I move—

seconded.

When the House adjourned yesterday I was showing how the native question had come more and more into the foreground, and how it had developed into one of the most important questions for our people. I also tried to show that the policy as laid down by the S.A. party was really not a satisfactory one for our people. The origin of their policy must be sought with the old Progressive Party in the Cape Colony. They always supported that policy in the Cape, and subsequently after Union the Unionists adopted it possibly because a leader of the Progressive Party had become a leader of the Unionists. There can, however, be no doubt that before that time there had been great differences about the native question between the Cape on the one hand, and the northern provinces and Natal on the other. It cannot be denied that when the Progressive Party was incorporated with the Unionist party that policy was much opposed in the north. We still remember how the Natal members came to Parliament as Independents because they did not agree with the native policy of the Unionist party. The South African party fought that policy for years after Union, but to-day it is prepared to adopt and follow it Now we hear that the policy of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is as follows. In a speech he made at Bloemfontein in November last, he said—

I have shown that the native question has become more and more important, and to-day it is generally felt that something must be done in connection with it. Now the hon. member for Standerton says “The native wants rest and quiet.” That is not the impression we get, when we hear the I.C.U. and similar native organizations. Those people want something else than rest and quiet. Now hon. members opposite have said it is unnecessary to go on with the question. They say that the fear in the country that the native will swamp the whites in South Africa is groundless. The reasons given for their argument show that they misunderstand the questions. They use for instance the attitude of the voortrekkers towards the natives as an example, but there is no comparison. The voortrekkers never gave political rights to natives. Then another hon. member instanced the administration of the Hollanders in Java. There, however, the position is quite different. There we have not to do with an attempt to maintain the white civilization and with Europeans who want to remain in the country. No, here the position is quite different. It is not a question of force, nor that we are afraid that the natives will use force, and exterminate the white population in South Africa. Yet a fear actually exists that South Africa, in the distant future, may become a black man’s country. If no measures are taken that is absolutely certain. Now I ask what the South African party offer the country for dealing with that state of affairs. On different points they said that they were not prepared to do this, but they must say what they are actually prepared to do. They say that the fear in the country is an idle one, but it is just the work of the politician and and statesman to take count of such a fear, even if it is an idle one. The fact is that the South African party never supported a policy which answers that question in connection with the development and advance of the native in South Africa. Do they want South Africa to become a white man’s country, or a black man’s country? That is what we want to know, because we have never heard it from them. Instead of saying what their policy in this respect is, they create a dust and make their smoke screens, but the question remains, what their answer is to the question whether South Africa will remain a white man’s country and keep white civilization. We know that the principle exists in Kenya that if there is a conflict between the interests of the Europeans and the natives, the interests of the natives shall be preferred. That is the fixed policy of the British administration. Are hon. members opposite prepared to apply to and honour that policy in South Africa as well? If such a very large dominion is to be established they must bear that fact in mind. What then will happen to South Africa? The public say that the South African party failed because they did not say what should be done. The South African party says that the natives want rest and quiet, but to this the country will probably reply that it is the South African party which wants rest and quiet. There is another point I want to mention, although I want at the same time to express my regret that it is necessary to speak about it in the House. I refer to the position in the public service. In this connection the hon. member for Standerton said—

It is a pity that we must discuss the public service here, but a statement like that without supporting facts is another kind of smoke screen or dust cloud to cause misunderstanding and breed suspicion. We should like to see facts given in support of this statement. The South African party had years to deal with the position in the public service. Last year I put a certain question to the Minister of the Interior because I know there are many complaints in the service. I asked what the position in certain departments was as to the proportion between Afrikaans-and English-speaking persons. I asked how many officials there were in the Departments of Finance, Posts and Telegraphs, and Public Works with a salary of more than £600 a year, and how many of them were unilingual, and how many belonged to the two sections of the population. The reply was that in the Public Works Department there were 39 such officials, of whom not one could speak Afrikaans. In the Posts and Telegraphs Department there were 136, of whom only five could speak Afrikaans. And in the Finance Department 20, only one of whom spoke Afrikaans. These figures prove that there is something wrong somewhere. The two sections of our population are nearly equal in numbers, and in reality there are more Afrikaans-speaking people. Either the appointments during the South African party regime were unfair towards the Afrikaans-speaking people, or the promotions were unfair. I am inclined to believe that both were unfair. We are now in the position that the present Government is asked to do justice to both sections of the population. But how can justice be done in promotions seeing that the higher ranks of the departments are all filled by people who only belong to one section of the population, and have no sympathy with the other section? The heads of departments are from time to time called upon to effect promotions of certain officials by recommendations or otherwise, and it is in their power to deprive certain persons of just promotion by suppressing their efficiency. Certain officials can therefore be killed by the silence of the head officials. I do not say this happens, but there is a possibility. The only way in which justice can be done to both sections is by the proper representations of both sections in the higher ranks, because they have to make the recommendations for promotion. The South African party have thus created a position which is decidedly unfair towards one section of the service, and the previous Government is responsible for the unfavourable position, because they were fourteen years in office. This Government has not yet had enough time to put matters right. The Minister of the Interior recently stated that the number of appointments during his period was approximately equal, namely a little over 3,000 for both sections. It now looks like equality, but before we get equality we must first have justice. I allege that the Afrikaans-speaking people have not yet obtained their rights in the public service.

Why did the Government dismiss Afrikaans-speaking Saps.?

If the South African party accuses the Government then it accuses itself in connection with the position which prevails to-day, and which is described by a certain section as a most unsatisfactory position.

I am very pleased to see the Minister of Mines and Industries is in the House; neither he nor the Prime Minister nor any of the other Ministers of the Pact Cabinet has said a word in this House about that running sore, the alluvial diggings. We realize that behind this is a very thorny problem, and we do not want to be unfair to the Government, but it is evident that there is something radically wrong in the position. When the Minister introduced the Precious Stones Bill he said it was intended to protect the small, the poor man. What is the result of the Government’s activities to assist the poor man? If there is one thing that stands out more than any other, it is this, that neither the Prime Minister nor any of the other Ministers have dared to set foot in the alluvial diggings for fear of being torn assunder by the small miner and digger whom they set out to protect. Surely there must be something radically wrong. Why is it necessary for the Government to keep in Namaqualand an army of policemen, with rifles and machine guns? Why, if the Government wants to help these men, should these men have to be kept down by force of arms?

Where was there force of arms?

In Namaqualand. We know that the Prime Minister and his fellow Ministers have been very busy lately. The Prime Minister has been touring the country, but he has not gone near the diamond diggings. Other Ministers have also been touring the country. When it was necessary to support the communist candidate at Langlaagte, a gang of Ministers gathered round the carcase. Three Ministers went to Potchefstroom, and the same thing happened at Waterberg. For the last year no Cabinet Minister has attempted to go near the alluvial diggings. Why is it that no member of the Cabinet has gone near these unfortunate diggers? Surely there must be some reason? There must be something wrong when Ministers dare not go near this running sore. I think it is the duty of the Prime Minister, or at any rate the Minister of Mines, to give us an explanation of this attitude. What is the reason of it all? We do not know. We would like to help the Government, but we cannot assist when we do not know what is going on. Thousands of these diggers are discontented and restless. In Namaqualand with all its fabulous wealth, we have been told that no less than 240 families are being expatriated from there. In spite of all this wealth, these people are being sent into exile at 6s. per day. Why cannot these unfortunate people be employed in their own districts? There is the Orange River and the Olifants River irrigation scheme. Why could they not be sent there? No, the Government have made a mess of things. Why all this furtiveness about Namaqualand? Why does not the Government tell us what is going on? All this secrecy is exciting and inflaming public opinion, and as a result all sorts of rumours are prevalent. The Minister of Mines refuses to tell us the value of the diamonds extracted from Namaqualand. Some say these diamonds are worth nine millions sterling; others say they are valued at twenty millions sterling, but the greater the value, the more urgent is the reason for getting rid of the Pact Government. Is any reasonable man going to trust a Pact Government with the spending of all these millions of money? We saw what happened in Potchefstroom. The Pact Government have held office not by the will of the people, but by political bargainings, and by hawking about jobs. If such a Government is going to have the handling of such enormous sums of money you can imagine the orgy of waste that will ensue—political railways, political irrigation schemes and the like. The time has arrived when we should have an honest, business Government, such as the South African party. We have heard from the Prime Minister that the Pact Government is entering into a general election with the preposterous cry that the South African party are the apostles of Kaffirdom. To me this seems to be a last desperate throw of bankrupt gamblers. Throughout the whole of our political history responsible Ministers never resorted to such a practice as this. They have taken the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—a speech which I think all right-thinking men will agree was a plea for amity and co-operation with our northern neighbours, a speech which was all the more necessary because of the policy of the Pact in alienating the friendship of our friends in the north. So far from supporting a policy of swamping the white man, that speech was a plea for white men to stand together. To me the manifesto signed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues was hitting below the belt, and I strongly resent the deliberate distortion of the speech by the right hon. member for Standerton as made by the hon. the Prime Minister.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “deliberate.”

If you say it is out of order, I must say it outside the House, but if I honestly believe that that manifesto is a distortion, it seems to me that this is the place I ought to say it. The Prime Minister knows that the record of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in the matter of South African patriotism, is at least as good as his own, and does he honestly believe that the right hon. gentleman is deliberately seeking to undermine or to swamp the white population of South Africa? Does he honestly believe that the South African party, which represents more than half the Europeans of this country, and the better half, is out to swamp the white population? Did those three gentlemen believe that when they set their signatures to this manifesto? They did not believe it, and it is for that reason I say it is a deliberate distortion.

The hon. member must not say it is a deliberate distortion.

I feel most sincerely that that manifesto was a deliberate distortion. If you say I am not to say so—

Order; withdraw.

I am putting this point to you, sir, for your ruling. This is the highest tribunal of the people. If any of the representatives of the people feel that a document, issued outside this House is a deliberate distortion, are we not entitled to say so?

The hon. member is not entitled to say all he thinks in this House.

Am I to understand that it is your ruling that if an hon. member refers to a document published outside in the press, he is not allowed to use ordinary language with regard to it? The document referred to was issued outside this House, and the remarks of my hon. friend have nothing to do with the statements made by the Prime Minister in this House. In all my experience in the House of Assembly, I have never known of a member being prohibited by the ruling of the Chair from referring to a document issued outside this House.

I should like to consider the point raised by the right hon. member, and will give my ruling later.

My point in using the word “deliberate” was that I was asking the Prime Minister whether, in signing that document, he honestly believed that my hon. leader and the South African party are out to swamp the white element. The life work of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has been to cement the white races. The South African party has spent its whole career in cementing the white races. If ever the white races are swamped by savagery, it will not be the fault of the South African party, but of hon. members opposite, who have divided the white races of this country. Their life work has been to divide and disunite. That manifesto is signed by three prominent members of the Dutch-speaking race. I notice that not one of the English-speaking members of the Cabinet have signed that document. I am talking now as a member of the Dutch-speaking race, and I fear that people reading that document will not only say that politics are dirty, and that South African politics are dirty, but that they will say that Dutch politics are dirty. I ask any of those members opposite whether they have carefully read that document, and whether they honestly believe the statements made there. The Prime Minister has told us that in the next six months he is going around the country to ram home this bogey, that this Corsican ogre, the right hon. member for Standerton, has had the temerity to look north. Other great South Africans have had the temerity to look north. Let me remind him that when the voortrekkers stood at the Orange River they did not hesitate to go north. And when they got to the Vaal River, did they shiver and say “We are not going north”? It was the traditional policy of the voortrekkers to blaze a trail north. It is the Prime Minister who is going to confer the native franchise on the north. If our ancestors had adopted the chicken-hearted policy of the Prime Minister, we would to-day have been quaking in our shoes on the shores of Table Bay, instead of occupying the hinterland of this country. It was one of the great disappointments of Paul Kruger that he could not go further north. I should like to make a quotation from Dr. Leyd’s book to show that Kruger pitted himself against the policy of the British Government to hem him in. [Quotation read.] Now we are falling back on the policy of little Africanderism. The National party is going to be turned into a race of stoep-sitters by the Prime Minister. I ask the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) whether he looks upon the Dutch Reformed church members as apostles of kaffirdom when they push north to Rhodesia and beyond, or are they apostles of Christianity and civilization. We come of a race of pioneers and adventurers, and instead of taking this pusillanimus tone, it would become the Prime Minister very much better if he said to the young men of South Africa: “Go and help to blaze a trail in the north.” It would become him much better if, instead of telling them to herd in our slums, he told them to go north and help the white man bear his burden. I have been is West Africa, East Africa, and Central Africa, and there I have seen white pioneers of the Dutch race. Are they apostles of kaffirdom. Why this terrible slur upon them? Is South Africa from now onward to roll itself up like a hedgehog, and show nothing but quills to the outer world? Are we to isolate ourselves for all time? Is it no concern of ours what happens beyond the Limpopo—is it no concern of ours that the rest of South Africa remains in a state of barbarism? I hope the Prime Minister will think twice before he goes round preaching so poor-spirited a doctrine to the descendants of men who showed such great spirit in the past. His manifesto is not only an insult to our northern neighbours, it is an attempt to inflame the very worst type of racialism—that between white and black. It is the last despairing throw of a political gambler because his party has no other election cry. We have heard talk of the Pact Government making a party issue of the native problem; that does not worry me very much because the Pact has no native policy. At the last general election there was talk of segregation; since then the Prime Minister has held power for five years. Can anyone opposite tell me what the Prime Minister’s native policy is? No one knows. For 15 years the Prime Minister has been quite sincerely seeking a solution of the native problem, but he is more baffled and befogged than he was at the beginning. I don’t blame him. It seems to me that the Prime Minister’s grandiose schemes are boiled down to tinkering with the native franchise. If he thinks that is going to solve the native problem, I am sorry for him. The native problem is more acute in those provinces where the native has not the franchise than it is in the Cape Province where he has the franchise. No, the native franchise has nothing to do with the native problem, which is an economic and not a constitutional one. What the Prime Minister is doing is making hatred of the native a party question; every word in the manifesto is an appeal to hatred of the native. The Prime Minister as chief citizen of the Union has control of about seven million natives. Is there a single word in the manifesto of sympathy with the natives in any way? No, it is a naked appeal to hate the native. There is no policy in it. The Prime Minister is going to appeal to all those who hate the native to come to his side.

What absolute nonsense.

Read the manifesto and see. It reeks with venom. After an election fought on the issues set forth in the manifesto what is going to be the atmosphere? We shall have a lynch-law psychology. This strange mentality of fear and trembling is not the policy that should be adopted by whites who have held their own in South Africa for three centuries and are stronger to-day than ever they were. I trust we shall hear no more of this pitiful doctrine. I would like to refresh the Prime Minister’s memory by reading a sentence or two from his letter to Kadalie: The Prime Minister wrote from Bloemfontein on July 21st, 1924,—

How does the Prime Minister’s manifesto square with the beautiful sentiments expressed here? Here we have the Prime Minister at his best—a large-hearted, a man of vision, realizing that the native must be kept in his own environment, but nevertheless be a citizen of South Africa. The Minister of the Interior as leader of the Cape Nationalists some years ago sent the following telegram to the Minister of Railways and Harbours who read it to a meeting of natives at Queenstown—

The Minister of the Interior signed that manifesto and I ask him the same question as I asked the Prime Minister: how he reconciles the two things. I would also ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he read this telegram, were they serious, or was it gross, flagrant hypocrisy? I hope they will tell me. Here we have responsible men telling the natives they should be in the same political arena as themselves. These men have now signed a poisonous manifesto, calculated and designed to instil hatred between the races. I think we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Railways if they had their tongues in their cheeks when they wrote these sentiments, whether it was mere hypocrisy, or were those their real sentiments and are these false sentiments? For the credit of South Africa I hope they will be able to tell us that their first sentiments were the true ones, and that their subsequent sentiments were merely election tactics, and I hope in this hour the Prime Minister will see the fatal error he has made in sending out that manifesto and that he will withdraw it. If he goes to the country with this document, he will know all about it. I have more faith in the commonsense of the Nationalists than to think this unconvincing document is going to impress them. We on this side of the House have done our best for South Africa as well as they have, and they know very well we are not guilty of the dastardly charge made in this manifesto. There is a very general desire throughout the country to put a stop to all this enmity. Wherever I go, whether it is the Free State or the Transvaal, I find the real Nationalist, the real member of the South African party, has a real desire to let bygones be bygones. That being the case, we hoped the Prime Minister will say something in a kindly spirit towards men of his own flesh and blood. So far he has only stigmatized us as the common enemy. Why are we the common enemy? I would like to ask the Prime Minister where South Africa would be if it were possible suddenly to shear away the entire South African party, if we were all to take our marching orders and get out of it. The rest of South Africa would be a race of paupers. Therefore, once more I express my regret that no single word of sympathy or friendship has fallen from the Prime Minister for men of his own race whom he, more than anyone else, has helped to tear asunder. The record of the Prime Minister in that direction is a sad one. He has first of all set the Dutch-speaking race at each other’s throats, then he set English and Dutch at enmity, then he alienated the north and made it impossible for Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland to come into this Union, and now he is going to inflame black and white. I ask him if it is not time for him to recast his policy. I am sure hon. members on that side sincerely think they are South African patriots, but my conception of patriotism is not that which tears asunder and divides and weakens a people, but one which binds up old wounds and brings the people together. Tested by that conception, I say hon. gentlemen on that side have failed lamentably. They have made of this country, this people—what might have been a great, strong and happy nation—they have made of us a jarring set of factions and they are still treading that path. I hope the time will come, and quickly, when the people of this country will realize who have been their true friends, and the true patriots. I have heard talk that the Pact Government, apart from this manifesto, are going to rely on the prosperity of this country. It must sound like bitter mockery to many sections of the people. What will those unfortunate Namaqualanders think when they hear about it? What will the alluvial diggers of the western Transvaal think? Are the civil servants prosperous, the police, the railwaymen or the miners? Is the ordinary citizen, the man in the street, prosperous?

More than he was under your Government.

In all the time I have lived in this country I have never seen so much poverty, so much real distress as now, in spite of your surplus. The tragedy is that most of the poverty is among our own Dutch-speaking South Africans, yet they have the audacity to tell us they are going to rely on a cry of prosperity. The surplus, most of which has been brought together by the South African party, does not reflect prosperity. We have a surplus in spite of the Pact Government. I say that I am prouder than ever of the powers of resistance, the stamina and fibre of the South African people who could still make progress under the adverse conditions to which they have been subjected. People do not want to know so much about surpluses; it is the moral and social budgeting of this country they want to know about. [Time limit.]

Under Standing Order No. 73 no member may use “offensive or unbecoming words against either House of Parliament or any member thereof.” It makes no difference whether the words refer to what has happened outside the House or in it. Apropos of what has been taking place I should like to quote the following passage from page 333 of the eleventh edition of May’s “Parliamentary Practice”—

The point is that the dignity of this House must be maintained and I appeal to all sections of this honourable House to assist the Chair. It makes the task very difficult for me as Speaker to keep order, unless hon. members bear in mind that they have to use decorous language and not use unparliamentary language such as is referred to in the section of May I have just quoted. I do appeal to hon. members to bear that in mind.

What you have read, Mr. Speaker, refers to debates in this House. If papers are published outside, in a newspaper or in a manifesto, which make scurrilous references to a member of this hon. House, do I understand an hon. member is not entitled to use the strongest language in referring to a document of that kind—a document which has not been uttered in this hon. House, but which makes definite, scurrilous charges?

If the language which was referred to by the right hon. member was used in this hon. House, you, Mr. Speaker, would check it. Are we not allowed to deal with such language, not with regard to language used inside this hon. House, but outside? If the language of that manifesto had been used by the Prime Minister in this House, you would have called him to order.

As Speaker I have nothing to do with documents published outside this House, but I have to uphold the dignity of the House, and apply the rules of debate as practised in the House of Commons. Whether it has reference to a document outside or inside the House, unbecoming language must not be used inside this House. I think I have made that very clear. If it were otherwise the rule about using decorous language in debate would be absolutely useless.

Then do I understand, Mr. Speaker, can any member of this hon. House, whether a private member or a Minister, use scurrilous language regarding an hon. member, and an hon. member has no right to refer to it?

May I put a question? Can an hon. member get up here and in a scurrilous manner make imputations which he would not dare to make outside?

I am afraid the Prime Minister is now using the same language. The word “scurrilous” is also unparliamentary. I did not call the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to order because he was asking by ruling.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has appealed for peace across the floor of the House, but I am certain that his speech this afternoon was not a speech of peace, and would probably do more to divide these two sections than any other. He said the Prime Minister had divided the races of South Africa, and that he was now going to divide black and white. I have a very good memory, and I ask him to refer to the Hansard of seven years ago, when he will find that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) said—

Give the reference, please.

If the hon. member looks it up—it was just before the two parties amalgamated. I do not want to go into these questions. When there is a motion of no confidence each hon. member gets up and gives his profession of faith. Sitting on these benches, as I do, and a supporter of the Pact Government last session—sitting on these cross benches now —I shall be asked how I stand. I ask, if the present Government, as the result of this motion being carried, goes out of office, have we another Government to put in its place at the present moment? There is the question of the Wage Act. I want to ask the right hon. the leader of the Opposition is it not a fact that consistently, and for many years, his party has always put its hand against that Act? They opposed it right through. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) and the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson)—all charming men personally, I admit— have gone out of their way, time after time, to ask for the repeal of this Act; and what has the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) himself said? Speaking at Knysna a few weeks ago, he said—

Absolutely untrue.

I challenge the South African party to prove that men are being dismissed. I will prove that men are being taken on. Last night there appeared in the Cape newspapers that an American company was going to start an industry in this country and to employ 500 new people. The right hon. member went on to say—

The right hon. member went further. He made another speech in which he said he would repeal the Wages Act.

Where did he make it?

In the Cape. I do not know the exact spot, but let him reply for himself. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has enough sins on his head already. I want to ask the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) what he is going to do about the Wage Act if his party is returned to power? Let us have a straight reply, so that the country may know. Is he going to repeal it or administer it so that it will be of no use to the working classes? Of course he is, but he dare not give such a reply. I do not want a reply from hon. members behind him. Let him tell the country, because the country wants to know whether the law will be administered as it is being administered to-day, or whether he is going to weaken it. It is of no use to tell us about the resolution passed at the Bloemfontein congress. That was a piece of artful dodging.

Order.

I will say window dressing, which means nothing at all. When the right hon. member for Standerton toured my constituency, he brought with him a number of people from Natal and other places, and before a single determination had been made under the Wages Act, Gen. Smuts, speaking in my constituency, said, “Look what is happening in the Free State; the men’s wages have gone up all over the place owing to the Pact Government,” and he pointed out certain towns where, he said, determinations had been made. It was not true. Now I ask the right hon. member why he did that? Is that the way for a leader of the people to act—go into the country districts, where the people are honest, and blackguard the Labour member who represents them by saying that that member and his friends have brought about determinations under the Wage Act which have put up wages, when all the time there was not a word of truth in it? I challenge the leader of the Opposition to say why he went to my constituency and preached what was incorrect. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) also preached the same doctrine. If they did not know it was true, they were fools. They were either deliberately misleading my constituents or they were ignorant of the facts. What happened was that the right hon. member for Standerton passed a Conciliation Act, under which certain determinations were made, and these were the determinations he was referring to. His statement so disturbed the editor of his own paper that the editor sent him a telegram telling him that he was hunting the wrong hare. I want to ask the members of the South African party if they get into power—

You say so.

No matter what I say, that has nothing to do with the point, but, if certain stupid things go on, they certainly will get back into power. What I want to know is this: if they are returned to power, are they going to administer the Conciliation Act as it is being administered to-day? The wage earners want to know, and they also want to know whether, if the South African party get back, they are going to allow pass-carrying natives to be outside that Act? Let the South African party state plainly and clearly whether they are in favour of that Act or not. Now I want to go a little further. All over the country speakers of the South African party have been criticizing and condemning the Government’s white labour policy. I want to ask the members of the South African party whether, in the event of their being returned to power, they are going to dismiss these men from the railway service or not?

You are missing the point.

Oh, no, I am not missing the point. I want to know where I stand, and I am asking this perfectly plain question. If the ex-Prime Minister is returned to power will he dismiss those men from the railways? I have often asked that question, but I get no reply. When he was in power last time, as I have previously pointed out, he took jolly good care that white men were not employed and that natives were employed. This point has been bandied about so many times that I determined to get to the bottom of it. I have got the official figures.

Oh.

I don’t know what the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), is sneering at. People outside Parliament never heard about the hon. member for Paarl, but thousands of people want to hear these figures.

Read them right.

That was a most unjust insinuation. I ask that the hon. member withdraw that.

The hon. member must withdraw the insinuation.

withdrew.

I shall now give the figures. I may not be popular in this House, but there is no man in this House who dares say that I would deliberately do anything which is wrong. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), was in charge of the railways he employed 4,164 European labourers in 1921; 3,707 in 1922, and 3,223 in 1923. In 1924 it went up to 8,676. We will start now with 1925—the Pact Government. In 1925, the European labourers employed numbered 12,137; in 1926, 14,383; in 1927, 15,037; and in 1928, 15,877. Now these 15,877 people are mostly Dutch-speaking men, and I want to ask the Dutch-speaking men here who have been talking so much about their pride of race whether they are going to turn these men adrift. If not, then they should stop attacking the Government for employing them. They may say that they will employ them, but they won’t give them 10s. a day. Will they give them 10s. a day? No reply, and there is not likely to be one. Now with regard to the natives employed,, in 1920 there were, 34,416; in 1921, 28,646; in 1922, 32,383; 1923, 36,944; 1924, 37,186; 1925, 35,838; 1926, 32,017; 1927, 30,181; 1928, 31,238. With regard to the employment of Indians, the last number of Indians employed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was 2,152, and the number of Indians has now dropped to 1,034. The railways have got whiter. White men have been employed. No natives-have been dismissed, but fewer natives have been employed. Now we come to the Minister of Agriculture. The Bloemfontein district, before it was divided a few months ago, was the greatest producer of wool in South Africa. Today it is third-rate, because it has been cut down a good deal. To-day we are practically free from scab, and we are producing sheep equal to anything in South Africa. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), who is an excellent farmer himself, makes the deliberate statement that the South African party laid the foundation of the sheep division. The South African party’s sheep division was a home of “jobs for pals” and every farmer knows it, no matter whom he supports.

The sheep experts were good men.

Excellent men, but it was a home for pals, headed by Gen. Enslin. The hon. member said that scab has increased, and that east coast fever has increased. Now I will give the official figures. When the South African party were in power, the amount of scab in the Free State was represented by the figures 5.3, in the year 1923-’24. To-day it is 1.16. In the Union it was 3.25; to day it is 0.88. It has nearly disappeared in the Free State. It was 1.16; to-day it is 0.07. In Natal it was 2.75; to-day it is 1.07. The Minister has practically freed the country of scab, and he has cleared it of locusts. He has reduced the number of east coast fever cases to 66, for 15 years before he took charge scab was becoming worse; give him another five years and he will clear it out altogether. If you talk to a farmer in the Free State, no matter what his politics may be, he will admit that there is a wonderfully good, energetic man as Minister of Agriculture. Natal has answered the challenge of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who claimed to have had an excellent Minister of Finance in Mr. Burton. Ladysmith answered that challenge by saying “Burton is dead wood,” and they would not have him; they said “Unclean, unclean.” The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who poses as a financial authority, has challenged the figures with regard to the reduction of taxation under the present Government. Here the figures are: 1924 ’25, reduction of £135,000; 1925’26, £660,000; 1926-’27, £220,000; 1927-’28, £215,000.

You are reading those figures blindly.

The hon. member does not know so much about figures as he thinks he does. On a question of figures, I would eat him up before breakfast.

You are quoting the figures like a parrot.

You can juggle with the figures as much as you like—

They are meant for people like you who read them without discrimination.

They are meant for people outside the House

Precisely.

—who will read them carefully. If the hon. member’s party had not a brilliant press which twists figures upside down, there would be no South African party, but people are lied to every morning before breakfast. I wish to come to another point on which I have taken up a definite stand. I have always stood by the natives through thick and thin. I say it coolly and calmly and honestly that since I have sat on the Select Committee on Native Affairs with the Prime Minister, I have definitely and distinctly come to the conclusion that he is doing his best for the native. Against my will I have come to that conclusion. He has a solution of the problem for which South Africa will accept if the Opposition will let South Africa do it.

What is the solution?

The hon. member knows what it is. Why does the South African party make itself out to be more ignorant than it really is? While the Prime Minister was able to say “yes” or “no” in the select committee-—

That does not sound like him.

While the Prime Minister would say, “I don’t want you to do this, because the eyes of the world are on us and we must play the game by the native,” what did the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen Smuts) say? Nothing.

You know that is not right.

Can the right hon. member square Col. Collins and Mr. Moffat on the native question? Can the Prime Minister square Mr. Marwick or Mr. Krige? It is the South African Party who are divided on this question. The Transvaal, Eastern Province and the Western Province are taking up different views. In the Transvaal they are absolutely anti native In the Eastern Province they are worse than the Dutch so far as their feelings against the native are concerned. In the Western Province you have the man who wants to give the native everything. He wants to bring him into the House, and to give him absolute equality of opportunity. It is these warring factions that are upsetting the Prime Minister and are going to make it difficult. Superimposed upon that you have the Natal idea which says “I shall not give one native one single inch of land.” That is the position of the right hon. the member for Standerton. (Gen. Smuts) to-day. He has men sitting behind him who are a warring people. He knows it, and he is afraid to go to the country on this question.

Wait and see.

Did you hear the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth? It was a speech of pure, blind funk. He shouted to the men on the other side—why? Because he is afraid of this question, because we have to decide whether western civilization is going to hold this country for white people or not, whether we are going to have the system of the West Indies or the system of South Africa. You have used the native, you have put him on the roll, and he has voted for you, and never known why. The only answer they can give is, let this question develop. They talk about being the friends of the natives. The question is whether you are going to accept the policy of the Prime Minister, which is a clear policy to the native, or whether you are going on drifting until the majority of members of this House represent natives, fifteen men in this House are here because the natives have sent them. I will make it ten. In fifty years it will be twenty, and in 100 years it will be forty. That is what the Prime Minister is out to prevent, and I am going to help him to do it. I am going to deal with the empire, and I am going to deal with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). The hon. member is a man born in South Africa, but he has also got one foot in England. He cannot recognize the difference between what we conceive to be an empire, and what they conceive to be an empire. When he said Gen. Hertzog was ten years too late, what he should have said was that Gen. Botha was ten years too early. If Gen. Botha had not done what he did ten years ago, there would have been a better feeling to-day between English and Dutch-speaking people, His conception of an empire is this. This was put into my hands by people who are great friends of the South African party. They said—

That is not my conception of an empire. That is the British Empire Group, which has given its support to the South African party through thick and through thin, and no member in Natal to-day, no member in Durban, dare say he is against them. The hon. member who is going to stand for Greyville, let him stand up and say the British Empire Group cuts no ice. Does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) want to tell me he is against the British Empire Group?

I have nothing to do with the British Empire Group.

Does the hon. member who is going to stand for Greyville dare to say so? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) mentioned my name in connection with the Dutch Church. I should just like to reply to that immediately, and everyone will agree with me that we are very proud of the Dutch Church and feel very grateful for what it is doing for missions, etc. I should also like to reply that the hon. member probably is not very fond of the Dutch Church and the ministers, and injures their names when it suits him. We know that the hon. member has considerable history behind him. First he tried to represent the Free State, then he stood in the Cape, afterwards he succeeded in getting elected at Port Elizabeth. I can assure the hon. member that even there they do not want him any more, because when I was there recently on a visit I asked one of the leading business men if they wanted him again, and his answer was very decided: “No, no, no.” They do not want him again under any circumstances. Now he hopes to try the Transvaal again. Perhaps some day he will fly to another province, possibly to Uganda. Therefore we feel that when we have to do with the hon. member we cannot attach too much weight to what he says, especially if he says that the S.A. party was, and is engaged on uniting the white races in South Africa. The only truth is that the S.A. party has divided the people, divided it in a terribly sad way. When they say anything it is flagwagging and insulting the Afrikander. Here comes the hon. member and tries to say that the S.A. party is uniting them. He wants to catch the votes of the Dutch-speaking people in Barberton. Everyone who judges impartially must come that he says that with an eye to the election, because he must try and get the vote of the Afrikander at Barberton. Now we have a motion of no-confidence in our Government and our respected leader. It includes confidence in the Opposition and the leader of the Opposition who sits there. I cannot understand how an hon. member like the hon. member for Standerton dares to make such a proposal and ask the country to give him its confidence. What is the present position? Rest and quiet prevail. And what was the position when we came into power? Strikes, confusion and misgovernment unheard of in the history of South Africa, a kind of reign of terror. And yet the hon. member again comes and asks the country to trust him after 14 years of misgovernment, civil commotion and disorder. I hope we shall never forget what took place. Let us for a moment lift the veil. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) announced the terrible inaccuracy that the hon. member for Standerton better than our Prime Minister did. If there was ever a parody of history and of the truth then it is the words of the hon. members for Cape Town (Central). What was the spirit of the voortrekkers, the reason of their trek? It was liberty, unwillingness to bend under injustice and oppression, because they could not endure if they trekked northwards. What is the spirit of the leader of the Opposition in his famous speech at Ermelo? Let me quote from “Die Volkstem.” He said that a British federation of states would come about. Here are his words—

We know that creed: “we have always yet faced our beacons northwards.” How is it to be done? I can only remove the beacons of my opponent or fellow citizen if I buy his farm or become possessed of it in another way. I want to remind hon. members opposite of the words of the late Gen. de Wet: “Cursed be the man who removes his neighbours beacons.” A true and correct bible text. How can the beacons be removed other than by annexation and proclamation? South Africa has suffered enough under that policy of the leader of the Opposition. We feel what it means, we know that the sons of South Africa are sacrificed for it. Does not the hon. member know that South Africa cannot afford to lose one of its European sons to remove beacons? To let South Africa remain a white man’s land we need every white youth, and are they now to be called up to wash out South Africa and form a black Africa?

He never referred to violence.

I would ask the hon. member how beacons can be removed without violence and injustice.

You and I can work together on one farm.

That happened in connection with German South-West.

Why do you not give it back?

The boundaries have now been moved, the injustice has been done. When the proposal was made to President Kruger to remove his boundaries beyond Delagoa Bay, his reply was: “I am not a thief.” The spirit of the voortrekkers was not theft nor annexation. It is in conflict with their history. Hon. members want to remove beacons, the Belgian Congo and all the other states must be included. Will that be got without the shedding of blood? No, we cannot possibly go north. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) spoke of Pres. Kruger. The old Transvaal Republic was never out for annexation, but the leader of the Opposition has from early days cherished the idea. It was his policy as long ago as 1907. What happened? Gen. Botha, Gen. Smuts and the great gun of the S.A.P. Mr. Jooste went to the editor of “Die Volkstem” one day. A large map was hanging in the office. The hon. member drew a line up in Uganda, and said that if they won the election they would extend to the north, all that area would be federated. It is therefore an old idea of the leader of the Opposition. What did Gen. Botha reply? He remained silent. Thus the hallucination of the brain existed in 1907. To-day he is announcing it again. I now come to the great and vital question to the South African people, our relations towards the natives. What does the Hilton-Young report say—

Now the leader of the Opposition wants us to join up with the states in the north, with states where firstly and solely the natives must be thought of, where the natives are 100 to 1. My old S.A.P. friends are trying to forget the past, to wash out the noble deeds of the past; the spirit of the leader of the Opposition differs as the poles from that of Pres. Kruger. The hon. member for Standerton introduced hatred and envy into the country which has suffered in consequence. The voortrekkers’ slogan was: “No equality.” Now hon. members opposite want universal equality, the slogan of Cecil Rhodes. We have alwaps opposed equality, and so did the old S.A.P. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) told us that the Minister of Justice came with the English flag to Pretoria. What are the facts? As a young advocate in Cape Town he subsequently went to the Transvaal. But how did the leader of the Opposition go there? We know that he came as a young advocate from the Cape as a British subject. He was not long there—only a year— before he became State Attorney. Without a moment’s hesitation he foreswore England and became a burger of the Republic. I know that for three years he did his duty, as I also did, but the love for the old history soon returned, the history which in his young days he learned from Rhodes, and the poison that he there imbibed are once more appearing now. That is the position, and that is why he tried to bury the soul of the Afrikander people since he turned his back on them. Read his “Eeuw van Onrecht,” and you will see how shamelessly he has altered. The hon. member speaks of the changes in the Prime Minister, but we feel that it is he who has constantly changed. When we remember the Smuts Act in the Transvaal under which the Dutch language was not required to pass a standard, he forgot the words of Pres. Steyn: “The language of the conqueror in the mouth of the conquered is the language of slaves,” Honouring the truth has been spoken of, but we know what the position is in this respect. They have also mentioned the honouring of principles. Has the hon. member for Standerton never yet departed from his principles? If we go into his history we find change after change, and a policy of opportunism. Think, on the other hand, of the Prime Minister as a Free Stater in the days of the republic, and after the annexation, and as an Afrikander after the establishing of Union— with his love for language and history, and with his fidelity to himself and to his nation. Alas, if only we could also say this of the leader of the Opposition. He had the chance of becoming the favourite of his people, but 80 per cent, of the Afrikaans-speaking people know that he has become an apostate. Justly? Certainly. He is the cause that the Afrikander people are divided into two camps. When the Prime Minister respected the principle of “South Africa first,” he was dismissed with a cynical smile. His followers were disparaged as a little handful of Doppers and Hollanders, but to-day we see what the position is. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has also spoken of what sorrow would have been spared if the Prime Minister had at that time—1914—adopted a different attitude. What sorrow and misery would not have been spared if the hon. member for Standerton had shown statesmanship and political wisdom? Then there would not have been a blood bar in the country. I challenge the hon. member to quote me any instance from world history where the conquered people 12 years after being conquered put on the uniform of, and fought for, the conqueror. But yet it expected that the Afrikanders should do it for an enemy who burnt our country black and devastated it. In 1902 we were in that struggle; in 1914 we were commandeered. Will Belgium, 12 years after the world war, put on the German uniform? Yet the Afrikander is expected to adopt the conqueror’s uniform and to make was on the Germans who had done us nothing but good. Is that an example of political wisdom? Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) speaks about the voortrekkers. He is entitled to speak of them, seeing that he was an accomplice to the shooting of one of the noblest of their sons, a grandson of a voortrekker. The heart of the Afrikander people is sore, for his name will long have been forgotten when the misdeed will still stand.

You will never permit them to forget.

I shall never forget, nor will the people.

And this is a minister of religion speaking.

The hon. member speaks about ministers when it suits his book, but we know his attitude towards the Church and ministers. We know his history in this respect, and he ought to be ashamed of saying anything about them. 80 per cent, of the Afrikander people revolt at the mention of the hon. member’s name. Dr. Leyds’ book has been mentioned, but more than small extracts should be quoted from it. If the book is studied, other things will be found in it. In connection with the action of the hon. member for Standerton in 1914 I want to point out that the proclamation of Generals Beyers and De Wet is regarded by the greatest authority on international law, Prof. Rutgers van Vollenhove, as the only basis of all international law. I especially also want the words of the proclamation—

We found during the 14 years the S.A.P. were at the helm what it meant to be pursued, persecuted, and driven asunder, and the members of the Opposition are shameless enough to say that the leader of the Opposition has united the races; he divided them. The history of those years is a tragedy to us, and posterity will still settle with the leader of the Opposition. Then an attempt is made to make capital out of the co-operation between us and the Labour party, and the Pact is described as an unholy alliance. Let me quote what a Christian statesman, Dr. Kuyper, says about political co-operation—

That is what the Nationalist party has upheld in its co-operation with the Labour party, because we still stand by the principles we started with, and will continue to do so. We are two separate parties with our own programmes and principles. What was the slogan of the South African National party under the late Gen. Botha’s leadership. In his election manifesto of 1910 Gen. Botha said—

The name of the South African party in those days was the South African National Party. Who were the leaders of the Labour party in those days? Col. Creswell for Jeppe, Mr. Matthews for Georgetown, Mr. Wybergh for Langlaagte, Mr. Andrews for Fordsburg, Mr. Sampson for Commissioner Street. Who were the Unionists against whom Gen. Botha’s followers had to vote? They were Mr. Patrick Duncan for Fordsburg, Sir Drummond Chaplin for Germiston, Sir Abe Bailey for Krugersdorp, Sir Lionel Phillips for Yeoville. Now some of Gen. Botha’s followers are sitting beside some of those Unionists in the same party. To-day the Labour party are the same, the Unionists are still Unionists, but where are our old S.A.P. friends? They have been swallowed by the Unionists. I hope that Jonah’s experience will be theirs, but they have been swallowed up for years, and are still happy in the belly of the whale. I want to appeal to them to come out, and not to work with the men who have always thrust South Africa into misery. The words may alter, and they may disguise them, but the voice is the voice of Jacob, and I warn my hon. friends to leave the Unionists. They must come back to the old paths, but I appreciate that it is in vain to make an appeal to the hon. members for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. Pretorius), or the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. Grobler), who are entirely lost themselves, and will disappear in the future, but I appeal to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). The Labour party which is co-operating with us are in many cases just as good, or better representatives of the English-speaking people than the Unionists, and many of them have shown their love for their old fatherland. What did the late Gen. Botha say about the Unionists shortly before his death? “God forbid that the Unionists should ever govern South Africa.” It has happened, however, and the old S.A. party has vanished from the scene. It is not only an unholy alliance, but it is unnatural, and means a murder of the Afrikander spirit. The history of the Unionists proves that in their hands the future of South Africa will be a dark one just as in the past. Now I want to add a few words about the relations of Natal to the South African party. The “Natal Mercury” states that Mr. Burton had the knack of doing the right thing in the wrong way, and that that is the noticeable thing in his career. His way of keeping people at a distance was one of the factors of the South African party defeat. He was, indeed, not such a convinced protagonist of protection as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), yet he had no enthusiasm for South African industries. Further, the paper welcomes the fact that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is not standing again. In that way another of the “old gang” disappears. In connection with the native policy of the Opposition, I want to say a few words. Gen. Botha said in 1917—

From this we see what the South African party at the time was, but what is it now? How infinitely far have the Unionists led them? In the South African party programme settled at the Bloemfontein congress it is said that the party stands for the maintenance of the constitution, that is for the provision which gives the franchise to the natives. They want to see no alteration in it. What is that but dragging the native question into party politics? And yet the hon. member for Standerton has the shamelessness to try and persuade the country that it is the Prime Minister who has dragged the matter into party politics. That party wants to talk about the matter, and go on talking, to then merely leave it at that, allow things to develop until they get an opportunity of proclaiming martial law. The native question is a great national problem and ought not to be dragged into party politics, but that that is now occurring is due entirely to the leader of the Opposition. As for the South African party, I just want to quote what “Gallio” wrote about it in the “Cape Times.” Under the heading “The Senile South African Party,” he says—

I want to refer the hon. member to Rule 62 of our rules of procedure in connection with the reading of comment on debates in the House. Or is the hon. member not reading remarks in connection with debates? I may tell the hon. member that he must not repeat in this House discourteous things said outside.

I want to say a few more things in connection with unemployment. I fully admit that it is one of the most difficult problems we have: “The poor you have always with you.” But everybody who is not wilfully blind and wilfully deaf admits that the Government has done much to solve the question, as some of our South African party friends do. The railway have employed 18,000 to 20,000; road construction, another 5,000 to 8,000; the settlements just 1,000. In Pretoria where I have to deal with the question personally every day the difficulty is with those who are over 50, and under 65 years. There are two solutions, namely, to make the old age pension apply at 60 years, or to see that the people who can work to their 60th year are given work. What I feel should already be in operation is the labour colony. There are 5 per cent, among the unemployed who will not work, they must go to the labour colony. Another difficulty is that of the diggings. The diggers of Byenespoort telegraph: “Our condition demands an immediate solution.” Regarding the diggers there, plans must be made, and a way out will certainly be found. One warning word I must, however, say—let us bring no one to the towns unless we have work for them, otherwise the slogan of the Nationalist party remains: “Back to the land and a white South Africa.” The Government has certainly done much. Here are the figures. During 1928 work was given in Cape Town (through the Labour Bureau) to 3,800 men (white and coloured). Between July and December, 1928, work was found for 1,633 Europeans and 678 coloureds. A total of 2,311 for the six months. During last month the figures were 329 whites, and 169 coloureds; total 498.

On a former occasion I felt it my duty to draw attention to a favourite practice of speakers on the Government side—who, whenever they desired to evade a point, raised side issues of all sorts. Another practice is now creeping in. As one who desires to help Mr. Speaker to raise and maintain the decorum of debate, I desire to call attention to the habit of some hon. members on the Government side making definite statements affecting the political honour of their opponents, and when challenged refusing to give the data. We had an instance of that this afternoon, when the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) made a very definite statement regarding myself. With the necessary circumlocution imposed by parliamentary etiquette, I will only say that the hon. member is endowed with a brilliant imagination which is sometimes an inadequate substitute for the truth. Perhaps it would not be out of place to come down from the high levels and deal with everyday matters. I would like to refer to the extraordinary attitude of the Treasury in withholding—I believe against the wishes of the Minister of the Interior—the usual grant to the Child Life Protection Society. It is not as if the Minister of Finance could plead that the Treasury is depleted. The result will be that a great many children will not be able to be sent by a magistrate’s order to institutions and homes. This is a regrettable instance of the callousness of the Government towards an unprotected portion of the community. We have heard a great deal about our overflowing Treasury, but the Minister of Finance, who extracts more money from the people than is absolutely necessary to carry on the Government, is doing the country great harm. Saving is the first essential of civilization. If the Minister extracts money that should be employed in the development of the country, he is doing South Africa a very bad service. The Minister of Finance has extracted £4,000,000 unnecessarily from the pockets of the people; in other words, their savings have been depleted to that extent. If people have no savings they will not be able to make provision for their future. A workman who can save a shilling a week, and when he has sixteen shillings, buys a Union Loan Certificate, will in twenty-one years have a capital sum of £100. If he saves 10s. a week he will have a capital sum of £1,000 in twenty-one years. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is absent, because I wish to say something about markets. We are going to develop the production of deciduous and citrus fruits to such an extent that the time is fast approaching when we shall be hard put to it to find adequate markets. The mistakes the Government has made is in failing to realize that good markets depend on goodwill. What has this Government done? Nothing except in the opposite direction. We know they have raised very serious doubts of our friendship towards our best customer, Great Britain, by their action over the German treaty. That is a very serious matter for us. Let me illustrate it by an incident outside South Africa altogether. The coal owners of Newcastle, in England, were experiencing a very bad time. That was to some extent brought about by the action of the Spanish Government in discriminating against British coal. The coal owners said: “Very well, if our production of coal is reduced, there will be less wages to distribute and fewer oranges will be bought from Spain.” They pointed out that £6,000,000 worth of oranges were being imported every year, and it was obvious that if the working people had not the money to buy this fruit, and the ships had no return cargoes, it would be a very serious matter for both countries. These representations carried considerable weight, and the position was relieved. We have done very little to develop good relations either with our neighbours to the north, or our customers overseas, and that is very much to be regretted. There is another matter in which the record of the Government is not one to be proud of, and it is a question which is bound to be of great importance during the coming election. I mean women’s suffrage. Practically all parties are now committed to the principle. I see some members over there are smiling, but they will not smile when they go to their constituencies. Let us go into the record of the actions of the Government. It may be interesting to note that up to 1924 the Labour party was the only political section that had definitely, up to that time, put women’s suffrage on their programme. They made it one of their principal planks. We had the Minister of Labour most emphatic on the point. I think he will remember telling the women of his constituency that it would not do to tell them one thing before the election and then do something quite different afterwards. We are very sorry for him, but I think he will be more sorry for himself presently. I have been entrusted on several occasions with this measure, and I do not think any member has ever said or can say that I tried to make a party matter of it. As a matter of fact, I have never devoted five minutes’ consideration as to which party would be benefitted or which would be prejudiced by the adoption of the measure. I do not know to this day. I was concerned with the passage of the Bill and not with that. Those interested in the matter endeavoured to put it on broad national lines, rather than on party lines. With that view we had a little House committee to deal with the matter, on which all four parties were represented. We met and discussed the matter from time to time, and we were in full agreement upon the Bill to be brought in. We knew there was some very strenuous opposition to it, and we endeavoured to meet that opposition. One point that was raised was the impracticability of putting the women on the register in time for the next general election, and I was assured of Nationalist support of the operation if the Bill was postponed to 1930. I had the definite promise of the whip of the Labour party, who was a member of the committee, that the whole eighteen members of the party would be present on the critical day and would vote for the measure. When the day came, we found no fewer than seven of the Labour stalwarts were absent unpaired. Six voted with the Government against the measure and five were faithful to their pledges. The result was the measure was defeated, but if Labour had kept its promise, that division would have been carried by a majority of ten. We had the interesting admission from the Minister of the Interior that, although he had never voted for women’s suffrage and had never spoken for or against it, he was in favour of it, and under certain circumstances he would vote for it, not with one hand, but with both. He discussed it as a half-baked measure, but when he had done a bit of cooking, it was found that the women of this country had been done brown by the action of the Nationalists in collaboration with the Labour party. It was freely stated that the action of the Labour party, or the majority of them, was brought about by a threat of dissolution on more than one occasion. I am glad to see the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) shakes his head, so I presume he means that is unfounded. At all events, the hon. member told the women of his constituency that Labour had entered into the Pact and they had to pay the price. I am not one of those members who make statements affecting members’ political consistency without being able to prove what I say. We had the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister soothing certain members of the Labour party and of his own party by promising to bring in a Bill in 1930 under certain circumstances, but he made it a condition that it would be a personal Bill, and it would be accompanied by the provision that it would give the vote to coloured women. What chance whatever has a Bill of that sort of going through the House? There are many of his supporters, including the whole of the Labour party, who are opposed to the extension of the vote in any shape or form to coloured persons—men or women. I except the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), but I believe we shall have to deplore their absence when Parliament reassembles, so there is no prospect whatever of the Prime Minister’s Bill going through the House and being passed. We have a strong supporter of the Government, the president of a women’s branch of the Nationalist party, saying she is prepared to wait fifteen years rather than share the vote with coloured women. We have another strong woman supporter of the Nationalist party saying she was at first disgusted with the tactics of the Government, but she became satisfied, after hearing the Prime Minister’s speech, that they would get the vote in 1930. I wonder what she now thinks of the chances of the early enfranchisement of women should the Nationalist Government remain in power. Obviously it is very difficult to see how such a Bill without the support of his party is likely to go through this House. That will have to be explained, and undoubtedly will be criticized to a considerable extent when they face the electorate. The Pact reminds me of a not infrequent sight in my own country, Ireland. There you often see two goats tied together and not attached to anything else. When an American visitor asked why they were tied together and not to a stake, he was told that they couldn’t move, since if one goat wanted to go one way, the other wanted to go the other way, and no progress was possible. It is much the same with the Pact. This motion will shortly be put to the test of a division, but whatever numbers Mr. Speaker announces, when this motion is put to the House, that is not the final word. We know that in nearly half-a-million thoughtful voters’ homes the matters of this debate will be considered, as well as other matters that bring home the actions of the Government as they affect the individual. I do not think the electors will be anxious to renew their confidence in a Government that has shown itself so little worthy of confidence and so little inclined to keep its election and other promises, and discard even the planks of their own platform. There is another matter, to which I refer with the utmost reluctance, and I regret I have to do so. I can give the assurance that there is the greatest possible indignation in the country over this appointment of Maritz as a welfare officer in Namaqualand. Some of my constituents were sold into captivity by this newly-appointed public servant. I have received a letter, written by the near relative of one who was killed as the direct consequence of Maritz’s treachery. The letter states—

We have it that in addition to selling our men and to stealing our Union money, he was credited by the Germans in April, 1915, with the sum of £11,804 19s. 5d. The Germans, in admiration of the high courage shown by our lads, buried our men before their own. What a contrast between the behaviour of an honourable enemy and the conduct of the traitor. The letter goes on to say—

In view of these facts, which are officially recorded, is it any wonder that when Maritz was sent up as a welfare officer there a telegram was sent to the representatives of the Board of Control that on no account was he to be allowed inside their fenced area? I think that appointment is a very grave reflection on the action of the Government, and shows a callous indifference to the feelings of the people who have given of their best to South Africa, and who are mourning those who were sacrificed for their country. All these things will be talked of by the electorate. Then there is the multiplication of jobs in the public service, which has been inflated to such an extent. It is rife with discontent. Is it any wonder that it should be; or that those who are reaching the age limit are longing to retire, more especially the old public servants of the Cape Province, who brought to that service some of its finest traditions of public duty, which, they tell me, have gone by the board? We have the independent character of these public servants constantly undermined, and we have had it from more Ministers than one that if any head of a department or any other official does not see eye to eye with the Minister, he must go. Surely it is one of the greatest duties of a public servant to point out to his chief what his views are. It is his duty to carry out the orders of his chief when he gets them, but it is no less his duty to give his experienced opinion of matters as they arise. Is it any wonder that it is said they do not want a civil service, but a snivel service? That is what is said. But I do not want to go into all these matters. We have seen from time to time in the past that the attention of the Ministry has been diverted from the real interests of the country, and from the things which really affect the economic progress of South Africa. First we had secession. Then the Prime Minister discovered that he had already got all he wanted. Then we had the flag question, now we have these treaties, and now he is trying to sow dissension between black and white. I am sure that all these matters will be considered by the electorate, and it will be their duty to give expression to what they think of them. We may leave it to the judgment of the electors, but whatever the decision may be in this House, it will not be the final one.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat must have been wrongly informed. What I have said on many occasions in my constituency, and I say it again here, is that the Labour party in 1924 entered into an honourable agreement to support the National party during the life of the present Parliament, and I, for one, have—and intend to—honourably carry that agreement out.

What about the flag?

Every self-respecting member of the Labour group will do likewise. I should now like to congratulate the member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) upon his speech this afternoon, for he gave us an example as to the manner in which we should take part in this vote of no confidence. He believes, as I believe, that the dispute in the Labour party is a domestic quarrel, and should be kept there. It has nothing whatever to do with either speaking in support of or against the motion tabled by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). What is this motion? What is it moved for? Hon. members on that side know perfectly well that the Government has the confidence of the House, and they know perfectly well that it also has the confidence of the country. In my opinion, much valuable time has been wasted. Instead of discussing the things that really matter, this motion has been brought forward purely for propaganda purposes, and as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said, if it were not for the brilliant press supporting the South African party, there would be no South African party at all. This debate has fallen as flat as the pan at Verneuk—and as fertile! In the press of this country it is contended that every member of the Opposition makes a thought-compelling contribution to the debate, while every member on the Government side is either a clown or a buffoon. Do our countrymen believe that all the statesmanship and all the intelligence is confined to that side of the House? It is remarkable to think of the progress made by the Government in spite of the tremendous disadvantage the members are under through a press that persistently misrepresents them.

Order.

Mr. Speaker will call me to order when necessary, and when he does so I will obey him, but I will not obey you. Referring to one member of the Opposition the local press tell us: “He passed the Government’s policy through the sieve of his amazing penetrating mind. He made a telling and spirited speech, full of criticism and in admirable temper.”

The hon. member must not read what appears in the press regarding debates in the House.

I think, sir, the rules of this House preclude the reading of the report of a speech in the press, but it surely does not include newspaper comment.

read Standing Order No. 62.

I have great difficulty in refraining. The newspapers published in the English language are entirely under the control of hon. members sitting opposite, and, because of this fact, the proceedings of Parliament are not properly reflected in the press of this country.

They published Creswell’s letter.

Yes, and told their readers the other day that the National party exhibited nothing but rudeness, ignorance and intolerance. Is there no ignorance and intolerance shown on the other side of the House? An English statesman once said that he never allowed himself to get cross with his political opponents, but he was always glad to see them in a position in which he could be sorry for them. One must be sorry for the South African party at the moment. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has recently been stumping Natal. Like the fat boy in Pickwick, he endeavoured to make the Natalians’ flesh creep by high-sounding talk about the German trade treaty and other matters. He gave this House a re-hash of his Natal speeches the other night. The hon. member is similar to Mr. Gregory in “Nicholas Nickleby”—having sent his speech to the press he felt bound to deliver it. He visited my own constituency last month, but the rules of the meeting place where he was asked to speak prevented the hon. gentleman from completing all he intended to say. Nevertheless a full report of a great speech appeared in the port newspaper.

Not true.

The hon. member says it is not true. I was not present, but I have had confirmation from several persons who were present.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has denied this statement, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) must, according to the rules of the House, accept that denial.

I take it that the hon. member does accept the denial.

I can quite understand the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) getting excited; he is now looking all over Natal for a seat, and so is the hon. member in front of him. The jingo of Natal is being rejected by the very people he is supposed to represent. The hon. member will get the biggest surprise he has ever had in his life when he attempts to unseat the Minister of Labour at Greyville. The leader of the Opposition has stated that the South African party is a happy party. He cannot possibly be referring to the state of affairs in Natal. The member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has only just been able to retain his position against a bitter attack by another member of his own party. There was a rumour that the member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) was coming down to Weenen, and Mr. Bawden, M.P.C., at a meeting there, said “If Mr. Nel from Newcastle wishes to try to represent us in Weenen, it is time we sat up and took notice.” I would have difficulty in confining myself to reasonable language were I to say all I know regarding the present struggle for parliamentary favour in the Eastern Province.

Why do not you tell hon. members all you know about the flag?

I am afraid my hon. friend will find that that old stunt will not carry much weight in Natal nowadays. The people are quite satisfied with the flag compromise. I am glad to see the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) in his place. He may be a very good lawyer, and he is certainly a very fine speaker. I enjoy listening to the many speeches he makes, but I have never known a lawyer so much at sea—I won’t call him a sea lawyer—as the hon. member was when referring to the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Board Act. He mixed up the two pieces of legislation in such a manner that, like Tommy Dodds, “he donna where he are.” In asserting that tens of thousands of people have been thrown out of employment in this country through the Wage Act, he made a very foolish statement. He knows perfectly well that the facts do not bear that out. The members of the Opposition take so little interest in the provisions of our industrial legislation that they know nothing whatever about it. They are convicted out of their own mouths. The Minister of Labour has explained to the House how the Wage Act has benefited the workers of this country, and although we must give all praise to the South African party for bringing in and passing the Conciliation Act of 1924, it ought to be stated in this House that the credit for the actual framing of that Act belongs to the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. During the session of 1923 I was on the select committee appointed to consider and report on the Industrial Conciliation Act, along with the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He and I occupied the whole of the parliamentary Easter recess of that year in revising and almost entirely altering the Bill, and when the select committee re-assembled —and the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) will admit this—the member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) placed before the select committee a draft of the Industrial Conciliation Bill as it was ultimately enacted. The then Minister of Mines and Industries (Mr. F. S. Malan) had the utmost difficulty in getting many of the members of his own party to agree to it. Largely due to the provisions of the Wage Board Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act is a success. Fear on the part of certain employers that a wage determination will be made under the Wage Board Act brings them to a state of reasonableness, and they agree to the formation of an industrial board under the Conciliation Act. Is it the desire of the South African party to repeal the Wage Board Act? The successful working of the Wage Board Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act is, however, largely due to proper administration by the Labour Department. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said there were certain things that the South African party wish to forget.

Racialism.

I have not the slightest doubt about it. The Unionist element would like to forget that they were responsible for the importation of 50,000 Chinamen to take the bread out of the mouths and the work out of the hands of the Rand miners in pre-Union days.

When did Queen Anne die?

They also deported a number of men without any trial. They would no doubt like to forget that, and also—

The flag.

—what took place on the Rand in 1922, but the people will never forget it. I well remember the endeavours made by the Labour party to get the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to introduce a short Bill to compel arbitration between the mining houses and the miners’ union, so that a settlement would be arranged by the methods of reason, and how he told us that he wished the situation to develop. What did it develop into? What was originally an ordinary industrial dispute was, by the inaction of the then Prime Minister and his Unionist friends, allowed to develop into practically a revolution. The terrible result was announced by Col. Mentz in this House. On the side of the Government there were killed or died of wounds 76 persons, wounded 237; on the side of the strikers killed or died of wounds 140, wounded 287.

Who was responsible for that?

How many police and miners were murdered before a shot was fired?

Every person who was a member of Parliament at that time has to accept a portion of the responsibility. During the disturbances 31 natives were killed and 67 wounded, the total casualties being 828. I know the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) does not like this, but as we take our medicine from you, you have to take it from us. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) says “there are certain things we want to forget.” We know they would like to forget, but the country is not going to let them forget, because by your deeds we shall know you. There were 651 citizens sent to jail for various terms of imprisonment, largely, of course, belonging to the Labour party. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) was dragged away to Marshall Square simply because he was prominently associated with the Labour movement. Do you think we can forget the like of that? 11 men were sentenced to death and four of them were executed—all to settle a small industrial dispute. What a contrast we have when comparison is made with the strike at the City Deep mine in the early months of last year! A disagreement took place there and what resulted? The Minister of Labour hurried to the Rand and he got together the directors and managers of the mine and conferred with them and with the trade union representatives of the miners. The triumph of conciliation is best given in the South African party press (I quote from the Argus), which said at that time—

We do admire the patience of the Minister. One conference would have been quite sufficient to settle the industrial dispute in the early months of 1922. The Minister of Labour had ten conferences with these people separately, and at the eleventh conference both parties to the dispute were brought together, and the outcome was the return of the men to work.

Were there no conferences in 1922?

The paper goes on—

We remember how a small industrial dispute that started on the coal mines at Witbank in January, 1922, spread along the reef to the gold mines and we all know what the result was. That is one of the things we and the country can never forget.

Have you nothing to forget in regard to 1922. What of your friends there?

I also know what the hon. member did during that time—he put on the uniform of a captain. How he was entitled to it I do not know. It is quite possible he earned it—

Will you allow me to say that it is absolutely and totally incorrect; now go on.

Probably it is as well for an hon. member to say what he knows, and not what he has heard. I have, however, been told on very good authority that the hon. member—

In view of the denial, the hon. member should not continue to harp on the matter.

I have every respect for the hon. member, and I withdraw. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) in his address at last year’s meeting of the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa said—

That brings me to say that there has not been a strike in South Africa worth speaking about since the Pact Government came into office, and if for no other reason than that, the workers in South Africa will return their confidence in the present Government. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) endeavoured to ridicule the Old Age Pensions Grant, but I know many old men and women in the sunset of then-lives who are thankful to the Pact Government for the small measure of relief given them. January 25th was indeed Good Friday so far as they were concerned. I readily admit that the sum the present Act provides is insufficient, and that the age qualification ought to be reduced. When a motion for old age pensions was introduced by the hon. member for Wonder boom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar), some years ago, a millionaire hon. member on the other side said, “Where is the money to come from?” Yes, but the Pact Government found the money! The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) should keep quiet. I listened with patience to all he had to say the other day. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) went to one of the Government officers. The official asked him to take a chair, and the hon. member then said: “Do you know who I am, I am the new member for Langlaagte”, upon which the official replied, “Well, then, take two chairs.”

It is absolutely untrue, and I call upon the hon. member to withdraw it.

I am quite prepared to withdraw it.

I take it that the hon. member does not persist in what he said. It is not a question of order.

Now, a great deal of criticism has been levelled at the civilized labour policy of the Pact Government. I think it was Lord Byron who said “A man has to serve his time to every trade except that of censure. Critics are ready-made.” We have a considerable amount of ready-made critics on the other side, and much of their criticism has been unjustly directed against the employment of labourers on the railway. They want to know how much it costs. What does it matter what the cost is if we get a reasonable return in services from the men employed. Members on the other side will be asking the Minister to tabulate the wages paid to Englishmen, Dutchmen, Scotchmen, Welshmen and Irishmen. Whatever the cost, I know there are hundreds: yes, thousands of parents who bless the day when the Pact Government introduced its civilized labour policy. In my own constituency there are young men who have gone to work on the railways who were formerly standing at the street corners—at the most dangerous period if their lives. They have accepted the position of labourers, and have proved not only a credit to themselves, but to the country. I have one case in particular in mind of a young man who was in a lawyer’s office, getting a good wage as a clerk. However, he saw no prospect of making progress, and, to use his own language, he “chucked up his job”, and went on the railway. He started as a carriage window cleaner. What was it Gilbert said—something like this: “He polished up the knocker so merrily that now he is a ruler of the Queen’s navy”, This young man polished up the windows, and was promoted to be a number-taker. He discharged the duties of this post so satisfactorily that he is now in the station office at Pietermaritzburg, likely to become a station foreman, likely to become a stationmaster. [Time limit.]

The speeches, at any rate the majority of those delivered, were intended to create the impression that the Government had introduced a motion of no-confidence in the Opposition, because more attacks are here being made on the policy of the previous Government than on that of the present Government. I think that anyone who has sat here must admit the fact that the Opposition wanted to try to show the country what the Government had done wrong, but that the nett result is that the Government party has clearly shown to the country what gross mistakes the previous Government made, and the country may expect if they come into office again. I think that what is said in this House will have an effectual influence in the country, and that the people will remember what the position was in the past, what has been effected by this Government, and what may be expected from the Opposition if it comes back into power. What is so strange is, that when hon. members opposite are asked when they say certain things, whether they speak for their party or for themselves, they answer that they speak for themselves. They then become confused, and say that they do not speak for the party, or try to evade the question. This happened time after time. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) announces, as in previous years, his attitude against protection, and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) behind him immediately rises and contradicts him. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) spoke, and when the Prime Minister asked him whether he was speaking for his party, lie said he was only speaking for himself.

I was mentioning this afternoon how the motion had now become a motion of no-confidence by this side in the Opposition. And when we see the empty benches of the Opposition we see how little interest they take in their own motion. When the Prime Minister answered the speech of the hon. member for Standerton, I noticed that only fifteen out of fifty-three members were listening. Another time in the middle of the debate there were only four members opposite. This shows how little interest there is, how they are already driven asunder, and how they regret introducing the motion. I have never yet—and I have heard a few motions of no-confidence here in the past—heard of a motion being conducted with so little enthusiasm as this one. The only one with any enthusiasm left is the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden), who, of course, sat on two chairs. Only on this side is there much life, otherwise this debate would be one of the most futile which we have ever had. It is, therefore, no wonder that even the Opposition press writes such things about them these last days. The hon. member for South Peninsula, when he was driven in the corner, had to admit that he spoke for himself. Now I just want to quote what “The Cape” says about him. It now and then gives a little truth about the Opposition, but otherwise one can find no more keen supporter of the South African party than that paper. It says—

If their own papers say so plainly what they think of the Opposition, what then must the man on the countryside think of it? This debate is possibly noteworthy for what it does not contain. The hon. member for South Peninsula spoke about the trade representative in North America, and I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) on the subject. It has already been mentioned how the South African party in their borrowed programme of 1924 also intended to propose the appointment of a trade representative in North America. The hon. member for Caledon, in America, attended a dinner in his honour given by Mr. Louw, our trade representative, and he said, according to Reuter’s report (so it must be true)—

He made the promise, and in his speech he had the opportunity of keeping it and defending Mr. Louw, but he did not say a word about it. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) attacked the Government in connection with the branch lines that did not pay, and instanced the Calitzdorp-Ladismith line. Let me put the hon. member at rest, because there is no such line. We all know the incident of Jonah and the whale; we now learn from the Opposition that Jonah swallowed the whale, that the South African party have swallowed the Unionists. They saw that the Unionist party disappeared at the coalition. The hon. member has quoted what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said: “God save South Africa if a man like Mr. Jagger comes into power.” Then we had to listen to the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius), who said; “Yes, the principles.” He, therefore, admits that the principles of the Unionists have triumphed, that God must then save South Africa if a man like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) should enter the Government. I want to refer to what the Unionists said at that time when the parties joined up, to see whether they are prepared, and intend to sacrifice their principles. What did Fitzpatrick say—

And here is a statement by Capt. Leslie Blackwell, now member for Bezuidenhout. He said—

I should also like to quote a question put and answered in the “Cape Times.” The question was to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central): “Why had the Unionists gone over to Gen. Smuts, were they sacrificing their principles?” and the answer was: “No, we are not.” The hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) have repeatedly said that they will not sacrifice their indebtedness to their principles. At that time they went into the whale, but not their principles. The late Gen. Botha said in 1917 at Rustenburg that, if the Unionists and South African party amalgamated, the former would use the latter as a dish-cloth to do all their dirty work. Now the hon. member for Witwatersberg says that their principles were not taken over from the Unionist party. On every possible occasion they make their principles prevail and use the South African party as a dish-cloth. Let me give a few examples of the swallowing of Unionist principles by the members of the old South African party. There is the great question of State-aided immigration. We all know that the hon. member for Standerton years ago expressed himself most strongly against it, and rejected the Unionist doctrine. Last year he said in the House, however, that his policy was to spend £1,000,000 annually on State immigration. I challenge anyone opposite to say that State-aided immigration was a principle of the old South African party of Gen. Botha. It is now said with regard to the civilized labour, that the policy of the late Mr. Sauer was what the South African party supported, but at the same time there are members on the Opposition benches who attack the policy most strongly.

Do you think it is a good thing to take people away from the farms and pay them 5s. a day in the towns?

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak. Then there is the question of segregation. In 1920 the hon. member for Standerton said in the House—

In 1924, however, he said—

Take further the question of our status. In 1919 the hon. member for Standerton, after his return from Europe, said that South Africa had an independent status with the full rights of making war and peace, or of remaining neutral. To-day he is under the Unionist lash, and says that we do not have that right of neutrality. Then there is the native question, and, in connection with it, I just want to quote a few historical facts which have not yet been mentioned in the House. In 1926 the Prime Minister submitted certain Bills to the House, and thereafter the hon. member for Standerton published a memorandum expressing his condemnation in general. Now I want to read what an independent man like Prof. Edgar Brookes said about the memorandum—

I am accustomed sometimes to attend the discussions in the South African party congress at Bloemfontein, and I have already heard painful things there. At the Bloemfontein South African party congress, shortly after the publication of the above-mentioned memorandum, the hon. member for Standerton tried to induce the members of congress to approve of the memorandum, as against the suggestions of the Prime Minister. He urged strongly that they should support him. Before the congress the Prime Minister, however, had held a meeting of farmers and business men interested in the subject in Pretoria, and Mr. von Maltitz, who attended the conference, protested at the South African party congress against his leader’s attitude, and said that through it he wanted to make a party political matter of the native question. Mr. von Maltitz said that the Prime Minister had expressed his readiness to receive suggestions, and to adopt good ones, and he accordingly suitably rapped the South African party leader over the knuckles for introducing the matter at the party congress. Fortunately, the Free State Saps, were sensible enough to accept his advice, and not to proceed with the subject. This part of previous history is a very clear proof that the hon. member for Standerton tried to introduce this matter in his party, and to have it dealt with as a party matter. What else could have been his intention in trying to have his memorandum approved by the Free State South African party congress? From the debate it was very plain that the Free State South African party considered it an attempt to drag party politics into the native question, and I know that South African party supporters in my constituency expressed themselves strongly for the Prime Minister’s policy, and asked that the matter should be kept out of party politics. I think everyone in the House and the country will see that the hon. member for Standerton made a fatal mistake when he selected the Department of Finance as the chief point in his attack, and when he announced that he preferred Mr. Burton as Minister of Finance. Just as he called out: “Oh, for a Jagger,” although before the election he said good-bye to him as a Minister, he now wants Mr. Burton as Minister of Finance once more. It will, however, surprise the House to hear what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) thinks of Mr. Burton, and thus I want to quote a letter from the hon. member—

The hon. member for Illovo further writes that a prominent supporter of the South African party said—

A prominent man connected with sheep farming also said to the writer—

Now I ask, if South African party members on the back benches think that of Mr. Burton, what value can be attached to the panegyric of the leader of the Opposition? Does it mean that he will reappoint Mr. Burton as Minister of Finance if he can find a seat for him somewhere in the country? I want to mention the question of civilized labour on our railways in greater detail. We do not yet know where the South African party stands on that matter. Are they in favour of it or not? Some say yes, and others no, and there are some who say that the additional expense attached to the policy should be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Will they admit that it will be cheaper to use native waiters in the dining saloons?

It is done in Central Africa.

It will be cheaper, and do hon. members opposite want the difference in cost in this case to come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund? I could ask the same question in the case of foremen and gangers. Hon. members opposite forget, in debating railway matters, that the State performs valuable services for the railways. In the first place there is the concession to have a railway, the Railway Administration gets its stores free of customs duty, and loans are raised by the State gratis. If we want to be consistent, we must bear all these things in mind, and only come to where we started from. In the end there is no difference. I hope that what happened this afternoon when the hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Mr. Barlow) asked the hon. member for Standerton what his intentions were in connection with the civilized labour policy—then the leader of the Opposition refused to answer —will filter through the country, so that the people will know that nobody knows where the South African party stand in the matter. I may quote the following official figures. In 1922 the white railway men amounted to 38,409, and two years later in 1924 it was 39,892. On the other hand the native workmen increased from 37,731 in 1922 to 47,725 in 1924. The increase in the two cases is thus respectively 1,483 and 10,000. What remains now of the denial by hon. members opposite that natives were preferred? That statement will not hold water. I want to add something in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Standerton. He first accused the Government of all sorts of things, and then said it would have been much better to let things develop. There again he used the old, well-known words. We can expect that policy to be followed again if the South African party come into power. This Government has made mistakes. Every Government makes mistakes. But the people will be grateful to this Government for one thing, that for the first time in South African history a serious attempt has been made to tackle urgent and important problems. Think only of the native question, and the Asiatic question, think of the financial difficulties that were tackled, and of all the other things, and for the first time this Government has given young South Africa, the young educated sons of the soil, a chance. When they had studied overseas and qualified, the Government did not, as in the past, leave them workless, and cause them to exploit their competency elsewhere, in America and Europe, but did everything, and a great deal, to use the young men when they returned to South Africa from abroad in the interests of South Africa. And every time the Government did this, personal attacks were made on the young South Africans. I only mentioned the case of the Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, a clever young South African. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) attacked him for writing a certain play five or six years before. Have we ever heard of such a thing before? The country will always be grateful to the Government that our young and efficient Afrikanders have got a chance of working on behalf of the country.

I very well understand that this motion of no-confidence is not very welcome to hon. members opposite.

But it looks as if it were still more unwelcome to your own side.

Yes, the hon. member feels it very much. I do not blame him because he has to defend the Government, because we are on the eve of the election. But I should like to say a few words about the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) this afternoon. It was an eloquent speech, as if he were in the pulpit, and not speaking in this House, but he said some things which are absolutely untrue. When he accuses the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) of having said that possibly in the distant future he saw the possibility of an extension to the north, the hon. member comes here and pretends that the hon. member had said that he wanted to make the whole country a black man’s land. I want to ask him what President Kruger thought about it, for he is married to a granddaughter of the President. President Kruger was very honest on this point, and said that he would never permit equality. Hon. members are possibly not aware that President Kruger sent a deputation to the north, to Rhodesia, to get certain concessions to enable people to go there from the Transvaal. Did he then also want to make a black man’s country of the Transvaal?

But he did not want to move the boundaries.

I do not know if hon. members know that the man he sent was a consul of the republic, but that he was too late, and other people had preceded him. That man’s name was Piet Grobler. He did not succeed, otherwise Rhodesia would to-day have been a part of the Transvaal. Was it intended then to extend the Transvaal or to make a black man’s country of it?

But did it mean the native franchise?

What was the hon. member, who pointed out here to-day that the South African party regime was a time of blood and unrest, doing at that time? I ask him whether at that time he was not the Achitophel who advised the people? I will warn the hon. member that he must not talk too much about it, because I also was there, and if one lives in a glass house as he does one must not throw stones. My hon. friend was much too venemous in his speech, and mentioned things here which we are trying to forget. But he rakes it all up again. I want, however, to ask him if he too is not one of the persons who is jointly responsible for what happened there? I now want to say a few words in connection with the motion. I must say that the South African party is justified on various grounds in proposing the motion. In the first place many promises were made which I do not want to go in to further.

Hear, hear.

Yes, the House knows how much they have fulfilled, and other members have already dealt with it. I want, however, to start with the Prime Minister. I hope that he will not wait so very long before he goes to the country, and asks them to put him back into office. I want, however, to warn him to be prepared that so far as I can see he no longer possesses the confidence that he had. I know him well, and have co-operated with him a great deal. I have the greatest respect for him, and I hope that my words will not insult him or make him angry, because I will speak the truth. I can overlook all his faults, but he made one great mistake for which I cannot forgive him. According to newspaper reports he recently said in Pretoria (West) that he would prefer to work with bolshevists and socialists rather than with the South African party. Who then are the members who sit with me on this side? Do we not talk his language, and are we not of his blood? That is the man who says that he would rather work with communists than with us. I can assure him that those words have wounded me to the quick. They made the impression on me as if his case was like that of the man catching at a straw when drowning. That is the man who is prepared to tell the country that we are trying to make a black man’s land of South Africa. I shall not say much more about it, but when we read the manifesto we might think that it was actually true. I ask the Prime Minister how he dares make such a charge in the presence of the hon. member for Standerton, who has done more for his country than any other member in the House. There was a time when the country was in ashes. What did the hon. member for Standerton do? He raised the people but of the ashes.

When?

Yes, he is the man who, with Generals de Wet, Delarey and Botha, raised the people after the war of independence. If the hon. member reads Dr. Engelenburg’s book he will find what Generals Botha and Smuts did to help our people on to their legs again. It is shameful that such charges should be made against the hon. member for Standerton. I am one of the members who, together with him, sacrificed everything for the country, and then we are accused of wanting to make a black man’s land of South Africa. I cannot understand how anyone can say such a thing, and I must say that my trust in the Minister has been shocked. If he thinks he will gain anything by it he is wrong, and they are accusations which will stick to a man. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) laughs, but with his great frame he cannot do as much as the hon. member for Standerton with his little finger. I may not now discuss the Bills, but does the hon. member actually believe that those Bills which were drafted and dealt with by the commission will ever be passed? As stated, I am much shocked at the Prime Minister, but whatever he and his party have done I ask them to go honestly to the people and not to mislead them. I now come to the Minister of the Interior, and want to tell him that my trust in him has also been shocked, and I shall say why. When the Minister of the Interior was a minister of religion he left the pulpit, and said that he resigned because he was going to heal the people of South Africa. I then said: “Thank God there are still men to be found who are prepared to do such a thing, as to bring the people together, because that is what we need.” His reverence went—

The hon. member must not speak of a member as His Reverence.

I am sorry, but I meant no harm. What did he do thereafter. He left the pulpit and used many absurd words, so that I said: “This is the man who is going to bring the people together!” He became editor of a newspaper, “Die Burger,” and two years later there was a chasm between the people which was unbridgable. Therefore, I say that I am shocked at the Minister of the Interior who even to-day is one of the bitterest attackers of this side. Then I want to say a few words about the Minister of Agriculture. I know him very well, he is one of the boasters who always wants to talk alone. He has just told us what a good Minister of Agriculture he is. He said that he was the man who would uplift every farmer.

Where did you hear that story.

His first words in the House were that he sympathized much with the farmers, and that he would do everything for them. But what has he actually done? I have repeatedly brought it to his notice, but every time he gets angry. In our district many mealies are produced. We incurred great expense, and brought hundreds of tons of fertilizer to make the ground suitable. I have several times asked the Minister to reduce the fertilizer tax. Some things have been done, but nothing has been done for the maize farmers.

Was not the fertilizer rate reduced in our first year of office?

I know that, but what has the Minister of Agriculture done for us? He cannot get past that. He has not done the slightest thing for us. Even on the railways the farmers are not met very much. When the fertilizer arrives at the station the account has to be paid, and if not paid within a certain time they sell the goods. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to see what the present position is. Last year was a good one, with large harvests, and the people could pay, but this year harvests are much poorer, the farmers will find it difficult to pay, and I ask the Minister what he will do if they ask for an extension. If things go as in the past there will be more bankruptcies than ever before. The Minister of Agriculture must not in his answer evade the question, but let him say what they have done to assist farmers. The Minister always wants to talk alone, and everyone has to say amen to it. He has done much in one respect. He gave his greatest attention to dismissing South African party officials, like scab inspectors, and appointing his own people in their places. If that goes on I prophesy an unfortunate time for the country. I have heard of sheep inspectors being appointed and sitting in their offices, but who know nothing about the whole business. I do not think that hon. members opposite can ever accuse us of such a thing. Now I want to add a few words to the Minister of Lands, because my confidence in him has also been much shocked. I want to warn him to be careful about the settlers, because they are very much dissatisfied. If there are settlers in his constituency they certainly will not vote for him. They have been treated badly. They have dismissed the Saps, and appointed others in their places. Farming is a business on which a person cannot always reckon, you said that you sympathized with the people, and you had your chance. I do not wish to give the Minister of Lands all the blame, but his officials have dismissed people, although they besought him for another chance, and to be allowed to continue another year.

Where is the place, Uncle Henry, there is no such place?

Now I come to the Minister of Labour. How can you govern the country if you have a Minister of that class of people joining in the Government? Instead of caring for the country, they are going to fight, and deal with matters that have nothing to do with the country. But the old Pact must be blotted out. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here, but he is very clever. He knew which side the wind was blowing from, he saw what would happen, and he quickly got out of the way. The Minister no longer has the confidence of Lichtenburg, and he has quickly left it, but where is he going to now? Now he comes to Bethal, but he must know that there is a large body of people at Bethal who call themselves Saps. He recently said of them that they had allied themselves to the devil. How then he can bring himself so far as to go to a South African party place I cannot understand. I have never yet seen a devil, but possibly the Minister has; in any case, it is said to be a very ugly thing. I shall not detain the House, but I want to point out that the Government will not attain its end by the black South Africa argument. Why can we not fight in an honest way? Why should we blacken each other? I can say that the hon. member for Standerton is not inspired in the least with that thing of which the other side accuses him, because I know him well.

We also know him well.

Yes, hon. members must take care, because my leader can show his broad chest throughout the world, whether here or abroad. I am very sorry that a bitter tone has crept into the debate. A debate on a motion of no-confidence must indicate the wrong deeds of the Government, while the Government can point to its good deeds. It is not the object of the Government to attack the Opposition, but they must say what they have done for the good of the country. I want to warn the other side that the people are asking many questions, and then arguments like those used here will not avail.

I get up at once to point out that the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) who attacked Ministers because, according to him they had done something wrong, spoke accurately. He is wrong from an historical point of view, and I want to protest against it before it goes further and they are recorded. The hon. member is leaving the House, and not waiting to hear the truth. He said that the policy of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) can be justified, and other members also stated it by the policy which the late President Kruger had supported, namely that South Africa must first be extended to a great federation to the other side of the Equator, and, in the circumstances, the motion can mean nothing else than a great kaffir state must be formed. The hon. member defended it in such a way as if that policy of the hon. member for Standerton were the same as the policy of President Kruger. I protest against it. What happened —and everyone who studies history impartially will admit it, and there are persons still who personally saw the things happening—that President Kruger saw that the way from the Transvaal to the north must be kept open, and therefore he sent an ambassador, a certain Mr. Piet Grobler, namesake of the present Minister of Lands, to advance the republican cause. What was the object? Not to create a kaffir state, but extension of the interests of the S.A. Republic with the object of keeping the road open, a road of Europeans, not of kaffirs. The only object of President Kruger was to keep a way open through what is now Rhodesia and to include the territory in future in the S.A. Republic as in future Swaziland and Basutoland will also possibly be included.

the hon. member for Bethal said precisely the same thing.

But then he differs entirely from his leader. The policy of President Kruger was certainly not to get a great South Africa to the other side of the Equator. Perhaps the day is not so far off, and I fear the day will come when great hordes of barbarians, or kaffirs in an undeveloped state, under the guidance of civilized leaders will come to the south, and try to destroy our civilization and posterity. There is the possibility, President Kruger’s policy was therefore to keep a way open to the north, not of black men, but of white men, for the maintenance of white civilization. I think it is our duty to clearly lay down the historical position, namely that there is not the least agreement between the policy of President Kruger, and that of the hon. member for Standerton. On the contrary they are diametrically opposed, because the President aimed at a white state, while the policy of the hon. member for Standerton will have no other result than a large state with a native preponderance, under which the white men will have to serve. Now I want to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). He advocated protection for the wheat farmers, and we appreciate it. I myself have already given notice of a motion which will benefit the wheat farmers, because it aims at measures to break combines. The hon. member failed, however, to set out the position. He ought to know that the protection granted by the present Government is appreciably larger than the protection under the South African party Government. In 1924 the customs’ duty on wheat was 2s. per 200 lbs., while to-day it is 3s. 2d. per 200 lbs. that is an increase of almost 75 per cent. Now I should like to ask whether the hon. member is against the increased protection, and if he favours it whether he wants Mr. Burton back, to again import flour to the detriment of the wheat farmers. We know the results of the Burton transaction because it made things, impossible for the wheat farmers. The good prices collapsed and the result was that the country lost 800,000 golden sovereigns. In conclusion I want to say that this debate is of very little use to the country. Without this motion we could from the start have gone on with the work for which the people sent us here, but instead of that we are engaged in abusing each other. I believe that if hon. members opposite still have any respect for Parliamentary institutions and democracy their leader would never have introduced the motion, and I think they still ought to withdraw it so that we can get on with the work of the country.

There is an aspect of the state of affairs in the Union to which I wish to draw attention, and for which I blame this Government very largely, and that is the matter of immigration into and emigration from the Union. The state of affairs in this regard is one of the strongest reasons why this Government has forfeited the confidence of the country and why I fully support the motion under discussion. The other day I asked the Minister of the Interior to supply me with certain figures relating to migration into this country from Europe for the years 1925-6 and 7. Those figures showed a total of 11,491 males, and when you come to analyse those figures we find that agriculture absorbs 922, whereas trade and commerce absorbs 1,309, of the males from the northern and western Europe, and of those from southern and eastern Europe, only 137 were absorbed by agriculture and 876 by trade and commerce. Of these 49 and 632 respectively were from Lithuania. In this connection I should like to read what was said by Mr. H. Mosenthal at a recent meeting of the South African section of the London Chamber of Commerce which was held on the 7th January. Mr. Mosenthal, after having visited this country and after having gone fully into the conditions prevailing here, said—

I quote his statement in support of my contention that the Government has forfeited the confidence of the people of this country in regard to its immigration policy, and that it is becoming impossible for the sons of men who have settled in this country to carry on their work.

What about commercial immorality?

I am merely quoting the statement made by Mr. Mosenthal, who went on to say that he firmly believed that there was a great future for South Africa provided that there was the right type of immigrant. I am one of those who hold that we should face the position in South Africa, in regard to immigration. The Government should have done everything possible to encourage producers into this country, but the result of their policy has been to flood it with the type of immigrant who has gone into trade and commerce. The other day I asked the Minister to supply me with certain information, and these figures which he gave me will pay any hon. member opposite to analyse. The people you get into this country should be of the best type possible, and, above all, they should be those who will engage in producing, whether from the land or from industry. I hold strongly that this country is overtraded, and that leads to a great deal of unnecessary and unwholesome competition, which, in turn, leads to commercial immorality. A while ago I was speaking to a man holding an important office in connection with emigration from Europe as regards sending suitable men to the Union. The gentleman to whom I have just referred told me that when he advises men to come here from the British Isles very many remarked to him and others: “Why should we go to the country where we are not welcome?” The other day the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) told this House that these men were always welcome. I say that the Government has a very foolish and queer way of showing these men that they are welcome. It is no use voting small sums of money annually for the purposes of land settlement of South Africans and men from overseas, sums which are so small that they are often expended within two months of their being voted. When the South African party was in power its programme of immigration was such that these men were at least welcome. In that regard I can only quote the fact that the South African party had a Settlers’ Adviser both in London and in Cape Town, but how long after this Government came into power were these two offices kept open? Within a few months both were closed. Why? The only reason I can see was that it was done to discourage those who wished to come here, make their homes here, and become an asset to the country.

They have all the Government institutions at their beck and call.

I don’t blame the Agricultural Department or the officials, but blame the policy of the Government in discouraging immigration of the right kind. I am sorry to hear the bitterly personal speeches which have been made from the Government benches in this House during this debate, speeches which could not fail to leave feelings of deep sorrow. We are not here to abuse each other as persons; we are here to criticise or defend those who have not done their duty in carrying on the Government of the country. On the other hand we have also heard some very good and weighty speeches, especially from this side of the House. Yesterday we had a speech from a man who has served this country well, yet this man is lumped together with communists and the like. But let me proceed. The most urgent, insistent and crying need of this country for the solution of most of its troubles is a larger white population, yet we find the Government attempting to maintain the white position by legislation and artificial means instead of encouraging immigration and settlement of desirable men and women in the Union. We have heard from the hon. members opposite dreadful and almost childish travesties of a statement made by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I hold that the Union should take and hold the lead in a congeries of states in Africa acknowledging the British connection. I want co-operation between the states of South Africa, all of which owe allegiance to the British Commonwealth. I desire South Africa to show the way, and to take its proper place in the councils of the states of Africa. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) when speaking on this subject reminded me of a child who shouts and whistles when going through a dark wood to frighten away bogies and spooks, but I believe the Government benches have already discovered that the distorted interpretation they have put on the right hon. member’s speech is a ridiculous one and reacting on themselves. It is perfectly true that the right hon. member said that he looked forward to a day when there would be a federation of states working in close co-operation to solve our common problems, instead of trying to antagonize each other after the manner of the manifesto issued by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. If we could invent a word to take the place of the word “British” which would be acceptable to some hon. members on the opposite benches, I believe half our troubles would be gone. Call it “Irish”, “Scotch” or whatever you like, it would mean the same thing, owing a common allegiance and all able to call themselves Britons—a commonwealth of kindred nations. With reference to land settlement, I want to make it quite clear that I do not blame the Land Department for what has occurred or not been done, but I do say that not nearly enough has been done to make use of our land, and to induce a suitable population to make their home thereon. There are some very significant figures in the report of the Department of Census, and when you find that in four years and six months there has beeen a net gain of Europeans by immigration of only 6,754 or say 1,500 per annum, what is the good of our talking of making this a white man’s country unless something definite and big is done to increase the white population? Why show fear of the native, as the benches opposite appear to do, instead of determining to maintain and strengthen the white man’s position without doing injustices to the natives? Like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) I want to know what would have happened to them if our ancestors had been afraid of the native. They treated him on the whole with justice, but they were not afraid of him. We are the native’s guide, we should be his friend. Despite the bogey which has been raised the Government are doing Very little to encourage a balance of population which might be produced. The natural increase of Europeans of this country is too small and too slow to adjust the balance, and we should embark upon a bold policy which would introduce large numbers of men of the right type as fast as they can be absorbed.

Who are the right type?

I prefer the Nordic type.

Men with money?

That is the sort of tub-thumping oratory that we hear outside this House. I have never used the word “money.” If a man is a decent man, with only half a crown, but a man of character, he is the sort of man I want, but preferably a man of the type which can assimilate most easily with the people of the country. I resent the imputation that we want men with money only. I met the other day an ex-official of high and important standing, who said that even after his service to this country he could not see any fair prospects for himself or his children here, and that he was going overseas to a strange land to him—New Zealand. That man had had most unjust treatment and was virtually driven away. Why should we do these things, and lose men of that sort? I should like to see every civil servant on retirement remaining in this country, and making a home in it for his children. We find, however, that the British born immigrants in 1924 numbered 3,724, and the emigrants were 5,275. In 1925 the immigrants were 3,400 and the emigrants 4,019; in 1926 there were 4,094 immigrants and 3,512 emigrants; in 1927, 3,681 immigrants, and 3,717 emigrants, and during six months of 1928 there were 1,628 immigrants and 2,039 emigrants. It is a very unwholesome sign that people who have served this country in various capacities, whether they were born here or not, should be looking elsewhere to make themselves a home. I want to see them make this country their home, I do not want to see them prefer to go to New Zealand, or Kenya, or Rhodesia or anywhere else. This loss of desirable Europeans is one of the most sinister and disquieting things that has happened under the rule of this Government. The publication of industrial and other reports, mostly to show what fine fellows the Ministers are, is not going to help if the spirit behind is one of unwelcome to new arrivals.

The figures show a worse state of affairs before we came into power.

You are wrong.

There is a slight total again, but that has been achieved mostly through the activity of the 1820 Settlers Memorial Association. From 1921 to 1924 the association had far more applications than it has to-day. The actions of the Government show that they do not welcome people such as I would like to see settled here. The numbers of men introduced by the association in 1925 was 368; in 1926 it was 332; in 1927 it was 310, showing a steady drop. The total number of persons who came out to South Africa under the auspices of the Settlers Association from 1921 to 1928 was 3,352, of whom 773—539 being men, and the remainder women and children— left the country for various reasons. We have sent out a certain number as unsuitable. When I speak of undesirable immigrants I am in no way a racialist, for when we find an Englishman, a Scotchman, a Welshman or an Irishman to be a rotter or an undesirable, out he goes, and we help him to leave. I would like the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), who knows the conditions, not to sit back and smile, and merely say, but to show in practice, that he and his party will welcome suitable immigrants.

Do you want me to scowl?

No, I want you to act. Don’t frighten people with bogeys of black domination and this nonsense about wanting to make a black country of South Africa. Unless we discuss our difficulties, however, we cannot find a solution. We have to solve our troubles in consultation with our neighbours. Instead of trying to maintain the position of the white man by legislation and artificially bolstering him up, let us make it possible for white men to make a home here, and let us induce the right kind of people to come to South Africa. Do not tinker with the question, but raise a lump sum for settlement purposes. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet wishes to settle only South Africans on the land.

Yes.

The difference between us then, is that I want to settle all suitable South Africans first on the land, but to supplement them by settlement of large numbers of suitable men and women from overseas. The hon. member knows the difficulties of farming and that every man who has been on the land and who has left it is not necessarily a suitable person to put back on to the land. There are thousands of men on the land who are not suited to farming; they do not like the life and cannot stand the life. Far better employ them as artisans, mechanics, or in clerical and other occupations. While you are fiddling, however, Rome is burning. While you are trying to find a rapid and final solution of a vast question which cannot be solved in a year or two, the position will become worse. You cannot force a solution of the question of the relations of white and black people in this country, but you can guide people and make it possible—to use a metaphor of a harbour—for every kind of craft to ridge together at anchor peacefully within the shelter of its well-constructed works. I say that if a man is truly civilized, no limits should be placed to the extent of his economical and political development.

Colour?

I do not want to go into things of that kind. Not one of us on this side of the House wish to deprive any man of his just and established rights, no matter what his colour may be. Do not let us be blinded by narrow prejudice, or bitter memories of the past. Let us deal with principles. I am not talking of black or coloured men as immigrants to the Union, but of fair-skinned Europeans, who should be introduced into South Africa in their thousands, if they will come. But people of the type of the hon. member are keeping them away. I think I have dealt sufficiently with that question. There is one that I had intended to ignore, but now I intend to deal with very shortly because of the bitterness displayed in speeches from that side. I want to ask members over there whether they have read an article on the constitutional question in a paper published at Potchefstroom, “Die Weste.” I consider it should have called for the strongest reprobation from the leaders of the Nationalist party, and especially from the Prime Minister. It has done an immense amount of injury to good feeling in this country, and I have seen no denunciation of it. That is the gravamen of most of our charges against this Government, that it is dividing the country instead of promoting a spirit of co-operation.

What did you say about Conan Doyle?

I have not said anything about Conan Doyle. I do not know the man. I am not talking about Conan Doyle or his views. My hon. friend over there is seeing “spooks” all day long and all night long.

You have a spook in your hand.

I have something in my hand which I think too disgusting to read out. I ask you, sir, whether members over there have the right to take advantage of our chivalry. We can read this disgusting stuff if we want to. I can read stuff which would make every decent man on those benches squirm in shame. But that is no argument. But I do say a front bench member, a Transvaaler, should have got up and said the article was disgusting and repudiated it. That would have been a decent action. I have been waiting for months, but there is still no repudiation. Another point I asked the Minister of Labour, to give me some results of his attempt at land settlement by his “pagter” scheme. It is not only his attempt but it is the Government’s. All I can say is it is a dismal failure, and he had best leave it alone. Don’t try to force men back on the land who are not fit. Land settlement is a thing which takes the greatest skill and knowledge to handle properly. In Australia it is dealt with on the right lines by a land settlement and development commission. When this party comes into power—

What a hope.

It won’t be very long hence. I hope when that time comes a committee will be appointed or a body brought into being, to deal comprehensively, sanely, without political influence, and with some sense of security with the all important question of land settlement, land development and irrigation settlements. These things ought to be out, side party politics altogether. The Government of the time, doing what it considered best for the country, initiated these existing irrigation schemes, pressed on by the land owners themselves. The fact that they have not been a success has nothing to do with the case. Hon. members know what happened at Sundays River, along the Fish River and at Graaff-Reinet— a delightful state of things But before large and expensive new schemes are undertaken or promised, should not the schemes on the Fish River and Sundays River be tackled first? The statement that the money from state diamonds will be devoted to the irrigation of farms on the Vaal and Orange Rivers has caused a lot of dissatisfaction. That was a vote-catching thing to say. The first duty of the Government before embarking on any new scheme, is to save the men who have put their money, their energy, and I might say their souls, into the working of the Fish River and Sundays River settlements. By all means use money which you may get for the development of this country. It is late in the day for the Government now still to be awaiting the report of the commission on those areas. That commission should have been instructed by the Minister much sooner than it was to go and make a close investigation into the Fish River and Sundays River schemes. It should have been sent to save these people from utter ruin before starting on investigating new schemes. I think the Minister will agree that these particular areas and these particular hardships—these people have been through hell—should have been helped before starting on other schemes or investigating existing small ones which only affect perhaps a few men. When you have hundreds of men waiting for relief, when you have vast areas of land not developed properly, these matters should be attended to first. With regard to the public service in general I say that civil servants cannot do their work to the best of their ability under existing conditions, whether they are Sap or Nat. That is not the point. [Time limit.]

I do not feel myself called upon to answer much, because nothing much has been alleged against my department except bald and sweeping assertions; nevertheless, I intend to give this honourable House a short resume of the mining position to-day. With regard to mining leases, during the time of the Government, we have given the areas of Geduld East, Rand Collieries, Sub-Nigel, Daggafontein, as well as twenty smaller areas, and as the result of the issue of these leases one big mine is now being developed—the Geduld East—two big mines have been re-opened—Rand Collieries and Daggafontein—and the Sub-Nigel and a number of other mines have obtained a new lease of life. The Mining industry has established a record for every year since 1924, and the record for 1928 beats all the previous records. I have no doubt that the current year will be another record. The percentage of accidents has been materially reduced; 40,000 extra labourers have been employed during the last five years. As regards miners’ phthisis, the report of Dr. Irvine, chairman of the miners’ phthisis bureau, is most favourable. The total output of minerals has increased during the last five years by £9,000,000. Our state alluvial diggings have been carried on at an enormous profit—something unprecedented in the history of the country.

Will you give the figures?

I will give the figures when it is more convenient. The Precious Stones Act, which seems to be such an obstacle to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, has established the diamond industry on a sounder footing than it has ever been on. The prices for diamonds have gone up considerably. I give you, as an instance, that the production of Carlis & Donaldson has gone up from 25s. to 32s. per carat. With regard to the Colour Bar Act, I think the observations of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition may be regarded as a joke. He said that we have never had the courage to make that Act operative. Well, everybody knows that the Act was a very short one and was entirely confined to validating his own regulations which the Court had declared ultra vires. It is true that the Act is not operating, but its main object has been attained throughout. The Chamber of Mines has carried out faithfully the promise which was made immediately after the passing of the Act, that they would apply these invalid regulations voluntarily as if they were in force, and in practice that had been applied. The only reason why the Act has not formally been made operative is because we have been consulting various interests which would be affected by the issue of new regulations. We have the main effect which we had in view in passing the Act, and you cannot get behind that simple truth. I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to an article in the South African Mining Journal, giving a review of the mining industry, by an impartial person—a French gentleman of long standing on the Rand—in which he says that the industry has never known such prosperity as it knows to-day, and the relationship between employers and employees has never been so excellent as now. He ascribes this relationship to the Government of the day, and especially to the fact that Labour Ministers are included in the Cabinet. We have a Bill before us of the Victoria Tails Power Company, and I cannot now discuss that vaiprte measure. You will know what it implies—that powers are being asked for because the expectation is that the gold mining industry will expand for at least the next ten years and will require the power which will be the result of the grant of the new powers asked for under the Act. What the Government has done for the benefit of the people at large was to put the capitalists in their place and keep them there. Did the right hon. the leader of the Opposition ever have the courage to do so? No; because he was too dependent on them. We know the days when de Beers Company exercised a baneful influence on politics in the old Cape Colony and South Africa. Those days are past. The Chamber of Mines is to-day confining its attention to their industrial pursuits, and that is also one of the reasons why the industry is flourishing and is on sounder lines than previously. This Government has had the courage to tackle legislation and problems which, in the nature of the case, the right hon. the leader of the Opposition could not do. This much-maligned Precious Stones Act has been approved by every diggers’ meeting held in the Transvaal—substantially approved, generally and in detail—and there were only two criticisms. One was that we provided in the Act for leasing claims—diamondiferous ground—to corporations in certain eventualities, and the second was that we took power to establish state diggings. Well, I was not surprised that the diggers took up that attitude. All they had to pay was the 10 per cent, export duty to which the diamonds were subject. But if we had given Alexanders Bay there would have been misery. Lichtenburg would have been a toy to it, and there would have been bloodshed. It would have been tantamount to the State opening its coffers to a certain section of the people to empty them at will. And that is the sort of thing that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition wanted to hand over to his friends the capitalists, and if not to the capitalists, then to the small man, £30 a month and all found and 40 per cent, of the profits. Is that what he advocated when Mr. Brink approached him to allow the poor whites to become small capitalists at £3,000 per head? Let us assume that we have 50,000 poor whites in the country; I am not too good at figures, but that would represent roughly £150,000,000. What did he do when that was placed before him? He ran away when Mr. Brink approached him. It was he who said at Newlands last year that the Government had made one mistake in proclaiming farms for alluvial diggings. This Government has eliminated one of the chief competitors with the small man. It has been a difficult job, but we have reduced the position to a very favourable one. I say that by taking the measures we did in Namaqualand at Alexander Bay, we prevented bloodshed, and that if we had thrown Namaqualand open to the diggers, you would have had the miseries of Lichtenburg intensified ten and twentyfold, and there would have been bloodshed. It has been said that I was afraid to go to Lichtenburg. As a matter of fact I was at the various diggings two days. I noticed no antipathy. Of course, these people are very easily misled by lies and distortion. I found every civility and was treated in the most friendly way. Another thing this Government has established is that we have allowed no accretions to the existing diggers’ community, which is in all conscience large enough. We are reducing it to reasonable proportions and the step we have taken is justified. One of the prominent men, who was a member of a deputation came to me, has now publicly said that the Government acted rightly. I now come to our industrial development. I see that members on the opposite side are now advocating protection. Their friend, Professor Fremantle—

Also yours!

I notice he is quoted with much satisfaction by the Opposition press and members opposite. He said the revision of our tariff in 1925 was a red letter day in the economic life of this country, and so it was. Now I want to give some figures. In 1923-’24, the total output from our factories amounted to some £79,789,000. In 1926’27, it amounted to £97,879,000. The net value added to materials in the process of manufacture in 1923-’24 was £40,585,000. Whereas in 1926-’27, the value of materials was £47,507,000. In addition to this the number of Europeans employed shows an increase of over 3,000 in October, 1928 contrasted with July, 1925. Then again the number of buildings that have gone up, especially industrial buildings, indicate the remarkable general prosperity that has taken place. There is a general spirit of optimism prevading Johannesburg and the other big cities in the Union, as well as a large portion of the rural districts, and yet you ask what has the Government done. Now I come to the public service, and I want to say what I often said when I was an ordinary humble member of this House. I say it again now, as a Minister, and it is this that the Dutch-speaking Afrikander has not by a long chalk obtained equality with the English-speaking Afrikander in the public service, nor the Afrikaanse taal with the English language. I want to refer to what took place in 1912, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) made an attack upon the civil servants, an attack for which he felt very sorry afterwards. It was indicative of the spirit which then prevailed. Dealing with the appointment of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal— your humble servant—the hon. member opposite said—

The right hon. the leader of the Oposition was very indignant at the time, as he had a perfect right to be, and in reply he said—

I would not have dived into this if it were not for the totally unjustifiable remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti). He instanced the case of Dr. Pirow. The fact of the matter is that I never appointed Dr. Pirow, and he said I had appointed Dr. Pirow as a political pal.

I said the Civil Service Commission appointed him

The hon. member said it was very remarkable that English names are almost practically nowhere, and mostly Dutch names appear.

Quite true.

It is totally untrue. It is devoid of a shred of correctness. I recommended Sir Robert Kotze. I was one of those who urged his appointment, and it was an excellent appointment. Dr. Pirow’s appointment was welcomed with laudatory comments by the mining industry. I had met Dr. Pirow in the most formal way once or twice, before he was appointed. Now I come to English names of officers this Government has appointed:

And the hon. member for Pretoria (East) has the effrontery to say that what he said was true.

Read out the Dutch names.

The Dutch names I have here, and they are paltry in comparison with those I have read, and if there is anything calculated to excite and incite racial feeling it is this sort of terminological inexactitude. The right hon. leader of the Opposition addressed this House. Two-thirds of his speech were a very perfunctory performance, and the gist of his speech was, so far as this side was concerned: “There is none that doeth good; no, not one.” But I would like him to answer this. What was the reason for his much belauded Government being superseded and displaced? He forgot to answer that simple question. We remember the mottoes that we found on so many covers of his Government: “To stand over until after the elections.” No, this Government has been unequalled in its record as regards what it has done for agriculture and farming, for the workers, for industries, in keeping the capitalists in their places, in establishing the iron and steel and diamond-cutting industries, in introducing old age pensions, and in its legislation and administration in general. The issue that is before the country cannot be better described than it was by the leader of the Opposition, who, speaking at Roodepoort in January, 1907, said—

Speaking at Krugersdorp in January, 1907, on the same platform as my hon. friend (Col. Creswell) he said—

That was why I supported him at that time in my own little tin-pot way. On January 31st, 1907, speaking on Von Brandis Square, Johannesburg, the right hon. gentleman said—

In 1910 he and Gen. Botha repeated these identical statements. But where does he stand to-day? We await the verdict of the country with confidence; we shall win the election on our record; that record is open and visible in all directions and will speak for itself.

I have really listened with very great interest to my friend the Minister of Mines, and being one of these capitalists, I suppose, who was put in his place by the Minister and kept there, I just want to tell him this—that so far as he was concerned or his department, there has never been any need for him to put me in my place. It has always been a great pleasure to me to stick to my place and to do my little bit for the country.

Oh you are not the only one.

No, I know that. The Minister is also reputed to be a capitalist. Well, anyhow I have listened to the Minister with the greatest interest, and I have taken in all that he has told the House. He told us that under the National Government everything had been perfect and splendid, there had been a wave of prosperity, while under the South African party Government everything was rotten. The Prime Minister also told us that when the South African party Government handed over the reins of office to his party, the country was in a state of bankruptcy. Well, if I may just examine that statement. I want to remind the House that the South African party was in power during a very difficult period before the war; Union had just come about; then we had the war during which there was tremendous inflation, and then we had the period after the war when there was tremendous expenditure and great deflation, which meant a falling revenue which necessitated reduction in expenditure and increases in taxation being imposed by the Minister of Finance. It was, of course, a very awkward and difficult task for any man, but it was performed with pluck by Mr. Burton, who was then the treasurer. But is it true to say that we handed the country over in a bankrupt state to the Nationalist Government?

The Treasury was bankrupt.

I think I can show that that was not at all the case. It is true that we became unpopular and that the treasurer had to bear the brunt of this unpopularity, because it was his task to increase the burden of taxation. But that was necessitated by the deflation which did follow and had to follow after the tremendous war inflation. Let us look at the position and see what really happened. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Havenga) addressed the House in 1924, when he introduced his first budget, he simply adopted all the proposals prepared by the outgoing South African party Government. Now what did the Minister of Finance actually find —he found that he had by no means been handed over an empty Treasury.

There was nothing in it.

Oh yes. He found in the funds administered by the Custodian of Enemy Property an amount of excess assets over liabilities amounting to £3,400,000, and the Minister of Finance in his budget speech in 1925 was able to state that he had used this sum first of all to write off the accumulated deficit on revenue account, secondly that he had given £700,000 to roads, boring, land settlement and such matters, and in the third place that he had cancelled debt to the extent of the remainder of the amount in the hands of the custodian with the result that he had been able to reduce the annual interest charges by just over £100,000. Surely that didn’t indicate a state of bankruptcy. I may say that he didn’t use that money during the first session, because he was half bound by the implied promise to give the money back to the Germans, but later on he used that money all the same. I have pointed out how these moneys were used. For land settlement, roads, boring and so on, and then there was a sum over large enough to hand over to loan funds, and he cancelled sufficient debt to reduce the charges by £1,000,000 per year. Was that bankruptcy?

What about all your bankrupt funds?

Well, there was nothing bankrupt about that, as my hon. friend will agree. I just want to deal with one branch of activity under the South African party and Nationalist Government. Now the Minister of Mines has just told us with a great flourish of trumpets that during the Pact term of office, mining has been particularly prosperous, whereas under the South African party regime that was not so. Let us examine this statement. We have heard a great deal about Namaqualand, we have heard a great deal about the huge revenue which will result from the State diggings. But very little has been said, and no acknowledgment had been given at all to this revenue of something like two millions per year which results from the leases of the gold mining areas given out under the Botha-Smuts Governments. Let me remind the House that this two millions is an annual income which will go on not just for one or two years, but for very many years, for twenty years or more. So far, more than seven millions have been collected in that manner. And that is apart from the ordinary taxation which these leased mines have to bear. It is a very important point, because I feel that we should all know something about Namaqualand. I do not deny that the Government by having these State diggings will get a substantial amount of revenue from them. But that, after all, is only a flash in the pan. That doesn’t give employment to thousands of men and the money we get is just an amount, a substantial one undoubtedly, from Namaqualand which comes in once and will not last, while the revenue from these gold mining leases may be looked upon for all ordinary purposes as permanent revenue.

It doesn’t go to revenue.

No, it goes to loan funds just like the State diggings money. The Botha-Smuts Government established this leasing system, and they let out the areas on the far East Rand which resulted in a permanent revenue entering the coffers of the State to an amount of two millions per year and more.

That wasn’t done by the South African party Government, it was before their time.

The credit for that is due to the South African party Government, and I think it right that I should here give credit to Sir Robert Kotzé, who was instrumental in bringing this about. But it has been an excellent system, and it was originated under the Botha-Smuts regime. Now I want to deal with another point. We have heard so much about the uses to which this money from Namaqualand will be put. It is going to be put to irrigation, to relief works and so on; in fact, it is going to be put to enterprises which it is apparently held could not be undertaken before. Well, I submit this. No doubt irrigation and relief are very necessary and very good, but if they are good, and if they are necessary, surely our credit is not so bad that it is necessary for us to wait for a windfall in order to undertake things which are essential and good. I wonder what the Nationalist party would have said if, when we got the money from the leases, we had said: “Now that we have had this windfall, we are going to do all sorts of things.” If these undertakings are good and in the interest of the country, they should be done. It is no use confusing the issue and saying: “Well, we have had this windfall, and we are going to waste the money.” We hear that the Government is saying now: “We have had this windfall and, therefore, we are going to give relief and we are going to start irrigation schemes.” The two things have nothing to do with each other. The point is that we are dealing here with the exploitation of a mineral asset belonging to the State, just as the exploitation of the far East Rand leases was an exploitation of State assets. The fact remains that the South African party Government was not justified, and the Nationalist party Government is not justified to say: “Simply because we have this unexpected money we are going to do all sorts of things which we shouldn’t have done otherwise.”

But for these State diggings we shouldn’t have had it.

I shall try and show you later on that the State mining has not been such a success as is claimed for it. Now let me just say this—the development of the far East Rand, the real development of the gold mining industry, which, after all, is of the greatest importance to the industries of the country and to agriculture, that real development took place under the South African party, under the Botha-Smuts regime. If the Minister of Mines takes credit for these areas which have been opened up, Rand Collieries, Daggafontein and Geduld East, let me tell him that the opening up which has taken place is only the consequence of work done under the late Government.

It was done before Union, not the South African party.

It was done under the Botha-Smuts Government. Here is a thing for which the Minister of Mines today takes credit. But we know that the bringing of these areas to a state of production was the work of the South African regime. Geduld East is being opened up, the Rand Collieries and Daggafontein are being developed as the result of the work done on adjoining properties.

I said that we granted new leases.

My reply is that the credit for all this is not due to the Pact Government. Let me tell the House what the real position is. For many years, for two of three years after the Nationalist Government had come into office, not a single tender for these leases was received. Are these areas opened up to the same extent that the properties were opened up during the South African party regime?

That is absolutely incorrect.

I am not imagining this. For a considerable time no tenders were received. I know what I am talking about, and if tenders were received, they were certainly not accepted.

We received tenders almost immediately.

Well, the Government didn’t accept these tenders then because these developments only took place within the last eighteen months. Now what is the development which has taken place? I submit that the development which did take place was the result of areas, the leases in respect of which had been given out by the South African party Government. If the Botha-Smuts Government had not tackled the far East Rand as they did, then this development would not have taken place at all.

Did the South African party Government give out the Government areas leases?

This development was only possible because of the action of the South African party Government.

Your statement is absolutely incorrect.

I differ from the Minister and I know what I am talking about. Now the Minister’s next statement was that the output had increased by nine millions. Let us examine that too. Where does this increase in output result from—from the very mines opened up under the South African party regime. We have the development of the Springs Mines, and so on.

You keep on repeating something incorrect.

Well, the South African party Government were in office fourteen years, and none of these mines produced before we were in office. It was really surprising to hear the Minister of Labour say that a great deal of capital had been attracted to South Africa. That was a statement made also by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Mines. Now let me put this to the House— is it not extraordinary that these financial houses, instead of using their resources and their skill and enterprise in opening up new mines in South Africa have been looking for enterprises outside the Union? Is it not strange that it should be so? And I should like to tell you the reason. It is the very thing that the Minister of Mines prided himself on—this putting the mining houses in their place and keeping them there. The fact that the mining houses have to go to the office, are kept at the doors of the Minister’s office and are kept waiting.

We make no difference between you and the man in the street.

I don’t want any difference. But I say this, that if we want to have mining developments and see South Africa go ahead, there must be the most cordial relations between the Minister of Mines and the people who go in for mining; there must be the same relationship between the Minister of Mines and the people who go in for mining as between the Minister of Agriculture and the farmers. It must be possible for people who go in for mining—because mining, after all, is a hazardous enterprise—to see the Minister easily, to discuss their problems and their grievances and to ventilate their disappointments, even if they get no help; but they must have easy access and the opportunities for discussion.

You should not have any monopoly.

It is not a question of monopoly I do feel that, the business being so hazardous, there should be greater sympathy. Say you have to sink a shaft 4,000 feet deep; you have sunk millions of money in the enterprise; you may meet with great disappointment and it would be a great relief if you could go to the Minister, who should be the father of the mining industry, and say, “these are my problems, can you give me some advice?” But that has not been possible. And that is why I say that because of the absence of that sympathy between the Minister of Mines and the people who are developing this country’s mineral wealth—because of that absence there has not been that development which would otherwise have resulted. It is no use the Minister pointing to the Rand Collieries or the other development which has occurred. We had other and much greater development under the regime of the late Government. It is not correct to say that the reason for the mining houses looking for business outside this country is because there are no more mineral possibilities in the Union. Our possibilities are very great indeed, but I say again that the greatest sympathy between the Minister of Mines and these people who risk their money is essential. Anyone can see, of course, that that sympathy did not exist. I shall give an example to show why that sympathy was not possible with the Minister and why it could not be responded to by the mining industry. You had a statement made here by the Minister this evening, and he also made it when he interrupted the leader of the Opposition when the latter dealt with the question of the colour bar Bill. When the leader of the Opposition stated that the Minister had not really applied the law, the Minister interjected, “it is being applied in the mines in practice”, The Minister said that he had never framed any regulations, because the Chamber of Mines had given him the promise that they would carry it out in practice. Let me remind the House that this promise was given before the Bill was passed. Sir Evelyn Wallers and myself interviewed the Minister and we promised that, whether the Bill was passed or not, the mines would not make a single change in consequence of the Hildick-Smith judgment. But the Minister, insisted on passing the Bill, which, as the leader of the Opposition has already told the House, was a most disastrous measure, and the Minister passed that measure in order to be able to hold a sort of sword of Damocles over the heads of the people connected with the mining industry. It was quite unnecessary for the Minister to do it, and now he comes here and takes credit for the fact that the mining industry have carried this out. He should then have shown that confidence. The Minister laughs—I shall remind him of something else. He was prepared not to go on with the Bill of the mining industry had given him that undertaking in writing.

That is not so.

That is my remembrance of the thing. Unfortunately Sir Evelyn Wallers is not in this country, but I shall get into touch with him.

Your statement is without a shred of foundation.

That is my remembrance, and I am not in the habit of imagining things. Then I pass on to the Mozambique convention. What is the position there? Now the question of the labour supply is of the utmost importance to the mines. The Minister of Railways went to Lisbon, when Mr. Wirth was present, but Mr. Wirth did not act for the Chamber of Mines and he had no authority to speak, and without consulting the Chamber of Mines, the lower labour force was fixed.

Were you not kept informed from time to time as to what was going on?

No. And the Minister bound us to a reduction of labour force without consulting us. He also tied us to a larger deferred payment than we were agreeable to.

Would you rather not have had a convention at all?

That is not the point.

That is the essence of the problem.

I am just confining myself to this question. I set out to prove that there is no sympathy between the Minister of Mines and the mining industry, and I am giving examples of that lack of sympathy. It is easy enough to make charges, but I am proving my charges. I have given you the example that the Minister, without consulting the mines, reduced the labour force for the mines. True, when the conference sat at Pretoria, he did consult us, but by that time the arrangement was within the frame work of Lisbon and there was no chance of altering things. The fact is that this thing will act much more quickly than the five years laid down. Within two years there will be an enormous shrinkage of labour force, and this will have a detrimental effect on the industry and also on agriculture. I have just mentioned this to show that we have not got that sympathy which we are entitled to have.