my disposal that it is utterly impossible for me to vote with the Opposition on this occasion and thereby help to demolish the structure—the tremendous work in which I have assisted the Pact Government, not only m the cause of education, but also in the vast improvement in industrial policy in South Africa. It is utterly impossible for anyone who wishes to see the improvement of South Africa generally, to support the South African party policy, which is based on the production if commodities as cheaply as possible for the benefit of the few. We know full well that the diamond and the gold industries of South Africa to a very great extent dominates the policy of the South African party, whether it costs a half-penny or nineteen shillings and eleven pence to produce twenty shillings of gold, the gold is still of the value of twenty shillings; whether it costs a halfpenny or £199 to find a £200 diamond, that diamond is still of the same value, but in every other commodity, such as boots and clothing which we use or commodities which we consume, the price of production has a great deal to do with the ultimate cost to the consumer; therefore it is utterly impossible to expect development industrially by a South African party Government. We know what was the policy before this Government entered office. We know that when this Government took office the educational policy was altogether adverse to anyone, except the super-intellectual child, from obtaining any educational standard in this country. We know full well that there was no possibility of the ordinary child going forward. We only had in South Africa 360 students attending the technical institutes. At the present time we have over 12,000 attending these institutions. Not only has this Government developed technical education, but it has afforded opportunities so that any boy who unfortunately is not gifted from a scholastic point of view is enabled to develop his faculties not only for his own benefit but for the benefit of South Africa. We have also Juvenile Advisory Boards which not only encourage boys to become proficient in technical knowledge, but also give them opportunities to become apprenticed to the arts and crafts. An hon. member has just interjected that that was achieved during the South African party administration. I was on the Juvenile Advisory Board in Cape Town during the South African party regime. (Interjection.) Yes, there is something more than brains needed, and that is honesty of purpose, and unfortunately that was lacking when the South African party held office. Our powers on the Juvenile Advisory Board were very much restricted. Not only were they limited by the then administration, but the trades unions unfortunately were also encouraging the limitation of apprentices. During this Government’s term of office things have changed to a very great extent.

Why are you on that side of the House?

The reason why I came to this side of the House was not because I objected to the policy of the Government, but because I took the greatest exception to the dictatorial methods of certain persons in that Government. There is no doubt that the Pact Government has done a great deal for South Africa.

Are you expecting a job?

Yes, as a member of this House in the next Parliament. There is no doubt that the railways have also done a great deal for the youth of South Africa, and they would have been able to do more were it not for the fact that the plant and buildings were obsolete and unsuited for manufacturing purposes on a large scale. Not only has there been ordinary development on the railways, but there has been a tendency to manufacture the requirements of the country by South African men and boys. In 1922—we could not get the exact figures—there were roughly only 22 per cent, of the mechanics in the Government workshops who had been trained in South Africa, 78 per cent, of the mechanics being imported men. The railway has not only developed on sound lines, but it has also been recognized that they should be run for development and not for profit; in other words, what has been spent on railway development has come back to the State in other channels in the way of the improved value of land and in the development of industries. I believe that the railways are now employing over 15,000 more mechanics than when the Government took office. During a similar period of time the South African party reduced the personnel of the railway by over 12,000.

At 5s. a day.

The hon. member would not be able to earn 5s. a day.

Would you?

Yes, I have always been able to earn my living and to earn top wages. If we take the 15,000 more men employed by the railways, and the 20,000 more employed in industry, we shall find that there is roughly over £6,000,000 a year more paid in wages than when the South African party were in office. To get the correct figures you must increase that by ten in order to arrive at the circulation of money. That shows that there is £60,000,000 more in circulation in South Africa.

Then you woke up!

I woke up when I heard the hon. and supposed learned member from Johannesburg (Mr. Blackwell) quoting figures from newspapers which were not based on facts or on any substance whatsoever.