When this House adjourned last night, I was trying to demonstrate how prospecting and mining development had suffered under the National party government, and to illustrate how necessary it was to try and get a revival in mining for which sympathy and cordiality are essential. I shall now pass on, as my time is limited, and I first of all wish to deal with the remark from the Minister of Defence. In his speech he referred to the visit which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and myself paid to Johannesburg at a certain time in order to prevent any trouble between the men and their employers and anyhow to see that industrial peace in Johannesburg should not be disturbed. The Minister said that he had perhaps gone too far. I do not understand what he meant by that. He also said that he kept the Bill which was to legalize the De Villiers’ award on the Order Paper as a sort of threat. I am quite sure that the Minister would not like this House to think that I went to Johannesburg, either because I was frightened of the Bill or of the strike. I really went because I take the keenest interest in our employees. I started life low down on the ladder, and I lived on very little, and I have the greatest sympathy and I have the greatest understanding of the men who have to earn their daily bread. For that reason I went to Johannesburg, and I want the House to know that I went after having consulted with my leader whether he was agreeable that I should undertake this. That is the only reason why I went. We are always told that we have industrial peace in South Africa because we have a Pact Government. That really is an improper suggestion, because does not it mean that if we in Johannesburg do not vote for the Pact, those leaders who will not be in the Cabinet will stump the reef in order to create trouble. Let me say that we have industrial peace because there is a new spirit abroad in the world and a better understanding between the employed men and the employers.

A lot you know about that.

I suffered so many interruptions last night and I have only a few minutes to continue my remarks that I must ask hon. members to allow me to proceed. I say that we have industrial peace not because of any Pact Government, but because of the better understanding which exists between employers and employees. It is a spirit which will not be destroyed even if the Pact Government is not returned. It is a spirit which will continue and it will be strengthened if the South African party is returned.

Not on your past record.

Anyhow, whether it is one or the other, it is very frivolous to suggest that one of the reasons why this form of government must continue is that we would have industrial trouble in Johannesburg if a change were made. Now I want to say a little about diamonds. I am very grateful indeed to the Minister that he did not satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The less we say about diamonds the better. But I shall say quite a lot, all the same, if hon. members are curious. In the first instance, I shall say this. There are two cardinal principles in the diamond trade—control of output and sale, as far as possible, through the one channel. The Government, by their action, have shown that they understand the needs of the trade and to that extent we owe them our grateful thanks. This policy has not been a new-found policy by the Nationalist Government. It is a policy started by the leadership of De Beers, that company which made such great sacrifices for the diamond trade which, according to the Minister, has such a baneful influence on this country.

I spoke of political influence.

Anyhow, as far as I remember, it was the baneful influence of De Beers. Well, this is the baneful influence which we have, that we have the dynamite works at Somerset West, that they manufacture fertilizers, that De Beers can almost claim to have started the fruit industry of the Western Province. And it is the Minister’s policy of putting and keeping us in our places which prevents us from continuing that policy which has done so much good for this country. The Minister has undoubtedly done his very best to protect this valuable industry, but the credit does not belong to the Government alone. The Minister will remember that he introduced the Precious Stones Bill in the House. It could not be passed because the South African party objected, and rightly so, to the confiscatory clauses in the Bill. At the same time, the South African party made it perfectly clear that they were willing to agree to a short Bill to enable the Minister to deal with the dangerous position which had arisen at that time. The Government declined and in spite of the position which prevailed, they preferred to run the risk of the diamond industry collapsing rather than do the necessary thing and pass a short Bill. I think that the Minister will agree that some credit is due to these capitalists who stepped in and risked many millions of money in order to protect the trade until the Government could bring forward their Bill again. I think these people deserve every credit for their efforts. Now I come to Namaqualand, and let me say at once that the trouble which the Minister is experiencing in Namaqualand is due to his good nature. Members will be surprised to hear it. But the fact is that the trouble is due to the Minister’s decision to use diamond mining as a sort of relief works. It is a fact that diamond mining is one of the things that cannot be used for the purpose of relief works. If relief was necessary in Namaqualand, it should be given out of the profits which these works would give and the works should have been carried on in the ordinary way, but the Minister laid it down that the work was not to be carried on in the ordinary way. The work was not to be done with machinery and it had to be carried on with white unskilled labour. Is it surprising that we have inefficient work and that a great many diamonds have been stolen and that these people employed, instead of being grateful, are most ungrateful and have created all this trouble for the Minister. Diamond mining does not lend itself to relief work and I wish to emphasize that the Government have endangered the diamond trade enormously. If relief is to be given to Namaqualand, let me suggest another way in which it can be done. Some activity has recently taken place with a view to the reopening of the copper mines there. The people interested are intimate friends of mine and given encouragement to re-open the mines—I cannot speak for certainty—but there is a good chance that they will be re-opened and that a permanent industry with employment for large numbers of men at proper wages will be established which will lead to some prosperity for Namaqualand. I say this just to show that I do not speak only to criticize, and if I can be of any use and if my influence can be of any use it will be at the disposal of the Minister. Now in order to brighten up my speech a bit and to show how far interference has gone, would the House be surprised to hear that not long ago the Board of Trade wrote a circular letter to the diamond interests to say that a suggestion had been made, namely, that in order to popularise South African wine, that with every fifty cases of wine sold in Germany a diamond should be given away for nothing, but imagine that a diamond should not cost more than £1 or 10s.; the whole thing is absurd. It is a laughing matter. But that is only one of many. We interested in the diamond trade have continued interference. We are not given an opportunity of discussing cur troubles or problems. The Government do not consult us, they do not consult anyone who knows anything about the trade. We have to go to Pretoria but the Minister does nothing. If we were consulted in regard to all these matters which affect us, the country would go ahead. The South African party Government, at any rate, did consult the producers. The very machinery which this Government found it necessary to embody in the control Act had been used for many years voluntarily by the South African party Government. I think I have shown enough to prove the reason why the mining houses do not take that interest in the mineral development of the country which they should do and which they will do once a change in the administration of the Mines Department justifies it. The fact remains that these houses, which command millions of money and have the very best intellect in their employment and the very best trained men, are now looking to other countries for the investment of their resources. For instance, great interest is taken in northern and southern Rhodesia by the mining houses of the Union. When I visited these countries lately, I found that the Union was not looked upon with favour. There was a feeling of suspicion. Sympathy had been alienated, which is a very bad thing because, after all, if we want to have industries in this country, these far-away fields are the natural markets for our industries. The iron and steel factory which the Government is erecting could possibly find a big market in these northern countries. When I saw this feeling of suspicion, I argued the point and I said, “The Union is most sympathetic and our Prime Minister takes the greatest interest in the adjoining territories-” I quoted the words which fell from the lips of the Prime Minister when he spoke to the Portuguese delegates at a dinner in Pretoria, when he said—

I explained these eloquent remarks which fell from the lips of the Prime Minister and I said “Surely if these are the feelings of the Prime Minister, so far as our Portuguese fellow South Africans are concerned, how much more so must they not be in regard to our fellow South Africans in northern and southern Rhodesia and I quoted the Prime Minister further as saying—

How one can reconcile these words with what the Prime Minister has said in this House is very difficult to conceive. Anyhow, the citizens of Rhodesia would not believe it. They said: “Yes, very well, these are after dinner speeches.” They said “It is not the true policy of the Union, which is completely different.” Now we have seen the Prime Minister’s manifesto which, in its “deadly coldness of deliberation and intent in the phrasing” gives the views of the Government. It says “We do not want to have anything to do with these people.” Can we be surprised that we have forfeited the sympathy and goodwill of these people? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in these northern countries. You have in northern Rhodesia a country with a climate which makes it suitable for European settlement. You have at present roads being built there, bridges being constructed, and the country is being opened up by the money provided by the United Kingdom. The mining development in Broken Hill area and in the copper belt near the Congo is enormous. The condition in northern Rhodesia is really this: that, in five years’ time, the tonnage milled in northern Rhodesia will be almost equal to 25 per cent, and 30 per cent, of the tonnage treated in Johannesburg. One can realize the enormous progress carried on there and how our industries can benefit if we are on friendly terms. But if we follow the policy that we shall have nothing to do with that country, then that trade will not go to South Africa. I do not believe, however, that this country will subscribe to this policy of isolation. Let me just remind this House of the development which took place in South Africa many years ago. Originally, you had only development here in the southern part; then came Kimberley mines, 600 miles away, and then we had Johannesburg 1,000 miles away from Cape Town. Do hon. members realize that the distance from Johannesburg and Pretoria to these very copper fields is less than the distance from Johannesburg to Cape Town? And do hon. members realize that this country, far from being a black country, is really an empty country? The extent of northern Rhodesia is 300,000 square miles, whereas the size of the Union is just short of 500,000 square miles. The Union has 6,000,000 natives and on that basis, if northern Rhodesia was to be described as a black country, even as black as the Union, there should be 3,600,000 natives there, whereas, the total native population of that country is barely 1,000,000. [Time limit.]

It is interesting to hear the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) still eloquent about the development taking place in the northern areas, and the relations to the group of Europeans who are developing the country there, but the great point is the future of those areas. What is the policy laid down and adopted regarding their future?

They will be white countries.

All those countries? We have the Hilton-Young report to the British Government before us, and we know the speeches that were made by that Government which clearly say that, if the interests of Europeans, and natives in those territories conflict, the interests of the natives will take precedence. The ideal of the Union, however, is that South Africa shall be a white country in so far as we can secure and form the future. However, I come back to the argument of the hon. member in connection with the matter, and will later on deal with the manifesto. It is certainly necessary to sympathise with this point, in the great offensive from the opposite side. Undoubtedly the great expectations they had from the attack have already been disappointed, and there is great disappointment among the supporters outside for whose benefit this attack was intended in the first instance. We hear on all hands about the waste of time by the attempt of the Opposition to stir up feeling outside about this debate. In connection with the bye-election in Potchefstroom I see that the defeated candidate himself gives as one of the chief reasons for his defeat the introduction and debate on this motion. That is what is thought outside of this offensive, and it cannot be otherwise. Our friends opposite are in a very difficult position. This Government has for four years borne the burden of office, but the Opposition were here before us, and they cannot escape from having pointed out what they did during their regime, and what the result of their policy was, and the condition of things during their administration. Every time we hear from the other side the complaint that the Government does not defend itself against the attacks made, but points out the position under the previous Government. In the circumstances it cannot be otherwise. The public must always draw a comparison between what was effected by the previous, and by this, Government. Regarding this comparison we certainly need not be afraid, and can undergo it, and anticipate the decision of the people in a short time with confidence. It is peculiar that during the four years of this Government the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) never considered it necessary, or never thought himself able to introduce a motion of this kind. Now that in the ordinary course of events the people will in any case be called upon to pass judgment we get this offensive, and the so-called crime sheet of the Government is exposed to the public. One of the chief points of attack by the hon. member for Standerton as to why the Government no longer possesses the confidence of this House was the so-called political immorality. It was a grievance that, notwithstanding certain developments in connection with the dispute in the ranks of our allies, and a change in the Cabinet, we still remain in office. The Minister of Defence has already replied to that and sufficient instances have been given during the debate of so-called political immorality. Every coalition must necessarily have its weaknesses, but I nevertheless think that we can point back to what the coalition has effected in these four years. Although there are many things in connection with which we do not agree we were yet able by co-operation to tackle and solve many important problems. My hon. friends opposite may possibly not agree with the solution, but the Government in any case shows that they have the courage to tackle the matters, that they have the courage and capacity to drive things through. Compare with that the time of absolute impotence of my hon. friends opposite during their last years of office. They were absolutely unable to do anything worth while. There was internal dissension over a number of important matters of the day. It has also appeared from the debates how internally divided and impotent the S.A.P. was in the past, and if the people and the electors in their wisdom should decide to send the Opposition back again, then I fear we shall again suffer under the same impotence. Let me here mention a few important matters to show that my friends opposite do not agree on almost any great question. Take protection of industries, the question whether we in South Africa are only going, to seek our whole future in the development of agriculture and mines. We hear on all sides how certainly one day the mining industry will come to an end, and the question is whether for our future we are to depend only on the two great industries, or whether we shall also take steps to build up other industries here, not only to create a field of employment for our sons and daughters in the future, but to do this even to-day. During the years before we came into office thousands of boys left school every year, and did not know where they could find a place to make a living. The question is now whether hon. members opposite are in favour of a very strong campaign for that particular policy. That is the question in this debate. Several members on the other side are against our policy, for example, the hon. members for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), and for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who have attacked us about the high cost of living in the country. Even the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) joined in: Saul among the prophets too. The hon. member said that the cost of living is too high and to the detriment of the mines and farmers is increased by our protection policy. He calls this a bad policy. These are the men who want the people to put their trust in them again. What can the people expect if they come into power again, what policy are they going to follow? What will be the conditions in connection with our industrial and social legislation? The legislation of the Minister of Labour is attacked, but, notwithstanding appeals that are made to them, not one of the hon. members on the other side is ready to state in what business or industry the Wage Board should not have taken action. What is the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)? He frightens the farmers on the countryside about the Wage Act, and he declares emphatically that he is going to repeal the law, naturally with an eye on the electors out there. When he comes here, however a change of front takes place, and we hear that he is not so willing any more to go so far. They do not repeal the Act, but condemn the injudicious administration of it by the Minister of Labour. Is however a single industry mentioned where our friends do not want the Act to operate? Think about civilized labour, another matter of importance to the future of the country and of our sons and daughters. Is there agreement on the other side? Oh, yes, lip service. But they always take care that there are a few who strongly attack the policy so that they can say later on that the South African party never agreed with it. I think the country ought to know what their attitude is if they should be again called to assume the responsibility of office. Do they want to substitute natives for whites on the railways? Do not split hairs. Will they, when vacancies occur, fill them up again as before by whites or, in accordance with business principles, according to their interpretation, by the more economic natives? These are vital questions for the country. An hon. member, and a leader of the Opposition, ought to answer them. Take the question whether South Africa is to be a white man’s or a black man’s country. What is the policy of our hon. friend opposite? From one platform one hears that the Prime Minister is attacked because he wants to apply oppressive measures and to take away the native franchise in the Cape, but then again in the north he is attacked because—as they say—he wants to extend the native franchise there.

We do not want it there.

Yet it is said in the Cape that the Prime Minister wants to oppress the natives and to make slaves of them. Equal rights for every civilized man is advocated and it is said that the native franchise in the Cape must not be tinkered with. According to them the natives must be educated just like the white children, and must get all political rights If that is the right policy for the south, why then is it not the right policy for the north? Why is not the matter regarded from the same ethical standpoint for the whole Union? If that is done what becomes of the hypocrisy of my hon. friends opposite who attack the Prime Minister for being too liberal in his policy in the north, seeing he wants to extend the franchise there? We make no secret of our attitude on this question, that we want to keep South Africa a white man’s land. We do not want to do it by a policy of oppression. No, we shall treat natives fairly, but in the first place we say that, it is a matter of self-preservation, and that in any case we want a future for our children. A great fuss has been made about the manifesto which was issued with reference to the Ermelo speech of the hon. member for Standerton. I ask, however, who is there who knows where the leader of the Opposition stands in connection with the matter? In one breath he denies that the report of his speech is correct, and says that the deductions from it are wrong. We are still waiting to know precisely what is wrong in the report, and which deductions are incorrect. If I had to judge from the speeches that hon. members opposite have made in the House then the deductions from the report of the speech are to say the least justified. Hon. members opposite do not find any fault with them. If that is so, are we then not entitled to draw the inferences which we did? Reference has been made to the voortrekkers who went to the north, and how the Afrikanders are still to-day trekking to the northern territories. There is, however, a great difference between the two positions. When the voortrekkers went to the north they did so with the ideal of having a white man’s land. The Afrikanders who are going to Kenya and Tanganyika at any rate know that a definite policy has been laid down that those countries will not be white men’s lands in the future. Now we here are told: “What about Dutch India, where the Hollanders maintain themselves over against the millions of Asiatics? Your courage has vanished, and you no longer have the daring of the voortrekkers.” The instance of British India is also quoted, where millions of Indians are governed by a handful of Europeans. What, however, is the future of the two countries, and the ideal cherished for the future? Do you find that the Hollanders have any hope of establishing any permanent colony in Dutch India? No, their fatherland is Holland, and they go to Dutch India to make money. I visited that country a few years ago, and I know that every Hollander hopes, after a certain time, to return to his native land. They make no secret of it that the ultimate end of the country is to be governed by the natives. That is also the case in British India, although the Indians do not have self-government, yet things are running in that direction. I do not think the British population have any illusions that India will be a white man’s country. That is also the case with the African territories in the north which the hon. member for Standerton wants to tack on to the Union in a kind of federation, because he contemplates a large dominion where the name South Africa will disappear. Inasmuch as equality is supported in the south also they cannot complain of our being afraid of the inferences from the policy which the leader of the Opposition supports?

That is a bogey.

That may be said now, but it is our duty to point it out to the people and ask whether they want it.

That is weak-kneed.

Order.

It is now said that it is a distortion that the hon. member’ for Standerton did not mean a large dominion as the report says, and that he only meant co-operation with, and friendship for the northern countries. We do not however, take second place to him as regards co-operation. What the hon. member for Kimberley quoted from the speech of the Prime Minister we all support. We are in favour of co-operation and friendship, but we are not prepared to throw in our lot with countries of which the policy is calculated to make a black man’s land and which will also make a black man’s land of South Africa. The hon. member for Standerton said that he did not expect to see his ideal realized during his lifetime. Why then is he so pessimistic? He surely thinks that he will get into power again, and even if the Nationalists, according to his statement, are anti-British and opposed to the settlers, then he, at any rate, will be disposed towards them. No, we are inclined to say that the hon. member for Standerton ought to make his standpoint clear to the people. He cannot merely condemn the manifesto, and say that it is low and mean, and that it cannot be strongly enough disapproved of. No, we ought to know what his ideal is, the tendency of which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has defended. Hon. members opposite find nothing wrong in the tendency of the state of affairs as we know it. We make no secret of it, that South Africa is going to be a white man’s country so far as we can assure the future. It is because I cannot see that we can get that white ideal for the northern states as well, that I cannot subscribe to the prospect which is put before us.

You are too weak-kneed.

Order.

We have been accused of wanting to drag the native question into politics. I will not discuss here who is actually responsible for that, but I just want to say that it is an extremely important matter to us to assure South Africa’s remaining a white man’s land. The hon. member for Standerton, however, announced as a principle of his party for the election that the native franchise in the Cape shall not be tampered with. I want to assure him on that that we regard it as a great and vital question, and even in spite of the danger that we shall be accused of dragging the matter into party politics, we are going to ask the people whether they want the present position to continue, namely, the Cape native policy, or whether they are going to try to assure the position of the white man in South Africa. This question is important, and we appreciate our responsibility, and that feelings will run high. I think, however, that the people will not blame us if we say that we, at any rate, know where we stand, and ask them to say if they want what the hon. member for Standerton wants, namely, that there shall be no tampering with the Cape native franchise. During the debate not much was said about the department for which I am responsible. Except for the speech of the hon. member for Standerton, who in general words made loose statements, and spoke about bad control, there were only two speeches that dealt with it. The speech of the hon. member for Standerton only contains the same criticism as we had on previous budgets. During the course of the debate, however, a few points were raised that I want to answer. Firstly, I was attacked because my estimates were bad. Will the hon. member say that the budgets always balanced in his time, and that there were not millions between the estimates and the actual revenue? No, he cannot do that, and, unfortunately enough for him, the estimates were always on the wrong side. I never made a secret of it—and I told the House and the country so—that I intended that it was of the utmost importance for us so to strengthen the financial position of the country that confidence in it should be restored, and that it must take place by the return to the old basis, that the budget should balance, and that there should be no deficits. I made no secret of it, that, with that object in view, my estimates were always conservative, and that we should probably have a larger revenue than estimated. What was the result? The surpluses became available for redemption of debt. The Auditor-General said in his report for the last three years before we came into office that redemption of capital had sunk to a dangerous level. Our surpluses were not wasted at the end of the year, but used for the necessary and intended object, namely, a redemption of debt, and it is chiefly due to that that the credit of South Africa is so high to-day in the foreign money market. The hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) advocated reduced taxation. The former pointed out how the country’s taxation had increased during recent years, but I have been trying for a few years now to explain to the hon. members that there is a great difference between production and burden of taxation. What we always say is that the burden of taxation on the public has been reduced, and can anyone opposite deny it? They may deny it as much as they like, but the taxpayer who, during recent months has found at the bottom of his income tax form the note: “Less 20 per cent,” will not believe it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now trying I might also say to employ that kind of talk which a certain class of people always uses, and by splitting hairs to draw a difference between reduction in taxation and sacrificing revenue in connection with the guardian fund, and the return to the 1d. postage. What hairsplitting! I challenged the hon. member to mention a single point in the memorandum of the Finance Department which was not true.

It is misleading.

The memorandum speaks of reduction of taxation, and the sacrifice of revenue. We only claim that. We state that moneys that formerly came out of the pockets of the public were given back to them for services and the country’s expenditure. Will hon. members say that that is not reduction of taxation? The public will appreciate it and understand it.

Why is the temporary reduction of income tax included in the list?

That is his other argument. The hon. member ought to know that the income tax is always laid down for one year. I said last year that if the revenue of the country is not further increased we shall have to return to the old income tax, but let me tell my hon. friend this—it will possibly be a disappointment to him—that the proposals I hope to submit to the House shortly will include that that income tax reduction shall be maintained for at least another year. In consequence of careful administration the revenue of the country is increasing. Owing to the good policy of this Government we are in the happy position of being able to give the reduction for at least another year. If the country sends me back, if the public have confidence in the policy which is being followed, it will be my endeavour to make the reduction of 20 per cent, permanent. It is unnecessary for me to again rebut the criticism of rising expenditure. I did so in detail last year, and showed what the increases were due to. On previous occasions I have always asked why the Opposition do not say where they propose reductions, and where increases. The explanation of the increases is precisely what my hon. friends opposite included in their election programme of 1920, namely, that the current expenditure is becoming larger every year, and that it is quite natural because we are a young country which, from day to day, demands assistance for development, for more officials, for more police, justices of the peace, magistrates, for more postal conveniences, etc., but that, inasmuch as the revenue is increasing through the development of all those activities, the future can be regarded with confidence. Can I put it better? Perhaps all that I can add is that I must further provide for the putting right of a whole number of things which the previous Government neglected. The mounting expenditure is coupled with mounting revenue as a result of the development of the country. I should just like to mention a small point in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Zululand. He made two discoveries, namely, that in consequence of this Government’s policy the South African £ sterling, of which this Government had increased the purchasing power from 11s. 9d. in 1921, to 15s. 3d. in 1923, has now dropped to 14s. 10d. The second is that the purchasing power of the South African £ is to-day less than that of the Australian £. The explanation is very simple. My friend, for the purpose of his argument, takes the index figures from the year book. He has, for instance, taken the retail price of food, fuel, and rent in 9 different towns of the Union, but if we are to judge the cost of living rightly we must include “various”. “Various” includes clothes, boots, ironware, groceries, etc., etc. If we include them we get as index figures 1,433 for 1923, 1,453 for 1924, 1,448 for 1925, 1,426 for 1926, and 1,434 for 1927. What does this show? Just before 1923 the Government adopted a deflation policy, which caused a drop in prices. The lowest level was therefore reached in 1923, because the banks were faced with the prospect of having to introduce the gold standard. That did not take place in 1923, but two years’ grace were given. Next year there was a small increase, but thereafter it dropped until in 1927 it was only one point above the lowest figure for 1923. As for the difference between the value of the South African and the Australian £, I want to point out that in 1910 the South African £ was 20s., for comparative purposes, and that of Australia £1 8s. 6d., and that of New Zealand £1 8s. 9d. To-day our £ for comparative purposes is 14s. 10d., and the Australian 16s. The Australian £ has fallen by 44 per cent., and that of New Zealand 41 per cent. Although our cost of living is possibly a little higher than that of Australia, the relative purchasing power has fallen slightly less than that of Australia. Those are the deductions from the year book. If, however, the hon. member says that, as a result of the Government’s policy the purchasing power of the £ has dropped, then he is attacking the protection policy. Is my hon. friend prepared to give up the protection policy, the policy which assisted the sugar industry in his constituency. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout complained of protection on corn. Is he prepared on behalf of his party to say that they want to remove it. Is the South African party ready to scrap the protection policy in respect of butter and eggs? In that case the cost of living will undoubtedly soon fall quite a few points. [Time limit extended.] I am grateful for it, but I only want to touch on a few points. I blame hon. members opposite for constantly using the argument that the cost of living is mounting owing to our protection policy, while in the country they announce that they are also in favour of protection, not only of our secondary industries, but also of farming. That is why one gets that sort of argument from the hon. members for Zululand, Bezuidenhout, and Cape Town (Central). A further point was made by the hon. members for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), and Caledon (Mr. Krige), that we state that our accumulated debt was got from the previous Government, while actually we took over surpluses from them. The facts are known to hon. members. We do not deny that the fund of the Custodian of Enemy Property existed, but that fund could only be considered in capital expenditure. By the existence of their deficits however, we were obliged to use a part of the funds for those deficits. A portion was employed for roads, land settlements and schools, but we had to take another portion to help extinguish the accumulated debt, while under normal circumstances the money ought not to be used to cover ordinary expenditure of the country. Hon. members might just as well say that they left £5,000.000 in the Treasury, in borrowed money which was intended for capital expenditure. Such money I naturally had thereafter to use to complete the unfinished work. It has nothing to do with the case. The borrowed money for capital expenditure cannot be used just as ordinary revenue of the country. I must say that I am astonished at a number of the things the hon. member for Kimberley said. I do not think it was worthy of him to make the supposition that if there were a change of Government hon. members opposite would have to suffer through the breach of industrial peace. All we say is that as a result of the machinery which we have created, and of our policy, the opportunities for strikes and unrest have greatly diminished. We have departed from the policy of merely allowing things to develop, and when troubles come we try beforehand to obviate them. It is fair to say this, and the public can judge of it. Notwithstanding the statement of the hon. member for Kimberley about the parlous position of the gold mining industry, and about the unsympathetic Government, that industry is making progress to-day and creating records year after year. I do not believe the hon. member is speaking on behalf of the gold mining industry on the Rand when he states that the Government was unsympathetic and was hampering their operations. I believe that he disapproved last night of the action of the Government in connection with the Mozambique Convention on the grounds that we had not sufficiently protected the interests of the mines. That is the height of ingratitude. The hon. member well knows what risk the gold mines run on account of the issue of the decree which puts the mines in danger of getting no natives from Mozambique. The steps which the Government took to protect the mines—and this was done after consultation with the Chamber of Mines—made the danger vanish, and I can therefore justly characterize the hon. member’s statement as the height of ingratitude. We have been attacked on account of certain concessions we have made to the detriment of other industries in the country, and our reply was that the gold mining industry was of so much importance that it was considered necessary to make the sacrifices. No, I shall deeply regret it if the hon. member for Kimberley were really acting as the mouthpiece of the gold mining industry, and if they really complained of unsympathetic treatment. In conclusion I want to say that I think the public, notwithstanding the political statement of the Opposition, has a favourable view of the Government’s work. As for myself, I am quite prepared to stand the test by simply referring to what we have accomplished, and by comparing it with the achievement of my hon. friends opposite. Are they prepared to accept the test? I am afraid that they will not do so, because during the course of the debate I saw clear signs that the old fighting methods of the Unionists will again be adopted to get the public into their camp again. We shall hear of the flag, race hatred, status, and anti-British institutions in the public service, just as has happened in this debate. Hon. members opposite will possibly again succeed in getting a group of the electors once more into their camp, but the number of English-speaking persons who allow themselves to be frightened by that kind of argument is much smaller than before. I think that at this election a greater number will be found who will judge the circumstances of the country on their merits.

I ask the indulgence of the House in order to read a letter addressed by me to the Minister of Justice last week—

I do this so that hon. members may clearly understand that notice of my intention to deal with this matter was given to the Minister. Under no form of government in South Africa has there ever been so disquieting a deterioration in the administration of justice as has taken place under the regime of the present Minister of Justice. He has “remitted and reduced sentences in cases of serious crime, dealing with thousands of remissions since he came into office, and has otherwise interfered with the proper course of justice to such an extent as to bring both the superior and lower courts into disrespect, to undermine the morals and prestige of public prosecutors and police, and to increase crime in every part of the Union. The latest report of the Commissioned of Police shows that serious crime, such as murder, rape, sodomy, arson, housebreaking, etc., has increased by an average of over 5,000 cases per annum since 1924. The average annual increase in such cases under the Minister’s regime over the rate existing when this Government came into office has been no less than 293 per cent. It has been proved in this House that in one case of salutary punishment meted out for a vile crime, the Minister reduced the judge’s sentence by one-half without having seen a single word of the evidence by which the judge was guided. Contrary to all usage, he attacked two judges, the late Sir Malcolm Searle and Judge Carter in this House for the severity of their sentences, but he utterly failed to produce one shred of proof in support of attacks at once so improper and unfair. The Minister’s policy with regard to releases and prosecutions has been demoralizing to the proper administration of justice. When once the Government gives the people to understand that criminal cases can be settled out of court, either by withdrawal from trials or remission of the judge’s sentence, it will find itself more than half-way to Tammany Hall before it realizes how it got there. For the first time in the history of South Africa an incompetent and dishonest official, the Durban court messenger— the Minister’s own choice, whom he appointed to displace an efficient man—was able to misappropriate with impunity a sum of £1,500, and, through the Minister’s actions, to defy prosecution. Under the Minister’s regime there have been astounding cases in which guilty persons charged with serious crimes have secured release and virtual immunity from prosecution in circumstances which constitute the gravest kind of indictment that can be brought against any civilized Government. The Government must take the responsibility for all such cases, because under Act 39 of 1926 the Minister took away from the Attorney-General the sole discretion in regard to prosecutions which was formerly vested in that officer by the Act of Union. When introducing the 1926 Act, the Minister said in this House that in future he must be assailed if this particular branch of his department was to be challenged. Last week, as a matter of courtesy, I handed the Minister written notice of my intention to refer in this debate to the Bethlehem case, in regard to which the Minister of Finance, though admittedly in possession of a written reply from the Department of Justice to my question on Friday last, chose deliberately to withhold that reply from the House in the hope that the debate would have concluded before it was made public.

How could you expect it from me?

You know that that is untrue, why do you say it?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether that is in order?

I think that both the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) should not use language of that kind. The hon. member for Illovo has said that the Minister deliberately withheld certain information from this House. If hon. members will moderate their language, I think they will assist this debate very much.

I willingly withdraw it, if you rule it to be out of order.

Will Mr. Speaker address his remarks also to the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood)?

Many of the remarks which I make apply to more than one hon. member.

I willingly withdraw my remark, and express regret to the Minister for having made use of it.

In that case I will also withdraw.

On the 18th April, 1928, an European medical man whose name I shall not mention, but whom I shall call Dr. “A”, and a native female were caught in the act of contravening sections 1 and 2 respectively of Act 5 of 1927 at the Jordaans Spruit near the native location of Bethlehem, O.F.S. This Act had recently been introduced by the Minister of Justice to deal with a grave social evil, the gravity of which may be judged from the penalties proposed by the Minister and adopted by the Legislature, namely five years imprisonment with hard labour for an European male, and four years imprisonment for a native female. And let me say that if this Act were to remain in force for 1,000 years there will never be a more overwhelming case against two accused persons, than the police were able to establish in this instance. To enable members to understand how the course of justice has been deflected in this case and all remonstrance flouted, I wish to quote from the evidence given before the assistant magistrate, Mr. de Villiers, at Bethlehem at the preparatory examination against the native woman—

And what was the reply of the female accused to these statements? Having been cautioned by the magistrate that she was not obliged to make any statement, and that any statement made might be used against her, she of her own free will stated—

The magistrate committed the female accused for trial on the 24th April, 1928. The male accused, who had, upon being discovered found his position so indefensible that he submitted to being apprehended by a native constable, leaving his car at the Jordaan Spruit, tried to bribe the constable with £10 on the way to the police station. There a charge of contravening the Act 5 of 1927 and of attempted bribery, had been entered against him, and he had been released on his own recognizances of £250 pending investigation of the case. As soon as the female accused was committed for trial, Dr “A”, accompanied by a hotel proprietor from Bethlehem, proceeded to Bloemfontein. On the day of the native woman’s committal for trial, the public prosecutor of Bethlehem wrote the following letter to the Attorney-General at Bloemfontein—

What answer did the Attorney-General give to so right-minded a letter. He said—

That was his astounding response to the appeal of a subordinate, who apparently wrote in the full belief that he would have the assistance and guidance of the head of his department in carrying out his duty. We must remember, firstly, that no preparatory examination against Dr. “A” had been held, and the Crown’s complete case against him was therefore not before the Attorney-General when he withdrew the prosecution; secondly, that the evidence of the native woman, if available after the disposal of her own case when she would be no longer in fear of incriminating herself would have added further proof to an already overwhelming case; thirdly, that no evidence whatsoever as to the strength of the Crown’s bribery charge was before the Attorney-General when he ordered the withdrawal of that charge. On the magistrate’s record of the preparatory examination of the native woman the Attorney-General noted in his own handwriting—

Yet the accused in this case did not deny the offence. What effect must these two decisions of the Attorney-General have had upon the morale of the public prosecutor and the police, who, after thorough investigation, had every reason to know that the charge in each case was unanswerable? There was intense and natural indignation among the people at Bethlehem over this matter, because they connected the visit of the European accused, Dr. “A” and his friend to Bloemfontein with the unaccountable decision of the Attorney-General not to prosecute, and it was alleged in Bethlehem that representations to that end had been made successfully through a Bloemfontein attorney. And now I come to the part played by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. Conradie) in this matter. Will he deny that he wrote a letter that made the people more angry than ever? Did he write a letter at all? In case he may have forgotten its terms, may I read it to him? It was addressed to a leading resident in the Bethlehem district—

Surely for the Minister of Justice to suggest “There is evidently a great deal of local jealousy in the case” was to add insult to injury. The people were smarting under the miscarriage of justice that had taken place, and to speak of local jealousy in connection with the matter, implied a very hurtful suspicion of conspiracy, which any community was entitled to resent. If the suggestion was in any way connected with the circumstance, that the second witness in the case was a servant of Dr. “B”, another Bethlehem practitioner, the very idea was calculated to make the people all the more indignant, because of the high esteem in which this doctor is held throughout the whole of the Free State. If the Minister and Attorney-General had “a lot of information”, showing there was a great deal of local jealousy in the case, what was their obvious duty? Was it not to probe to the bottom the circumstances in which so wicked and cruel a charge had been fabricated against an innocent man. Did they do any such thing, or did the accused himself show any desire to vindicate his reputation? No. The suggestion that there was a great deal of local jealousy in the case was used to still any agitation against the Attorney-General’s action, and is utterly without foundation. In reply to my question of yesterday it was stated that the Attorney-General declined to prosecute because he was convinced that with the evidence available there was no chance of a successful prosecution. How can this be said, when in the case of the native woman, she admitted the truth of the evidence for the Crown, and the male accused, through the action of the Attorney-General, was not even brought before the magistrate for a preparatory examination. The Attorney-General himself gave no indication to the Public Prosecutor as to the insufficiency of the evidence, or as to the point on which the case was likely to fail. A further definite instance of interference with the course of justice in the Orange Free State has been furnished to me by an hon. member, whose name I am at liberty to disclose to the Minister, should he wish me to do so. A man named “H” was the owner of a farm in the Parys-Vredefort district with a large farmhouse. He had made unsuccessful efforts to dispose of the property and later on the farmhouse was burned down. “H” was thereupon arrested for arson, and a preparatory examination taken, which disclosed an extremely strong case against him. For some reason not then apparent, the Attorney-General refused to prosecute. “H” thereupon sued the insurance company under his policy, and they resisted upon the grounds that he had burned the place down himself, and succeeded in this plea. It was established to the satisfaction of the civil court that “H” had burned down his own house, but the tenderness of the Attorney-General towards him secured him immunity from prosecution. Let the Minister ask insurance companies and fire assessors what their experience has been in the Orange Free State in their endeavours to secure justice. Details of cases can be produced, and there is a widespread feeling that an independent searching enquiry should be held with regard to the actions of the Attorney-General of the Orange Free State in relation to such cases. When the Prime Minister visited Bethlehem in July, an influential deputation brought to his notice the Bethlehem case I have mentioned, and because of their dissatisfaction with the Attorney-General in this and other cases, urged that the Prime Minister should deal suitably with the matter. It is stated that within three days of that visit, the Attorney-General at Bloemfontein was notified of his transfer to Cape Town on promotion.

That is quite wrong.

It may not have actually been promotion as far as pay is concerned, but in the minds of everybody it is much more important to be the Attorney-General of the Cape than of the Free State. What is needed is an impartial enquiry into these grave causes of dissatisfaction, not a mere burking of the question by the officer’s transfer to a more important post, which, for the moment, does not happen to be vacant. We all looked to the Prime Minister to take a more courageous course. The Bethlehem case is resented most of all, because it savours of the policy of meting out one measure of justice to the rich and influential, and a totally different one to those without riches or influence. Such cases also have a numbing and paralysing influence on our police system. I need only quote from a remonstrance written by a member of the Criminal Investigation Department against the irregular release of an accused person, to illustrate the danger of interfering with the course of justice in such a case—

He goes on—

These are not my phrases or my remonstrances. They were penned by a member of the police force to his superior officer, and this self-same woman was found in the possession of £124 worth of stolen goods, and subsequently convicted and sentenced within six months.

What case is that?

I am referring to the case of the woman in Johannesburg—the case I asked a question about.

Iris Gordon.

In that particular case I make no accusation against the Attorney-General. My submission is that enquiry would prove that other influence was brought to bear in that case. I know of other cases in which the same officer made similar remonstrances. And what was his reward? With 14 years’ service, innumerable mentions from judges for his good work, one commendation in Police General Orders, and two monetary rewards for excellent service, he was given three months’ notice that the Commissioner of Police had no further use for his services.

Shame! Terrible!

Not a word could be said against him. He asked what the charges were, and even demanded to know whether confidential reports had been made against him and irregularly accepted without his knowledge, but no single charge was disclosed to him. He was “smelt out” from headquarters. No complaint or charge was ever brought against him in regard to the performance of his work, and I venture to say, his is the first case in which an efficient, fit member has ever been put out of the force and robbed of his pension in such circumstances. His appeal to the Minister of Justice was met with the reply that the commissioner acted under a section of the police regulations from which there was no appeal to the Minister. But under the Police Act the commissioner merely acts under the direction of the Minister. This is not the only case in which the unbridled autocracy of the new Commissioner of Police has been shown. A Sergt. “P” employed in one of the Pretoria police departments was working to the entire satisfaction of his departmental head, a man with long training and the best traditions of the service. No complaint to headquarters had ever been made about the sergeant, but on a Thursday his immediate head received a curt note from the commissioner—

Sergt. “P” on being informed of his move made no complaint, but said the order had come at a time when his wife was in hospital so dangerously ill after childbirth, that the doctor had warned him that a crisis might supervene at any time. His departmental head arranged with the commissioner to grant the sergeant an interview, but before he could state his reason for desiring a short postponement of his transfer, he was unceremoniously sent out of the room. He consulted the doctor, who expressed his willingness to put in writing his opinion that the sergeant could not leave Pretoria for at least a fortnight without jeopardizing his wife’s recovery. He wrote accordingly to his departmental head, and, in order to show the seriousness of the position, stated that if there was no other alternative, he would have to apply for his discharge in order not to jeopardize his wife’s recovery. His request for a fortnight’s postponement was supported by his departmental head. The reply of the Commissioner of Police was —

Shame!

In another district a non-commissioned officer in the force with 22 years’ service, a post-commander for 10 years, with two commendations for meritorious service, was given 48 hours’ notice to join a mobile squadron at Umtata on 8th November, 1928. His eldest child, 17 years old, had returned from an operation for empyema in hospital two days before, and the district surgeon certified that she could not travel for a month. Two other children living with their parents were due to sit for examinations in a week—one for junior matriculation. The doctor’s certificate was forwarded to police headquarters and an interview was sought with the Commissioner of Police, Pretoria, but was refused. The non-commissioned officer had 118 days’ leave to his credit, and applied for 60 days’ leave to find other quarters for his family. His wife’s letter states: “The leave was not granted, and so my husband was forced to resign and lose the pension we have borne such a lot for. It is hard to give one’s youth and then to be cruelly tossed on one side for an evil spite.” These and the other actions of the Commissioner of Police that I have referred to, are the methods of terrorization. If unchecked they will break down the self-respect and character of members of the police force, and in course of time will reduce them to the level of mercenaries of the worst kind—a sort of South African “Cheka” to do the bidding of the political high command, paying less heed to the maintenance of the law than to the all-important matter of gaining the favour of the Minister, the commissioner and their known friends. But what is still worse, we are rapidly hastening to a stage at which immunity from prosecution may be got without revocation by a frown towards the proper quarter from the Minister or one of his deputies, when remission of sentence may be got upon his nod, and when the old standards and sanctions of the criminal law will have become so lowered and debauched that the people will at last realize that one of the chief bulwarks of society has been destroyed by their own professed representatives. I wish the Minister of Finance had not dwelt so much on this manifesto. It is the weakest thing that has ever been issued by three serious-minded public men. It has been destroyed by the criticizm of the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). When that criticism was going on the pleasant vision I usually have of the Minister of the Interior vanished from my view, and I said to my neighbour, in dismay: “What has happened to the Minister of the Interior? Has he gone?” He said: “He has sunk so low, you cannot see him.” The Minister of the Interior had no right to sign that document. The things he has already said to the natives should have prevented his making such a fool of himself. He should, out of respect for his cloth, not have used such language. We who have lived in South Africa from childhood know that among children there is no worse term of opprobrium than to call anyone a “black kaffir.” Yet my honoured leader was referred to as—[Time limit.]

I just want to confine myself to the vote of no-confidence. In my speech I shall answer a few of the points which have been mentioned by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who is not present, made criticisms because he had to criticize, but even though the hon. member for Kimberley now says that the mine owners are dissatisfied, I would like to point out to him that all the people in the De Beers Company, of which he is a shareholder, say that the Government has done very good work. They are very satisfied even although they did not get all they wanted. And then the hon. member said that there were many people in Kimberley who did not favour the Government, but I can assure him that those people will have still less to do with a South African party Government. Then the hon. member said that the money which the mines in the past had to pay as rent came in from year to year punctually. It is true the money did come in, but just for that reason it is amazing to hear that, although the money came in and money was taken from loan funds, the South African party Government always had deficits. So much for the hon. member for Kimberley. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has made statements here which are by no means correct. He said that Gens. Smuts, de Wet and Botha, after the second war of independence, went to Europe to collect money for the people. He knows this is incorrect regarding the hon. member for Standerton. It was Gens. Botha, Delarey and de Wet. Now here he tells similar tales, and says that we on our side must not mislead the people, but he, too, is one of the “old gang.” And the hon. member comes here and says, further, that the Prime Minister said that he would rather work with bolshevists and communists than with the South African party. The South African party as such for me always means the Unionists and the Prime Minister said in answer to the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts)—

This is something very different from what my hon. friend said. Then the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) spoke here of a federation of states in Africa. He stands for what the hon. member for Standerton declared he never said. We know, however, what that great federation of states will mean. South Africa will be as a drop in the bucket, like a white point in a black plain. To me it was so striking that when the Prime Minister here quoted what the hon. member said at Ermelo hon. members on the other side asked “why not.” This proves that they agree with that plan, and only because the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) found out later that the attitude at Ermelo will do him harm, he says afterwards that he was wrongly reported. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that there was great dissatisfaction because of the conduct of the Minister of Mines over the Precious Stones Act. I represent a constituency having alluvial diggings, and it has been said before that I would not get a hearing there. But I found out that it is only a few agitators and a few aspirant candidates for the next election who are dissatisfied. I have appeared on the same platform in my constituency with the hon. Senator F. S. Malan at a place where, according to statement, there was great discontent. It appeared that there existed discontent only about two points. The one was that the buyers of diamonds may not be diggers, that is to say, that they may not be partners in a claim, but that difficulty they can overcome in another way. The only real discontent which still remains is over the board of control on alluvial diggings, but the board was not established under this Government, but the former Minister of Mines and Industries, who is now Senator, created it. Then the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) yesterday again spoke about the women’s franchise. It has already been pointed out here that he raises this solely to make party political capital out of it. He asks how the Prime Minister—who has given his personal guarantee in the matter —can ever hope for a majority and support in his own party for a Bill which will also grant the vote to coloured women. So then he, too, knew that his own proposal which he introduced here last year had still less chance to pass, because it not only included the vote for coloured women, but also for native women. I am glad of the answer which the Prime Minister gave last year. I have never been a follower of an individual, but of principles. This was clear in 1912, when I was still in a less favourable financial position than to-day, and when I was asked by my employer about Gen. Hertzog: “What do you now think of Gen. Hertzog?” I said: “I have nothing to do with the man, but with his principles.” In 1923 the Prime Minister came to Stellenbosch, and there, before a coloured meeting, said things about the vote and the rights of coloured people. He has always been consistent with himself because it appears from the attitude he took up in his reply about women’s franchise that he intends to do exactly what he said at that time at that meeting. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) denied here that the Opposition have put natives on the voters’ roll. The hon. member stays always just between Somerset West and Cape Town, but I know very well what happens in my constituency. There, for instance, he will find the Saps, have brought a few whites and numbers of natives on the voters’ roll. I have no objection to that when the natives who are placed on the roll have the legal qualifications, but this is often not the case. I just want to mention one proof of this. At Schmidtsdrift, in the district of Hopetown, which will now come in the Kuruman constituency, 48 names were put on the roll, but after investigation, not one of them got on to it. This proves that if an objection is not made they get on to the roll. Take a small village like Kuils River, where already as against 34 coloured votes 24 natives are already on the voters’ roll. This shows how the native vote is increasing, and then hon. members opposite say that there exists no reason for uneasiness. Even to-day there are several towns where more natives than whites are registered. If it were not for the natives who really ought not to be on the roll, and if it were not for the fact that the Government side have no English daily paper in the Union, then the South African party, alias Unionists, would really disappear. If the native vote were to disappear, and if we had the strong English press which the other side have, and, for instance, had a daily English paper in each province, then I am sure that of all those who sit there on the South African party-Unionist side only about ten would come back to the House after the next election. Yes, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs now, but now, just for example, take the eastern Cape Province, where the native vote plays such a big part. It was very interesting what one of the chief ladies on that side said in London. She said that side are against the native Bills because without the native vote they would lose eleven seats. The native Bills were hardly published before the hon. member for Standerton went to Simon’s Town to stir up the natives there, even before the Bills were in the House. Another point is the colour bar Act. There is another instance of where they are trying to mislead the coloured people. I ask hon. members opposite what about the Masters and Servants Act, the Dutch Reformed Church Act and the Act of Union, which makes it impossible for coloured people to sit in Parliament. Are not those colour bar Acts? The Mines and Industries Act of 1911 we have improved, because the regulations under it were declared ultra vires, but how did we do it? So that the native will not have the right in the mines to perform all services, but the coloured person, who, too, under the regulations, did not have this right, may do so to-day. These are the arguments which have been used to catch the coloured vote in the Cape Province, even though it may not be the policy of the South African party. Here for example we have what Mr. Stallard, K.C., said on the 27th September, 1923, at a dinner of the South African party congress at Johannesburg, about the colour bar—

This proves that even though they come here with fine stories about the colour bar, yet their chief leader in the Transvaal comes and says that their principle is that they will not allow that the coloured person shall do the work of the white, but under the amended Act the coloured people have obtained that right. My experience, and it goes back over many years, from about 1894, is that the only policy of the Progressive party alias the Unionist party alias the South African party is: divide and rule. Of the 53 hon. members opposite there are only 15 ex-South African party, and they no longer have much weight. If I may mention an instance of their conduct, then it is that the hon. member for Standerton goes to the country and tells the farmers that the Labour party is the tail that wags the dog. In the towns, however, he says to the labourers that they don’t count for anything because the Nationalist party is the wheel and they are only the flies on the wheel. The South African party are the inciters to race hatred, as has appeared from this debate when the hon. member for Standerton again dragged in the flag. When originally we produced the Walker flag the House separated to go and learn the feelings of the people. We did not want to force the flag on to the people. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), however, went to his constituency and there said to the English-speaking people: “If you take this lying down you deserve all you get”. This is incitement of the worst character and this, when we are striving to get our own South Africa under her own flag. When this motion was introduced by the hon. member for Standerton, I had long known that he is an opportunist and no statesman. But I had, however, thought that he was a success as a politician. But if I observe the vague manner in which he spoke then I would say that I see a chance when I am in form to make a better speech than he did. The country will grudge him this waste of time, but on the other hand, I am glad that he introduced this motion, because now the people get a chance at the same time to see in all the papers what his policy is. His speeches outside the House are reported fully only in those parts where he speaks. Still, we shall again experience that the Opposition press will not allow justice to be done to our speeches, and of this speech I shall also no doubt see again: “Mr. de Villiers also spoke”. In one case the “Cape Argus” reported one of my speeches entirely wrongly. I refer to a report of what happened at a meeting in the Town Hall. It was a complete distortion of the facts which I gave and of what I said. I hope thus that this time they will take good care and reflect well what I have said here. The Cape coloured people have no other homes than here among us and have only our civilization, but at the former election our opponents came along with all sorts of stories. They will not believe those stories again. The coloured people, and especially the educated class, will stand by us and vote for us. What did we hear at the last election? That we could never form a Government, that the Government would not last three months, that we could not borrow money overseas because we could not inspire any confidence. The fact is now that from the first year loans were raised at a more favourable rate than the former Government ever obtained. We heard that all officials who were not bilingual would be put out of the civil service. We know how much truth there is in that. We heard that people would leave the country and very few would come in. The fact is that more have come in than before. The story has been heard recently still that so many people have left the country for Rhodesia. Shortly after that the Rhodesian papers complained that many people are leaving Rhodesia and going to the Union. We heard that revolutions and strikes would come. We know that in the time of the previous Government there were 175 strikes, while we have had only one with which we have had anything to do directly, and it was settled between 24 and 36 hours. It was further said that there would be no confidence in the country and no future for the country, but a general confusion. Hon. friends opposite ought just to read the reports of the Chamber of Mines, in which the chairman plainly states that they are highly satisfied with the Government. They say that they must admit that they have not obtained everything, but that they have obtained a great deal and are very satisfied, as also is the Chamber of Commerce. Read the reports of the Standard Bank to see what the state of the country is. If hon. friends would take the trouble to consult shopkeepers and ask what they think of the Government, they will get from the English-speaking shopkeepers and employees the answer that the Government are doing well. The hon. leader of the Opposition sees only terrible dissatisfaction, and that kind of thing gets told to the people, and an attempt is being made to pull their legs, but the hon. member is miscalculating. Just let me read what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) said last year after the Minister of Finance had been answered by Mr. Jagger in connection with the Estimates. He said—

There is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth who immediately raps the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on the knuckles. If two things were to happen I would regard the situation as dangerous and I would think about losing faith in the Government, and those are, if insolvencies after insolvencies must be published in long lists and if I find that the unproductive debt is constantly going up by mighty leaps. Then there must be something wrong. If the unproductive debt is rushed from £25,000,000 to £63,000,000, as happened under the previous Government, then the position is serious. This Government reduced the unproductive debt from £63,000,000 to £49,000,000. As long as the Government does not allow the unproductive debt to increase, there is no cause for uneasiness. In connection with the stories at the last election, I come also to the stories which have been told to the coloured people. They have always been told that if the Nationalist party came into power, that then the coloured people would get a strop round their necks. The Opposition thought that these people were so simple as to believe this. The case is that at times of election hon. members opposite have always found the coloured people good enough, but afterwards forgot them again, and did not make a single speech and did not enlighten them and did nothing more for them. Another story that is being dragged forward again is that slavery will be introduced again, and then the Union Jack is dragged in again. This still happens at Stellenbosch, but the young Turks no longer believe in that slavery story. We know that under the Union Jack the greatest slave trade in the world tool? place, and that in a British possession still up to January, 1928, the slave trade existed. Only in 1928 it was officially abolished. Just read the Union Jack rag, “The Diamond Fields Advertiser,” and what it says about it. There the coloured people are told that this Government has done nothing for them. I am prepared to show that by this Government at least 25 things have been done for the coloured population in the Union of South Africa. And this Government has been in power for only four years, while the Opposition have ruled since 1894, from the first Progressive party, alias the Unionists, alias the South African party, until 1924, with the exception of the five years during which Mr. Merriman was in power as Prime Minister of the Bond Government. There remained 25 years, and I challenge hon. members on the other side to mention five things which the previous Government bad done for the coloured people. They know the coloured people only at times of elections, but after that they do nothing more for the coloured people. The policy of the Nationalist party is that the coloured people must choose between the two possibilities, either they will stand at the side of the natives and vote for the South African party, or they must vote for this Government, I am convinced that the coloured people will do what is right. They do not want to become kaffirs, to be thrown into the same pot with the natives. The coloured people of the Cape Province have no other homes. They have no Basutoland, no Kaffraria, and no Pondoland like the native, and the coloured people must have a place next to us in South Africa in the economic, political and industrial spheres. The coloured people see that we stand for that policy. I just want to point out how the “Volkstem” tries to make political capital by taking out little pieces from speeches and reproducing in a distorted manner what is said here in Cape Town. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) the other day went and held a meeting and said that the Nationalist party had done nothing for the coloured people. That is a lie.

The hon. member must not say that. He must withdraw.

I withdraw it. I will say that what he said was incorrect. When the hon. member for Newlands said that the Government had done nothing for the coloured people “Die Burger” contradicted this and proved that it is not true. “Die Volkstem” got hold of this, and pointed out what “Die Burger” said. That paper said that “Die Burger” said that the Nationalist Government had done so much for the coloured people and were going to do more if they were to come into power again, while the S.A. party do nothing for the coloured people. The intention of that kind of quotation is clear. The Transvaal farmers must be stirred up against the Nationalist Government, but it is done in such a manner that one can find no word for it. There is the aspirant S.A.P. candidate for Bredasdorp, Capt. van der Byl. He addressed the Bredasdorp coloured people and a coloured man was got to put the question if the S.A.P. Government came into power the party would try to put back into the Railway service the number of coloured people whom this Government had kicked out of the service. The aspirant member knows that it is untrue, this question. And instead of saying that the question contained a lie, he goes on and speaks the people fair and says they cannot rectify the Nationalist Government’s mistakes. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is another. He said the other day that in order to win the coloured vote welfare officers were appointed in Cape Town. Only one has been appointed. It is thus a lie.

The hon. member may not say such a thing in connection with anything an hon. member of this House has said.

Then it was incorrect. He said, further, that the coloured people in order to get work had to apply and were considered only if they were members of the African National Bond. The hon. member knows that this is not true.

The hon. member must not say that.

There are organisations of coloured people just as the white people have organisations. They have two separate organisations. I asked the welfare officer whether what the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) said was correct, but he said that such a thing never happened. [Time limit.]

I have listened with considerable interest to this extraordinary debate, extraordinary that all the sound argument is on one side, all the abuse and personal attack on the other, and indeed such arguments as are adduced from the Government side remind one of the Irish counsel who, addressing the court, said: “If it please your lordship to rule that I am wrong in this argument, then I have others which are equally conclusive.” The spectacle of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) dilating on high finance and the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) on his genealogical tree is a sight for the gods. There is one form of attack which is pretty well common to almost every member of the Nationalist party from the Prime Minister downwards, and that is abuse of the Leader of the Opposition—virulent abuse of the one man who has made South Africa known throughout the world and given this country a prestige among the nations altogether beyond its population or importance. The Minister for Finance interpolating the other day when the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was speaking, said he would welcome an appeal to the country on economic lines—but how can that take place in the face of the attitude of his party which is formed on racial lines and does not contain one English-speaking member? On the eve of this debate appeared a manifesto over the names of the Prime Minister, Minister for Interior and Minister of Justice—Gen. Hertzog, Dr. Malan and Mr. Tielman Roos—one of the most miserable documents ever published in this country. It announced the intention of the Government to make the native question the Nationalist plank at the next general election this year. I was surprised to see the name of the Minister of Justice appended to that document for I hitherto thought he possessed the saving grace and was endowed with a measure of common sense. I wonder how that came to pass for it has been common property that two of the signatories did not see eye to eye on many questions— indeed the members of the Cabinet bear the reputation of looking askance at each other and could apply Chas. Bowen’s dictum to his brother judges—“Conscious as we are of each others’ shortcomings.” I attended the S.A. party congress at Bloemfontein in December and it was then unanimously resolved to keep the native question out of party politics and this decision was voiced in eloquent terms by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Where then did the Prime Minister get the idea that the S.A. party was going to fight the election on this issue? It must have been from his own inner consciousness looking round and failing to find any other rallying cry for his drooping party. But several months ago the Minister for Justice intimated that it was right for his party to fight the election on the native issue and he would like nothing better. The Minister of Labour, at Bloemfontein, announced the intention of the Government to make this the issue and this is now confirmed by the Prime Minister. No more pitiful document has ever been issued in this country. The proposal or decision set out therein is nothing short of criminal in endeavouring to set the white population at variance on a matter which can only be solved by time, patience and goodwill. The document bears three signatures—where is the Natal representative? The Prime Minister recently stated that “even” Natal was being imbued with the South African spirit. Well, this one thing I can tell him and that is Natal possesses the South African party spirit and will send from every constituency there—without exception— at the next election members of that party and devoted followers of my leader. Even the Labour party through its leader, the ex-Cabinet Minister and member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has endeavoured to fasten on the Opposition the desire to bring the native question into party politics. Why? Is it to cover his own tracks? We, expected surprises and fireworks but he came to heel like a tame spaniel, and proposed an amendment to the motion as puerile as might be expected after his utterance. It seems a case of “willing to wound, but afraid to strike.” But where is the Labour party? As Hans Greitmann says: “Where is that barty now?” It is here, is it over there, or is it nowhere. Well, at any rate, that’s where it will be after the next election. The Minister of Defence also entered the lists and elegantly described as “sob stuff” the objection on this side to throw the native question into the vortex of party politics and quoted Mr. Merriman in his favour—he should be ashamed to do so—as he enjoyed Mr. Merriman’e friendship as I also had the honour to do, and he knows, or would know, that Mr. Merriman would have been horrified at the mere though of such a thing as dragging the native question into the realm of party politics. Let us for a few moments examine the composition and some of the achievements of this Government. First and foremost it came into power in a dishonest fashion—a trick. A combination was formed for election purposes and that combination was to come to an end on the night of the 17th June, 1924. And let me here say that within these walls I listened to the present Minister of Defence, then leader of the Labour party, when he referred to the saying of Charles II to his brother James: “They will never cut off my head to put you on the throne,” and “That much as the Labour party disliked the S.A. party Government they would never help to put that Government out to enable the Nationalists to take their place,” and now he reclines in grandeur, if not at ease, on the Treasury Bench. The combination formed the Government, with two —afterwards three—Labour Ministers. This Government through the Minister of Justice has put on the statute book the Companies’ Act —which was actually the work of his predecessor, and the Liquor Act—a co-ordinating measure of the first importance in which he received the constructive support of the Opposition. The same thing applies to the Medical Bill, which was consistently obstructed by Government supporters. Then we have the colour bar—a blot on the statute book—a Bill forced through both Houses and never put into operation—and never required. The Precious Stones Bill which deprived many owners of their interests. The Iron and Steel Bill—interfering with private enterprise. A general tendency towards Socialistic legislation is shown— being a case of the tail wagging the dog. The Wage Act—which the Minister for Defence in introducing stated was to be applied to sweated industries only—and is now being applied indiscriminately and as was clearly shown by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) is causing distress and unemployment. The Durban chamber estimates that there are 50,000 shop assistants in the Union and that the effect of the wage determination is such as to deprive 5,000 of them of their occupations and livelihood. The Minister of Labour has stated that such persons as are displaced should never have been so employed and must find other occupation. The hungry man with wife and child asks where. The Minister of Labour some years ago in this House made great play of a phrase made by a member of the Chamber of Commerce—the phrase was “make snug”— and I put it to you if ever anyone has made snug during the past four and a half years this is the man. The Minister of Finance has been a fortunate man during these years —he struck good times—even in his wildest dreams I am sure he has not thought he created them—although some of his friends have not hesitated to say God was on their side. Good seasons, good crops and considerable prosperity. Handsome surpluses have been announced in each Budget. But where do they come from? Nowhere but out of the pockets of the people. This is shown by the fact that the revenue derived from taxation in 1923-’24, £16,800.000, and in 1927-’28, £21,667,000, showed an increase of £4,867,000; the amount of customs duties during 1927 derived from the curtailment of preference to British goods was over half a million sterling. The cost of living—which shows a decrease since the war, in every dominion—has not come down in the Union; indeed in some instances has gone up; whilst the purchasing power of the sovereign has lessened. We have the proud boast that taxation has been decreased, but where? The plain fact can be summed up in a sentence, “take a lot, give a little.” On every pair of boots costing 30s., 9s. goes to the Government; a £4 suit of clothes pays £1, whilst the 2 lb. loaf stands at 7d.—the price of a 4 lb. loaf in other countries. The Minister of Defence waxed eloquent the other day on the excellent condition of the defence force. But there was nothing said beyond reference to navel volunteers—about coast defence. He answered an inspired question about the £85,000 contribution to the navy—being stopped in 1921—that amount, £50,000, from the Cape and £35,000 from Natal, given for years more as gesture of goodwill than as a material contribution—and some recognition of the value of the British navy to us. At the Imperial Conference of 1926 the Minister for Finance stated that the Union would undertake the defence of its coasts but what has been done. It is true we have expenditure on naval defence of £70,000 per annum and these redoubtable war vessels, the Wallflower and Verbena, but at one time there were long range guns on the Bluff at Durban and at Cape Town, but all we have now is the noonday gun on Signal Hill. I wonder if the member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) and those who think with him on absolute independence ever remember that a small modern cruiser could lay every coast town in the Union in ruins within a single week without the slightest damage to itself. What is wrong with the public service? Why is it seething with discontent? It is because of the methods adopted. Despite the eulogium of the Minister for Mines last night. We have a Public Service Commission who apparently take their instructions from Ministers—as witness the many appointments made of junior officers being placed over the heads of men much longer in the service and against whose capability no word has ever been spoken. The previous Public Service Commission—not being creatures—were retired long before pensionable age at a cost of some thousands per annum to the country. The public service whilst growing in discontent is also rapidly growing in personnel. The Auditor-General points out that during the last financial year 686 new posts were created at a salary cost of £94,146 per annum—and many of these were not provided for on the Estimates. The Minister for Railways, in his speech, charged the leader of the Opposition with bringing the flag question into this debate—he did so quite incidentally but is it not right that the matter should be referred to after the extraordinary manner it was dealt with by the Government. First and foremost where was the mandate or demand for a flag. It was never mentioned at the last general election and it would never have been heard of during this Parliament but for the support given by the Minister for Defence to the Minister for Interior—action characterized by the member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) as stupidity. A compromise wes eventually arrived at by the action of the leader of the Opposition and we have ever desired that the terms of that compromise should be loyally carried out—but the promise of the union jack flying in Natal as heretofore has not been carried out and even now the matter cannot be left alone as witness the statement of the Minister for Interior at Carolina on the 10th November last—when he is reported to have said: “The union jack in the Union flag is a conquered flag. You can have no objection to the Union Jack as a conquered flag.” Before the present Government came into power Nationalists went through the country fulminating against Asiatics—that the Areas Bill brought in by the South African party Government was too weak—what they would do with Indians they would throw them into the sea. Well what happened? A round, table conference between representatives of the Governments of India and of the Union took place in Cape Town. Natal, the province most concerned was represented by the present Minister for Labour. An agreement was entered into and whilst there’s no desire to interfere with that agreement the Natal representative failed in not insisting upon Provincial barriers being broken down. Last year I brought to the notice of the Minister the fact that many Indians repatriated from Fiji and South Sea islands were thrown on the streets of Calcutta and Bombay, penniless and requested him to take steps to prevent this occurring to Indians sent from the Union. I see that the S.A. Indian congress only last week state that this is actually taking place and threaten to withdraw from the repatriation scheme. The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) strongly supports this policy—which has brought considerable supporters for him to his constituency. The Minister for Railways takes great kudos for having 16,000 poor whites—or what he is pleased to call civilized labour on the railways—he declines to give the cost or distribution. Why— surely the people of this country have a right to know—the users of the railways are paying and so far as the distribution is concerned it would appear that they are being used as mobile columns for voting purposes. Has it ever occurred to the Minister and his colleagues that he may be debasing his countrymen and that ere long he may take quite another view of his civilized labour policy. I do not for a moment deny that in this large number many will make good and improve their positions—but what about the large residue who will descend to the same level as the mean whites and crackers of the Southern States, if not assisted to get out of a dead end. Just a year ago the Minister was asked, why the Railway Board, of which he is chairman, overrode the recommendation of his technical officers and gave the contract for engines to Germany when he replied that the board was there to give decision not to take recommendations. It would be farcial were it not tragic that a board so composed should treat the recommendations of skilled and able engineers in this fashion. The Prime Minister appears to have signally failed in the course he adopted with regard to the letter of the Auditor-General asking the protection of Parliament against the attack made on him in this House. Asked to appoint an independent Commission of Enquiry he refused and instead proposed a Select Committee of this House formed on party lines. The Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament and rightly looks to Parliament for protection which was denied him by the head of the Government. We now have a Minister for External Affairs—a Foreign Office as it were—costing £50,000 per annum. We are getting ambassadors and apparently will soon have a diplomatic corps. The Prime Minister announced that the place of the agent of the Union at Delagoa Bay will be taken by a consul-general. Does it ever occur to the Prime Minister and his colleagues that they may be making the Union ridiculous and something of a laughing stock in the eyes of the world— with its ambassadors, commissioners, consul-general—all for a country with a population under that of a medium sized European or American town. For some years I have recommended the Minister for Mines and Industries to pay more attention to trade with our African neighbours, especially in the north—not to appoint an ambassador or consul-general, but a competent trade-agent—in a rapidly developing country but the hon. Minister is a law unto himself. “I am Sir Oracle and when I open my mouth let no dog bark” and he has entirely ignored the suggestion. In 1924 after 14 years of Government, the most difficult years that South Africa has ever experienced—it was said that the country was tired of the South African party and desired a change. Well, it got the change. Although incidentally the South African party polled more votes than Nationalist and Labour together—“If the country was then tired of the South African party Government it is heartily sick to-day of the Pact Government and determined to show when the opportunity occurs a few months hence that it will no longer allow that combination to play havoc with the affairs of South Africa.

It is peculiar that the member who has now just sat down, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) dares to state that our country is tired of the Government, of all the sins which the Government has on its record, while the members of the Opposition experience the greatest difficulty in keeping the debate going, in keeping life in it, and obtaining speakers. If the country is so tired of the sins of the Government, then surely it cannot be difficult to keep the discussion going. Of course the statement of the hon. member is wrong. Even his own press complains that the Opposition understand the intention of the motion of no-confidence entirely wrongly. The press say that they must attack and we must defend. Instead of that, however, we are attacking and the Opposition must exert all their power to defend themselves. It was a risk of the Opposition to introduce such a motion of no-confidence. If the Opposition introduce such a motion then they must expect that we will reveal their sins in the same manner in which they are trying to bring the sins of the Government to light. This they did not take into account. Now they declare that we may not attack, that we may make no comparisons, that we may not discuss their sins. Do they perhaps think that the people have already forgotten all their sins? Do they think that the people have become deaf and blind? They have not yet forgotten the sins of the South African party Government. The people have not yet forgotten the taxes which the South African party Government imposed. The farmers of South Africa still remember the tobacco tax, the medicine tax, the estate tax, and the income tax. The people still remember the maladministration, the revolutions, strikes insolvencies, deficits, and even, too, the Burton bread, and the £800,000 which it took from the pockets of the taxpayers. One can well understand that hon. members on the other side are-running away from their attack. A weaker exhibition than that of the leader of the Opposition when he introduced the motion one cannot think of. Did he attack the Government on economic principles, and point out mistakes in our economic policy? No, so weak was his exhibition that his own paper, the “Natal Mercury,” had to complain that it was disappointed with it. On analysis it appears that the hon. member made only loose statements without citing concrete facts. We think, for instance, of the loose statement that the Government has taken up a wrong wage system, and yet that he said just afterwards that in some cases he was not against the Wage Board. Here he immediately afterwards runs away, and if he does not do that then he tries to play upon the feelings of the voters. On the ground of alleged political appointments he tries to stir up the civil service in order in that way to catch votes, or otherwise he tries to see if he cannot stir up the feelings of the British people by means of flag stories, and obtain a “Vote British” election. It is only casually that the hon. member comes to economic factors. In connection with mining, he says that they gave the Government advice, that the Government took no notice of the advice. What did we not listen to in connection with mining? We did not listen to sell or let the mineral wealth of Alexander Bay to De Beers, and I think that the people of South Africa for generations will be grateful to this Government that it did not accept the advice of the Opposition, and hand over those treasures to a few capitalists. We did not listen to their advice in connection with diamond cutting. There the Government acted in spite of their recommendations and opposition, and in the future our own diamonds will be cut here. We did not listen when they wanted to prohibit us from securing, the existence of the small diggers. When the Government introduced legislation to prevent that the big syndicates should get the alluvial diggings into their hands, they also resisted us. Even, too, when we proposed prohibiting that farms should be cut up, that the diggers would have no benefit from that they fought us. In all these cases where we did not listen to them we won the gratitude of the people. The hon. member for Standerton does indeed know that to-day there is a certain measure of feeling among the diggers and in Namaqualand because the people do not understand the condition in connection with the diamond market. For that reason he wants to make use of the occasion to see if he cannot stir up the people, and therefore he says that the diamond policy is wrong. But what, however, did we learn from the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer)? Did he not get up and think the Government because it had saved the diamond industry? Now I ask the Opposition what would be their policy in connection with the alluvial diggings if they should come into power. Will they let the diggers have their way and allow them to dig without restrictions? Why did the hon. member for Standerton give no answer when recently a prominent digger asked him directly what he would do if he came into power? Is that not clear proof that the hon. member just wants to blind the eyes of the diggers, and make them suspicious of the Government? No, the people have not lost their memory and know what they have in this Government and what they had in the South African party Government. Then I come to our industries, an important link in our economic life. And here, too, the hon. member for Standerton said practically nothing. He can bring nothing against the Government, and had to admit that great progress had been made, although he added to that: “Notwithstanding the Government.” I think it is that the grapes are sour and that he envies the Government the progress in the industrial sphere. From what his supporters and other people have said, I want to make a few quotations, to give the country a chance to judge. Mr. Seals-Wood, the chairman of the congress of the Chamber of Industries, recently quoted the value-increase of our factory production during the last four years. It is £5¼ million, £4¼ million, £7½, million and £6½ million, thus altogether an increase of £24 million. He says that this is the greatest progress that hase ever been reached in South Africa. Mr. Willoughby-Frye, an nx-supporter of the South African party, declares—

A prominent visitor from overseas, who was recently in South Africa, namely, Mr. John Stroy, had an interview with the “Cape Argus,” and the report reads—

His previous visit to South Africa was four years ago, thus, at the exit of the previous Government, but on his recent visit he had found great progress. The hon. member for Standerton cannot contradict this, and justly says that this progress has taken place in spite of the Government. On the contrary his Government was an obstacle in the way of industrial progress. And now I come to irrigation works. This Government immediately appointed a permanent irrigation commission in order to investigate the irrigation schemes and to give advice. They are busy making their reports. The schemes of the previous Government were all unsound, and in consequence most of the owners on those irrigation works were in such a state that they did not know where to turn. They cannot pay the rates. This Government is busy changing the weak irrigation policy of the previous Government, and by means of the investigation and on the advice of the permanent irrigation commission, repairing mistakes. I only hope that the Government will continue and will not hesitate to put those works on a sound economic basis so that the farmers may make a living there. Much has been done for the farmers, no section of the farming community has not been helped directly. People who have visited South Africa from other countries have repeatedly said that in no other country in the world have they seen a Government which goes to such expense in order to increase the knowledge of the farmers. The Department of Agriculture is really purely a school for the farmers. No farmer if he needs advice will knock in vain for enlightenment. In this way the Government is helping to make a success of farming. The Government is helping them further in connection with effective organization for handling their products and for selling these in the best manner. On the other hand, the Government is trying to create markets abroad. The Opposition is constantly out to raise objections against the appointment of trades or market agents in foreign countries. This Government takes into account the fact that the South African people are not numerous, and that their buying power is not big enough to buy all their products, so that with an eye to the future, a market must be sought abroad. Fortunately, the Government does not allow itself to be frightened by the Opposition. Only recently again Mr. Lamont was sent overseas to help the tobacco farmers in finding a market overseas, and I hope heartily that there, too, it will be proved that the Government took the right step. Concerning the economic policy, the Opposition could not make the smallest attack to prove that the Government does not deserve the confidence of the country. In the treatment of finances the hon. member for Standerton made himself positively ridiculous. He did not say where we had done wrong, but said only that Mr. Burton was a good Minister of Finance. That alone is sufficient with which to go to the country. Perhaps he will make room for Mr. Burton for him to become Minister of Finance again. I think that the people of South Africa will refuse that, and I do not believe that the opportunity will be given again to allow Mr. Burton to obtain the financial reins of South Africa. Even the hon. members for Natal are afraid of that, because when Mr. Burton tried to find a seat there they chased him away. The hon. member for Standerton stands alone in his confidence in Mr. Burton. In the course of this debate the country has had a very good opportunity of making comparisons between the two governments. I think that we owe gratitude to the hon. member for Standerton because he has given the opportunity to refresh the memory of the people. This Government is a Government of do and dare, who tackle everything, and the previous Government was one of wait and leave, who would tackle nothing, but allow things to develop. I do not think that the people will choose a Government who will allow things to develop. The hon. member for Standerton said again in his speech that all that was necessary was to allow matters to develop. The people do not like this. The hon. member talks of an unholy alliance. If ever there was an unholy alliance, then it is the party sitting on the other side. They must be one of three things—(1) either a South African party with Unionist principles, or (2) a Unionist party with South African party principles, or (3) a combination with no principles. The people will remember the impotence of the party and not recall such an impotent Government. What then are their principles? The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said that the Unionists, when they joined, gave up their principles. Does the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) admit this? He cannot and will not admit this, and it is also Unionist principles which are being carried out by them to-day. One of the great accusations against the Unionists was always that they constantly placed the Empire first. They hail no heart or eye for the interests of South Africa, and we see now that when matters come before this House the party on the opposite side do homage to those principles. Nothing that this Government wishes to do is dealt with without first asking the question, how it would affect England. It is “empire first” policy. We remember well what the native policy of the Unionists was and homage was paid to that same old policy recently at the South African party congress at Bloemfontein. Think of State-aided immigration, an old recognized Unionist principle. Who to-day is a greater supporter of that than the hon. member for Standerton? He said the other day that at least £1,000,000 per year must be spent in introducing people from overseas. He will, of course, strengthen his number of votes by that, Is that in the interests of South Africa? Free trade was an old Unionist principle. Home industries had not to be protected, but manufactured goods had to be imported exclusively from overseas. Their greatest supporters were the big importers, and they did not want goods to be manufactured in South Africa. Thus we have a South African party who are carrying out the principles of the Unionists, and where they do not carry them out they retain no principles. No wonder that they were impotent, and will be impotent again if they come into power. No wonder that their own press have made the discovery that nothing better can happen that a little new blood should come into the South African party. The “old gang” must go, but if the “old gang” fall away, then nothing will be left of the South African party because young South Africa is not empire inclined. The rising generation loves South Africa, and takes care of its interests, and desires that the great problems shall be tackled and development be so guided that it will be in the interests of the children of South Africa. The Opposition is very disappointed with this debate. They are in the position of a traveller on Verneuk Pan. He sees something, chases it, and finds later that it has disappeared again. The South African party thought that they could do something with the motion of no-confidence; they saw something, but it was a mirage.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) seems to be under the impression that he has settled the whole debate by giving us what he regards as concrete facts. He has stated that the farmer will never forget how the late Government imposed the Estate duty, the tobacco tax and the medicine tax. I ask the hon. gentleman what this Government has done to repeal that tax? Have they not amended it and added to it? Has the hon. the Minister of Finance ever dreamt of repealing the Income Tax Act? If not, what does the hon. member mean by bringing up these goggas and spooks? Why does he refer to what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said at Bloemfontein, a hasty exclamation, uttered in a moment of misunderstanding, which was afterwards retracted and apologised for. Under the circumstances it was ungenerous of the hon. member to mention it. With regard to the tobacco tax, how does the hon. member stand with the farmers of Oudtshoorn in connection with endeavouring to force compulsory cooperation upon them? The hon. member says that the South African party swallowed the Unionist party, and that the South African party has swallowed the Unionist principles. The South African party has unanimously declared what its principles are.

It has none.

That shows that the hon. member has not read the programme of the South African party. If he had, he would not have made that remark.

When the House adjourned I was replying to the heavy artillery of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), who forgot to point out what a tremendous amount the farmers have to pay in taxation through the customs, although they may be free of tobacco tax. The hon. member tried to twit us regarding the alliance between the old Unionists and the South African party. Let me tell him that the country is not the least concerned where a party’s principles come from, its only concern being what the principles are. That test we can face with the utmost equa nimity. Those two parties came together after years of co-operation, as tried and trusted friends; they united on great principles and never have they regretted that happy day for the country when they joined forces. That union was the most complete proof of the soundness of their principles. Can hon. members who have formed the union on the opposite side of the House say that they have never regretted their pact? Each is trying to get rid of the other, and they are jockeying each other for the best positions in the election that is coming on, and trying to see which can get the most votes and the greatest advantage in the coming struggle.

How many members of the South African party want to get rid of their leader?

If the hon. member thinks that is so, I can only congratulate him on the futility of his observation. When we have the Prime Minister of this country telling the country that he would rather join with the Communists, when we have the Minister of Justice telling the country he would rather have the devil than the South African party, we may wonder at their choice of companions, but it does not in the least distress us, because it just shows the straits to which they are driven and it shows how much they envy the true union that has taken place. When about a year ago the Labour party began to disclose to a wondering world all that the two sections knew about each other, when they rushed to papers like the “Cape Argus” and the “Cape Times”, which they have always jeered at, each trying to get ahead of the other, there were a large number of people who were interested, because they were of the kind that likes a dog fight, but there were a much larger number of people who looked on it from the point of view of those who regard politics as more than a dirty game, and who felt nothing could have been more degrading to the politics of the country than for the two sections of a great party to be saying what they did about each other. The public were not much concerned as to which section was right; they were rather inclined to take the view that they were both telling the truth about each other. The point we have to consider is that of the procedure of this country. Could anything more derogatory to the prestige of the Government of this country be imagined than to have a position of affairs such as existed from July to November, 1928, when the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was turned out of the Cabinet? In July, 1928, at Durban, the body calling itself the Labour party solemnly excommunicated from its ranks the two Labour members and the two Labour Ministers, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Defence, and a large number of supporters. What I am concerned with is that when that body at Durban, with all circumstances of insult, turned those members and Ministers out, they did so in the presence of another Cabinet Minister, the hon. member for Benoni. By his acquiescence and participation in those proceedings, the hon. member must be taken to have concurred in the charges that were made against his brother Ministers in the Cabinet. Very serious things were said at that conference about these Ministers, and the men turned out of the party. What I am concerned about is that the Prime Minister should have allowed to remain in his Cabinet, at the same time, the two sections of men representing the two sections of the Labour party who were refuting each other in an extraordinary way. That is a matter in which the whole public is interested. The country looks to the Cabinet to uphold the traditions of dignity and responsibility, which this Cabinet has, on many occasions, shown itself to lack, hut chiefly and largely so on that particular occasion. They showed themselves devoid of any sense of constitutional responsibility, when they allowed those two sections to remain in the Cabinet. That is only an illustration of a large number of things that have been going on. The hon. member for Benoni was turned out of the Cabinet. I am not concerned with the rights or wrongs of that issue, but there are many people who will think as I do, that the hon. member was made a scapegoat on the particular issue on which he was turned out, and that was that he was alleged to be doing a thing contrary to what the policy of the Cabinet was at that time. If that particular occasion had stood by itself, I think the country would have said the hon. member deserved to be turned out. But look at what had taken place just before. At Ermelo the Minister of Justice, some weeks before the hon. member was turned out, went right in the face of everything his leader said for years, and he, for the first time, introduced the native question as a political cry in the political arena. Yet the Prime Minister took no steps whatever and allowed matters to drift, but the hon. member for Benoni was made the scapegoat for a far less flagrant violation of the decencies of Cabinet responsibilities than the Minister of Justice was gulity of. But there are other members of the Ministry who have been doing the same kind of thing. When various members of the Cabinet, in defiance of the doctrine and statements of the Prime Minister, went about the country preaching republican propaganda, which the Prime Minister had said was a dead issue, was that not an occasion on which the Prime Minister should have put his foot down and said, “These Ministers are not going to stay in the Cabinet while I hold the position of Prime Minister of this country.” On that occasion and on many others, there were times when the Prime Minister, if he had any feelings for the decency of Parliamentary government and his own position, should have resigned and formed a new Cabinet, as he did in 1928, and as his leader did in 1912. This kind of thing is leading to a loss of prestige of Cabinet responsibility, and is something which will react in a damaging way and will have an effect on the whole of the public life of the country. At the same meeting in Durban in July, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who was then responsible for every one of his public actions in this country to the Prime Minister, took part in the passing of a resolution in favour of socialism pure and undefiled—things which the Prime Minister had repudiated and said were not the policy of the Government. At the meeting at Johannesburg, which was a counterblast to the meeting in Durban, the Minister of Defence made a speech in which he said “We do not want this cheap communism, howling for the moon”. I want to know what the cheap communism howling for the moon is. Was it the kind of thing the hon. member for Benoni so constantly brought before the House, supported by the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston); was it the notorious motion they brought in every year for the socialization of the means of production, or was it what was contained in that celebrated report of the Minister of Labour when he attacked the cost of living? [Report read.]

That is not communism.

The hon. members over there approve of that?

That is our policy.

I would approve of any system that would get you off the backs of the working classes of the country.

[Further extract from report read.] Where is that “continued agitation” for these things?

Who told you all that stuff?

I am reading from what the Minister of Labour himself said.

You should be at night school.

I do grieve for the Minister of Labour when one of his own followers says this. I think one of the most humiliating spectacles was that presented by the great Labour party when at the conference at Johannesburg in July, 1928, the Minister of Defence said: “If the Nationalist party come into power they will form an independent government if they have an independent majority; if they do not have it we shall continue to assist in sharing the responsibilities of the government.”

Why worry?

We are not worrying.

It sounds very much like it.

The Prime Minister, in one of his speeches, at Luckhoff, said in reply to a questioner: “If the Nationalists secure a clear majority, naturally they are going to form an independent government.” The Labour party allow themselves to be at their beck and call; I can only congratulate them on the Christian forbearance and humility which they have shown. Now we have heard a great deal from the Government benches about native policy, and in that connection I wish to refer to this manifesto. This manifesto has been described in various ways. I am prevented by the Rules of this House from referring to it in the way I would like, but I would say this—that this manifesto is the darkest blot upon any party which has taken part in the political history of this country. When the people who put their names to this manifesto come back after the election and consider in cold blood what they have done, they will hang their heads in shame. I want to refer to one passage in that manifesto in which the signatories say of Gen. Smuts—

The travesty of that statement needs no further comment. Then this manifesto goes on to say—

People who can write like that have stamped themselves with ignominy for all time. All I can say is that political hypocrisy can go no further. The Prime Minister has laid a charge that the policy of the South African party is to be dictated by the old Unionist party, but the country will look at the merits of a party, and not at any particular policy. Does the Minister of Finance say that this policy is dictated by the old Unionist policy?

Which policy?

The policy this party is alleged to have for the protection of the natives.

I prefer using my own words, and I think I put the position fairly this afternoon.

When the Act of Union was first drafted it came before the country for consideration, and one of the most debated clauses was No. 35, which dealt with the position of the native and the protection of his existing rights. One of the first bodies to discuss that position was the Afrikander Bond, the originator of the South African party, and the old Cape Parliament passed certain resolutions which were adopted by a Bond-conference held in Dordrecht and a member of the Bond, Mr. Postma, moved an amendment in the Hosue of Assembly with a view to getting it embodied in the Act of Union. Among those who took part in that debate were Mr. Sauer, Mr. Merriman and Mr. Schreiner, and an amendment was moved to the effect that before the coloured franchise could be taken away there should be a two-thirds majority of the Cape members of Parliament. The Bond laid itself out to protect the existing rights of the natives. Was Mr. Hofmeyr a Unionist? Was Mr. Sauer a Unionist? Was Mr. Merriman and Mr. Schreiner? These were the views held by men who believed in dealing honestly and justly with the native. As a result of this Mr. Hofmeyr received a letter from the Coloured Peoples Vigilance Committee expressing the gratitude of the whole of the coloured people. In his reply Mr. Hofmeyr said—

Those views may be wrong, and hon. members on the other side may be right, but can anyone doubt the honesty and the great vision of Mr. Hofmeyr on these matters?

Was that always your opinion?

I have always held that Mr. Hofmeyr was a great man, and had a great love for his country, even although I did not always agree with his views. Whether he was right or wrong in the views he expressed, they are the views held by a great statesman and an honest man. People who will put their names to a document such as this, making charges against my honoured leader, a man whose reputation will not be touched by this sort of attack, will find that they cannot make such charges against him and against us, based upon travesties of the truth without an effort being made to enlighten the people as to what are the real facts. They should remember that in making these allegations they are making them against the memories of dead men who lived for the good of their country. Recognition of this will go throughout the length and breadth of the Union. The country is going to know the real facts, and who the people were who supported the policy which the Government chooses to attribute to the South African party.

We have now had eight days of this debate. We have listened to the vaguest, most groundless accusations which have been brought against the Government by the Opposition. There was not a single case where they attacked the Government with concrete cases of having done something to the detriment of the country and the people. We have to-night heard from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) how a Cabinet should be constituted, and how the Prime Minister should act to constitute it, and what members he should choose. Let me tell the hon. member that that advice is not needed at all, and that the Prime Minister will make no use of it. The hon. member further said that it was not the question what principles they had, whether of the S.A.P. or of the Unionists, that did not matter at all. He further explained how well they agreed together. I am quite prepared to believe that the Unionists are very well satisfied with what has occurred. Since they have co-operated, Unionist principles have won every time. Then the hon. member accuses the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister for dragging the native question into party politics. Let me tell him that no one else but his leader, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) dragged the segregation question into party politics.

No.

The hon. member says no. Let me just quote what the hon. member for Standerton said in the Pretoria agricultural hall on the 28th April, 1924. I do not think he will deny it this time, because it was his election programme of 1924 to which he himself subscribed. He then said: “But my great fear is of the segregation policy of Gen. Hertzog.” Now he comes here and asks, what the segregation policy of the Prime Minister is, and yet he knew what it was in 1924. To-day he does not know it any longer after it was debated in the Select Committee on Native Affairs for four years, on which committee he was also a member. He said here in 1924—

Now is that not then the native question in party politics? In his election programme in 1924 he makes a statement on the segregation question, and then the hon. member for Standerton comes quite innocently and says it is too soon to introduce the segregation question, now let us wait a little, we must not now go to the country and make it a political matter. In 1924 the hon. member for Standerton dragged it into politics and has always done so, but in his speeches at Ermelo and elsewhere he wants to run away from the question which he himself dragged into party politics. He, however, ought not to run away now. We on this side of the House have always said that segregation would be tackled, and the Prime Minister has always stood by that. In 1924 when we came into office the hon. member for Standerton was in a great hurry over this matter. He asked, when was the native question coming up? The Prime Minister replied that the Bills must first be referred to the Select Committee. The Select Committee went into them, but the Prime Minister had to have an opportunity of introducing them, and now that that point has been reached the hon. member for Standerton wants to run away from them. We cannot always act as he does and neglect to tackle a thing. We on the Nationalist side have never yet hesitated when great problems had to be dealt with. Just as we tackled the flag question, because it was necessary… …

No.

The hon. member says no, that it was not necessary to tackle it, but has not the hon. member for Standerton again shown how necessary it was when in his speech on this motion he said that we had not properly administered the Flag Act, that the Union Jack should also be flown in South-West Africa, and in the native territories? Now the hon. member for Standerton comes and says again we must not drag the native question into politics, but we are not afraid we shall, as in the case of the flag question, the finances of the Provincial Councils, our independence question, attack the question of segregation, whatever hon. members opposite may say. I am convinced that we can confidently go to the people, and that the country will support us in the future as in the past. Why are hon. members sitting on that side to-day, because they never tackled problems, it was always: “Postpone, postpone, and allow things to develop.” I think the Government can look back with pride on its five years of office because it has done more in so short a time than any Government. My hon. friends opposite, and the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has tried to throw up a smoke screen for shelter by stating that the late Pres. Kruger also aimed at extending to the north. His policy, however, was quite different from that of hon. members opposite. We are accused of supporting a policy of isolation, but there is better co-operation to-day with neighbouring states than during the South African party time.

You are afraid of the Portuguese.

I am always receiving from neighbouring states representations asking us for advice, and if we were not living in friendly relations with them they would not do so. I can assure hon. members opposite that we are on the best footing with our neighbours. It is strange that the hon. member for Standerton has dared to mention the question of industries. In connection with the diamond question he tried to find trouble by which to promote bad blood. He also criticised our industrial policy, but on each of his points he was so smashed that he could not say anything more. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has also tried to make a fuss about the Wage Act, but he suffered so severely that we do not see him in the House any more. The hon. member for Standerton who always speaks so much on the countryside did not, in introducing his motion, say a single word about agriculture, although it is one of the greatest industries in the country. On the countryside, however, he tells the farmers that they are being badly treated. He says they were angry with him on account of the tobacco tax, but that it was one of the best taxes that ever existed. So I want to tell my farming friends that there will be another tobacco tax if they vote for the hon. member. He also tells the farmers that the Government forces them into compulsory co-operation, and we have had the same story to-night from the hon. member for Rondebosch. The Government has not, however, forced the farmers into compulsory tobacco co-operative societies. What was done is that we have passed an Act that if 75 per cent, of the farmers in a branch of agriculture voluntarily join a co-operative society, and then request that it should be compulsory for the rest to deal through the society, only then is the co-operation compulsory. In the tobacco industry it happened that 80 per cent, of the tobacco formers asked for compulsory co-operation, and only then were the remaining 20 per cent, told that they must sell through the co-operative society. Let we tell the hon. member for Standerton that if the farmers are so dissatisfied about the tobacco co-operation and 80 per cent come and say they want to stop it, then I shall not hesitate a moment to dissolve it. I think, however, that the farmers know that the co-operative society was their salvation, and do not want to see it dissolved. The farmers are now producing 20,000,000 lbs. of tobacco; what would their position be if they had had no co-operative society? I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). I have always considered him rather fair in his arguments, but whether the hon. member now feels that his days are numbered as member for Lydenburg, and has therefore sung such a different tune I do not know. He said that the Minister had done much for the sheep farmers—wonderful, hon. members said a few years ago that I was ruining them, and now they say that I have done much for them. Now the hon. member says that I have done much for the sheep farmers, but nothing for the wheat farmers. This Government made the customs duty 10d. per bag on wheat, or 5d. per 100 lbs. higher than it was under the S.A.P. Government. This Government felt that the root of all trouble was the low grade of the produce. What did the last Government do to improve the production? This Government immediately established an experimental farm where experiments were made, and I hope that within not too long a time the wheat production will be much better than what it is. Then things will prosper more with the wheat farmer. What did the S.A. party do for the wheat farmers? When the farmer had a chance of getting a decent price for his wheat the S.A. party said that there was not enough wheat in the country, and it imported wheat which competed with South African produce and brought down the prices. Further the tax payer had to pay £750,000 for the rotten flour imported. The S.A. party tried to ruin the wheat farmers. It broke his back and made poor whites. Let us draw comparisons in another branch of farming. The S.A. party not only tried to make poor whites of the wheat farmers, but also of the maize farmers. The hon. member for Bethal said the Government had done nothing for the maize farmers. Let me first enquire what the S.A. party did when there was a large surplus in 1920. The first thing was to place an embargo, because it was said that there was a shortage. Only by means of permits could certain people export a small quantity. The market price overseas was then 27/- a bag. When the permits were issued the Minister of Railways made no provision for the carriage until such time as the Argentine mealies were on the market, and the price then fell to 8s. a bag. When the farmers therefore could eventually export, the price was so low that the maize farmers in 1920 lost £3,000,000 on mealies. What did this Government do in 1925 when we had the greatest maize production the country has ever seen. The Minister of Railways so scheduled his trains that that large surplus was exported within a reasonable time. Not only that, but the Government also established an experimental farm at Kroonstad to try and improve maize production in our country—which is very low—and this will greatly assist the farmers. Now the hon. member for Bethal indulges in wild talk and says that the railway rates on fertilizers are so terribly high. The S.A. party made them so high, but the present Minister—this was one of the first reductions— reduced the rate on kraal manure from £5 14s. 7d. to £3 13s. 4d. Is that not a concession? How can a responsible representative of the people come here and say something which, as he knows, is void of all truth.

The Minister must not say that. He says that an hon. member has said something which is void of all truth. That practically amounts to saying that the member is speaking untruths.

I withdraw, and say that it is devoid of truth. The rate on fertilizer was reduced by the S.A.P. Government from £6 11s. 1d. to £5 17s. 4d. How can the hon. member say such an irresponsible thing? Is he trying to find something to gain a few votes? I know that he is alarmed. He is looking for something to tell his electors, but he is on the run and I am very sorry that we shall not see him again in his place in this House. I now come to another branch of farming, namely cattle farming. We hear so much of the Government having done nothing for it. Is it not a fact that the Union of South Africa has never yet had a better market for its stock and cattle than now? That is caused through the care of the Government that Johannesburg, our cattle market was retained for our farmers. What however did the previous Government do for the improvement of our cattle? We have established an experimental station at Pietersburg to get a better class of bulls, and at Zoutpansberg we also have a farm to advise farmers how to improve their cattle. Information with regard to milk was introduced by which hundreds of people are learning to improve the milk and butter production. We are stating facts.

You are wonderful.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) said that the Unionists had never done him any harm.

They have done much good.

I did not wish to mention it, but if the hon. member wants it then I want to ask him what they did in the Transvaal in 1896. The hon. member well knows how I and others suffered bitterly when we fought for our independence, and when the hon. member was sitting singing the tune of the victor. I return to the hon. member for Standerton. When the question was put to him why he did not deport Kadalie when he was in office he answered that the law did not permit it. Is that so? He said it?

Go on.

I want to know if you gave that answer.

I shall answer at my convenience.

A magnificent reply. The hon. member does not deny it. Is it not a fact that an order was given to deport Kadalie, that he appealed to the court and failed, and thus was to be deported, but that a telegram came from the native congress that the Government would not have the native vote in the election if Kadalie were deported. Is it not a fact that thereupon a telegram was sent that the deportation order should be withdrawn, and that the hon. member for Standerton himself signed the minute to the Governor-General to repeal the order.

Your fellow.

Is he who does such things a national leader? Can that hon. member expect the public to give him their confidence again at the next election? I think the hon. member for Lydenburg said last night that there were more bankrupts recently than before. Did I understand him correctly?

I said that so many bonds had never been called up, nor so much ground sold as recently, I did not use the word “bankruptcy.”

When bonds are called up, and land is sold it of course means bankruptcy. I do not know where the hon. member got his data from, but I shall give the official figures. In 1922 the number was 2,470; in 1923, 2,263; in 1924, when the Saps, governed for part of the year it was 1,941. Since the present Government came into power, however; 1925 only 1,372; 1926, 1,227; 1927, 1,325, and in 1928 for the first eleven months 1,288. We therefore see that bankruptcies are less by 50 per cent, in comparison with the S.A.P. time. Various hon. members opposite including the hon. member for Standerton also said that when trouble arose in Namaqualand the Government sent armed police there to shoot their own flesh and blood.

No, I did not say that.

Then I accept it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) asked why people had to be sent from the Cape to the Transvaal to work on afforestation instead of using them for the building of dams along the Orange River. I want to tell him that we do not intend to build that kind of political dam. Take e.g. the case of the Cannon Island dam, with the building of which a start was made before the election, and the pillars of which were erected at a cost of from £40,000 to £50,000, although it was subsequently not proceeded with. This Government is going to build dams where required, and where the Irrigation Commission tells us they are necessary. We have so often heard that the S.A. party is so very good, and gets such great support from its own people, but that does not appear from their own mouthpieces, their newspapers. A quotation from the “Natal Mercury” has already been given, but, as the leader of the Opposition has attacked the Minister of Finance nad praised Mr. Burton I want to quote what the “Natal Witness” says of Mr. Burton and the S.A.P. Government—

That is a newspaper supporting the hon. member for Standerton, and yet he still cherishes the hope and repeats everywhere in the country that the people have changed their opinion, and that he will come into power again; yet his own press says that the South African party Government was very weak. Does the Opposition leader think that the people will never trust him again after all the misery, trouble and burdens that he caused? No, we are going to the country with full confidence, and know that the verdict of the people is good and sound. It possibly takes the people a long time to think things out and that is why the South African party Government stopped in power so long, but now that the people have once written “Mene mene tekel ufarsin” on the forehead of the South African party they will never again come into office.

What I am greatly and chiefly concerned about is to state the feeling existing in this country to-day, compared with what it was in 1910. To me, at least, this is much more important than diamonds or gold, because it concerns the people of South Africa. It is only on a basis of common trust and goodwill that we will be able to build up a great nation in this country. When the history of South Africa in these times is written, I think it will be said that the Hertzog Government was the worst possible. And I think I am going to justify that statement. I regret very much that Gen. Hertzog has been the most sinister figure in that history. I should like to take the House back to 1910, when there was almost a revival in this country; there was an uplift that was almost spiritual in its character, and we then hoped that the men of this country would rise on the stepping stones of their dead selves to higher things. But in 1912 all that was shattered, and we found that there was a division among the people that was being widened. To me the greatest perfidy of all is that in this year of 1929 an attempt is being made to divide not only the white, but the black races. That is a terrible record. When this Government came into power it had such a goodly heritage. People were tired of the old Government, as people will tire, and they were ready for a new beginning. They wanted to do away with the bitterness of the past. That God-given opportunity came to Gen. Hertzog in 1924. At that time the British section of the people wanted to do away with all the troubles of the past, but I regret to say there was no peace. Everyone knows that the Prime Minister at that time could have led South Africa just as he willed, and any gesture of goodwill coming from the Prime Minister would have been received with open arms. The country is longing for peace, but we are still crying for it in the wilderness. But for these differences which exist there is no doubt that money would come into this country much more freely. We heard a Minister last night shouting about the prosperous conditions of the mines, but the fact remains that the price of mine shares is lower than it has been for the last four or five years, simply because people have no confidence in this country. We have the cheapest land in the world, land which, given proper care, would yield a very decent living to thousands of people, but despite the fact land is cheaper here than in any other part of the world. The Government have not put up the price of shares, neither have they increased the price of land. Ministers have been going about the country making interminable speeches, and on many occasions, I think I am right in saying, raising discord. If they would only come to us we would like to help them to grapple with the greatest question in South Africa, namely, the question of the poor whites, and then, I think, something would be done. To me, this poor white Question is greater than the native question. It is also much greater than any German treaty. If it had not been for the despised mine-owners, the position of the unskilled men in this country would have been infinitely worse. This question of the poor whites is a solid question, and I say it is a very poor assessment of our ability if we have to import people from other lands to tell us what to do with our poor white population. After all, we are only a very small potato, although we boast about our country, but if we are proud of our citizenship, let us tackle this poor white question and see what can be done. There is no doubt that these poor people are going from bad to worse. I would like to say a few words about the old Unionists. The Premier delivered a speech in Pretoria two or three weeks ago, in which he said—

That is a wicked speech, an ungenerous speech, and a direct insult to the British people of the Union. The Prime Minister knows quite well that the first Unionist party comprised men of standing and leading in South Africa. A few of the names of the first Unionist party occur to me, and the first name is that of Alexander. I was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) the other night. I believe he has tumbled over to the Nationalist benches. Judging from his speech, and the quotations he read, he appeared to have forgotten that he was at one time member of the Unionist party. Reverting to the Prime Minister’s speech, all of us who are interested in the education of the children must know that words like these from the Premier must have a reflex action on the children in our schools, and divide them into opposing groups. That speech is an insult to some of the members of this House, including Sir Thomas Smartt, Sir William Macintosh, Sir Drummond Chaplin, Mr. Patrick Duncan, Mr. C. P. Robinson, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Emil Nathan, and myself. Before the Premier makes a speech in future he should go down on his knees and ask for guidance. It is almost inconceivable that a man should utter such things. He said that we stifle and annihilate industry. We are the builders and creators of industry in this country? Take the mining industruy—one of the wonders of the world Who runs it? It is run mostly by members on this side of the House. Have you any man on that side comparable with Sir Abe Bailey or Sir Lionel Phillips, or the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), or the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt)? Have you any men who can put them in the shade? Not one. But we can do much better together, and we are only going to do better if we work together. My time is passing, and I could relinquish political life quite cheerfully if I could hope, alter my experience of the last fifteen years, that a real effort is going to be made towards co-operation of the two races in this country. We are told that a central party must be formed. Who is to form it? We can work out our own salvation if we like to meet together with Christian, honest purpose, to see the country through. I hope that is going to come about. We are going to work with you, whether you like it or whether you do not like it. Here we are in this country, two strong races, and surely we can find common ground in the peace and prosperity of South Africa.

When I came into the House this evening, and saw that the hon. member for Rondebosch was waiting to begin his speech without any supporters on his side sitting in the House, I immediately felt sorry for him, because it is a proof of what interest members opposite take in the motion. It is a pity that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is not here this evening. Yesterday again he delivered one of those speeches to which we are accustomed. He has the reputation here in the House, and also in the country outside for being the man who slings the most mud. The only one who comes near him is the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). What is so painful to me is that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) who bears a valued name can never get up in the Hous without speaking in a scornful way of his fellow Afrikanders. Yesterday again he said a few things which hurt me particularly. He asked the Prime Minister where South Africa would be, if it were possible, suddenly to take away the South African party. According to him the rest of South Africa are a lot of paupers. By paupers we understand beggars, so it means nothing else than that the hon. member describes the Free State population which is 90 per cent. Nationalists as a lot of paupers. The hon. member also spoke of our voortrekkers, and I am surprised that a man who is ashamed of speaking his own language should mention the name of the voortrekkers. When did the hon. member ever deliver a speech in this House? To-day he is not only anti-Afrikaans, but is a man who bears the greatest hatred towards the Afrikaans-speaking people of South Africa.

It is untrue.

Every time the hon. member gets up in the House he must say something to hurt the Afrikaans-speaking people. He is worse than any old ex-Unionist in the House. To-day we as Afrikanders certainly do not feel proud of a man such as he. What is his record He practised in the Free State in my constituency, and later he betook himself to the political sphere. Of course he came off very badly from that, and afterwards shifted to Bloemfontein, and then to Port Elizabeth. Now he is going to Barberton. To-day he cannot in one constituency count on the vote of the Afrikaans-speaking people. He said here, too, that the South African party consists of the better portion of the people of South Africa. I do not know what he calls the better portion, but I want to say that I as a Nationalist feel proud to know what men stand behind the Nationalist party. Who are the supporters of the South African party today? Not one member of the Empire Group will give his vote to the Nationalist party, but the South African party can count on all their votes. Then there is that so-called “Our Empire First” society. They stand by the South African party. The South African party also lays claim to the vote of the native, and now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) says that they have the better portion of the population behind them. We will grant that that side have the support of the mine magnates and the big capitalists. Hence it is that the South African party has always been stamped as the capitalist party. The hon. member also said that we divided the people. He knows that in 1911 the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had the people of South Africa solidly behind him. He must honestly admit this. Who has he behind him to-day? There are still a small number of Afrikaans speaking people, but they are very few. We feel that we must work together in this country, but we also feel that the rights of every section of our people must be maintained, and it was because we felt that the Afrikaans-speaking section did not obtain its rights under the administration of the S.A. party, therefore there are so few sitting behind the hon. member for Standerton to-day. At the end of his speech the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) became a little more conciliating. He said: “Let bygones be bygones.” Why is the S.A. party so opposed to our looking into the past? Why are they so afraid of their deeds of the past? We ought not to be afraid of history, but the other side is always afraid if we touch the past. The hon. member for East London (North) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) here again made an attack on an Afrikaans-speaking person because he had obtained an appointment. That man is Gen. Maritz. After 14 years he still grudges him an appointment, but if he goes back into history he will find there Jameson who in my opinion did a much worse thing than Gen. Maritz, and what was his reward? He became Prime Minister. Why does the hon. member grudge something to our Afrikanders? And now to revert to the motion of no confidence. I think the hon. member for Standerton has rendered a great service to the people and they ought to be very grateful to him that he has brought this motion before the House. Because of that we are to-day in a position to make a comparison between what the previous Government and what this Government has done. We know that at that time that Government has dissolved because the hon. member for Standerton and many of his supporters felt that a change of Government must come, because they could not continue any further, such confusion was prevailing. Still the hon. member for Standerton came and made an appeal to the people and said “Put me back in the chair.” We think of what took place and the people too will not have forgotten it, and I am sure that when the people give their verdict then they will not be in favour of the S.A. party. To give a proof of what a hopeless Government it was, and how tired the people were of it I just want to ask where the Ministers of that Government are today. Where is Minister F. S. Malan, where is Mr. Malan? Where is Col. Mentz? He is trying still to find a seat somewhere. Where is Mr. Burton? He is still seeking, and what is still more the hon. member for Standerton could not even come in in his own place. Nearly all the Ministers were voted out. A better proof that the people were tired of that Government is hardly possible. We think of what the hon. member for Standerton said after the Nationalist party came into power. He said that they must keep themselves ready because it would not last long, within a few months they would be in power again. The Government however has served out five years, and the Government need not blush or feel ashamed of what it has done in those five years. The Government has never hesitated to tackle the big problems and everyone must admit that what they have tackled they have also put through, whether it was popular or not. If we look at the previous Government, how weak were they. How long for instance did they not struggle with the Medical Act? Then the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows all about it. They never succeeded in putting it onto the statute book, but this Government succeeded within three years in putting it through. The same for example was the case with the liquor law. Hon. members must admit how weak the previous Government was and that they could put through nothing. Further a few attacks have been made here by the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). He said, what has the Government done for the farmers? I as a farmer say that the farmers are very grateful to the Government for what they have done in the short time they have been in power. Take for example scab. When the Government came into power there were 26 districts declared clean. In 1927 there were 187 clean districts in the Union. I say that if the Government has gone so far as to stamp out scab then this alone is enough to justify the existence of the Government, but they have done much more. As the Minister of Agriculture has already said he has done a great deal for the cattle farmer in the country. Everyone will admit that the markets for cattle have improved much since the Minister has greatly reduced the importation of cattle by means of the agreement with Rhodesia. Further I want to point out what the Government has done in connection with farm telephones. In 1924 there were 441 farm telephone lines, in 1928 there were 1,651 lines. The farmers have every cause to be thankful, for by those lines they have been brought into touch with the markets which is very valuable, and constantly still more lines are being laid. The farmers also owe thanks to the Government for the road motor services which they have instituted. By those means the farmer is able to bring his products to the market quickly, and how many freight motors are not already running to-day and they are still always increasing. But one of the best things which the Government has done is that it changed the Settlements Act, so that now the people pay only half of what they did formerly. I know of numbers of farmers who were bywoners and hirers, who to-day are landowners. We hope that the Government will grant still more money for this purpose, but if I say that this Government has reduced the terms by half then I ask will these ever be a farmer again who is going to vote against such a Government? Take further the agricultural credit. It is the Government which created this. How many people are there not to-day who by means of loans are in possession of stock, who formerly possessed nothing. Another thing which the Minister has done is that by means of the agricultural trains he has spread knowledge. I can assure the Minister that those trains with the experts going through the country are very much appreciated by the farmers. Another thing to which not enough attention is paid is that all agricultural implements today come into the country duty free. I hope that the farmers also appreciate this properly. Now I have just mentioned a few things, but I must say that I cannot understand how a farmer who has his own land interests at heart can ever vote against the Government. The farmer to day is in a much better position than formerly. Enough has been said already about the protection policy of the Government, but am sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not here. I would much like to know what his policy is going to be if ever he comes into power. By that protection policy to-day the young industries of our country are flourishing and new industries are springing up. A young country like South Africa must have a measure of protection for its industries. The condition of the civilized labourers also has improved much, but I would also like to ask the hon. member for Standerton what he is going to do in that respect. Is he going to keep white labourers in service, or is he going to substitute natives for them? I would very much like to know that because his party is hopelessly divided on that, and some members of his side have attacked the Government because it has taken whites into the service. By that policy of the present Government to-day there are thousands and thousands of young white men earning a living. Those young men of the working class want to know before the election what the hon. member for Standerton is going to do. Then there are, too, the statements about “jobs for pals.” Well, the hon. member for Standerton paid a visit to Heilbron. We received him there very well, so well that perhaps he received the impression that we—

Are all Saps.

Yes, all are Saps, but he is wrong because at Heilbron he did not make a single convert. The hon. member also held a meeting, and made the most moderate speech which he has ever made.

After all, he was in the Free State.

Yes, it was in the Free State where he had to speak about “jobs for pals.” I then asked him how many administrators during his administration he appointed who were Nationalists. He then scratched his head and said, “One.” I asked who the one was, and his answer was Gys Hofmeyer. Now I would like to ask any member if he has ever known Gys Hofmeyer as a Nationalist. He said it because perhaps he thought that many of the people did not know that he was a Sap., but he was that always, and to-day he is standing as the South African party candidate for Riversdale. What then was the object of the hon. member for Standerton when he said that? It did look too bad when he had to say not one. But I ask how can a responsible member say something which—

Order.

Is untrue? I do not want to go into all the misdeeds of the previous Government, but I just want to point out what the member in the House who is altogether impartial, the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) said. The hon. member does not belong to the S.A.P., nor to the Nationalist party, and hon. members know that he has often voted against the Nationalist party. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) here made a clear statement of the condition of the country and warned the country to take care of the S.A.P. administration. What is so strange to me is that the hon. member for Standerton, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said here that the digger, the small man, does not get enough protection. I would just like to say this to the diggers through the length and breadth of the country, that if the S.A.P. had been in power then blood would have flowed at Lichtenburg and other places. But what is more, if the S.A. party were ever to come into power then the diamonds of Namaqualand would no longer remain in the hands of the people but in those of the capitalists, and what has the small man got then? I wish that the hon. member for Standerton in this respect too would be honest and say what he is going to do. He has never done so, because I have followed all his speeches carefully, because I expected that about this important problem he would say something too. He has never said what he is going to do, but I would like to point out that if the diggers are going to vote for the S.A. party then it will not last long that the diamonds will be in the hands of the S.A. party pals. The constitution of the S.A. party has also been pointed out here. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has stated that the Unionists are not sorry yet that they joined with the S.A. party. But he need not say it, it is already known right through the country that the old S.A.P.s have no longer anything to say in their party. I am glad that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) nods his head. He thus apparently says it is true. I would like the people to understand that the old S.A. party is stone dead. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) shakes his head, but has he ever heard that a minority dominates or dictates? If he goes to their meetings he sees how hopelessly the Unionists are in the absolute majority. I believe that there are 38 Unionists and 15 S.A.P.s. There is an election before the people. Are the people going to vote for the Unionists or the Nationalists? The former party always stands with one foot in England, but the Nationalist party sticks to its motto, “South Africa first.” The hon. member for Standerton can no longer say this after what he recently said in his speeches. As said, we are standing before an election, but God save South Africa if the old Unionists who control the S.A. party come into power again.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) told us that he was so sorry for the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) because there were so few members in the House when the hon. member spoke. I wonder if the hon. member knows that it is their duty to keep a quorum?

But it is your motion.

I do not know if the hon. member know that the bells have to ring from 10 to 15 minutes almost every day to get a quorum, and I wonder if the hon. member knows that I have for about the last 3 years been regularly noticing the number of members who are present in the House during debates and the Saps are much more in their places than the Nats. When the hon. member for Heilbron got up there were 9 of his friends present of whom 3 walked out so only 6 sat behind him.

How many are there now?

I am not concerned with that, but the hon. member was so sorry for the hon. member for Rondebosch. Now the hon. member for Heilbron said that he wondered if one of the Saps, would get up who would be anxious to say what the state was in the S.A.P. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I have never yet met an S.A.P. member in this House, nor in the caucus nor outside who has said that he is sorry that the Unionists joined us. In the caucus I have never yet heard that anyone is sorry, because in the caucus no such thing exists as Unionist or S.A.P. We all sit there together as people who, as good South Africans, wish to work together in the best interests of the country, and one of the fundamental principles it that there are to be no race hatred questions between us, and that there is no race feeling at home among us. I wonder if the hon. member for Heilbron can say the same. When the hon. member spoke like that about the co-operation of the Unionists and Saps, I thought the co-operation of the pact was like a mixture of clay and sand. You mix it, wet it and then it holds together but when it dries it bursts asunder. The co-operation of the Unionists and Saps, is like a mixture of sand and cement, the drier it becomes the harder and stronger it is.

One-tenth Sap, and the rest Unionist.

One bucket of cement, and three buckets of sand make a good mixture, and we have noticed we are becoming the longer the closer and stronger, and hon. members opposite will still experience this. One of my objections to the present administration is that they place the interests of party above the interests of South Africa. We saw this regularly during the 14 years of the S.A.P. Government. Every question with which the S.A.P. came forward whether it was good or bad in their eyes they fought it, and it has often been admitted that they opposed something because they were the Opposition. The Prime Minister is a good example of that line of conduct. When he was still leader of the Opposition he was asked what he was doing for his people, and he replied that he was busy breaking down and breaking down, and that when he had finished breaking down we would see what he would do. For 14 years he has been breaking down, and in those 14 years he could have helped to build up. These 4 years that we have been sitting here we have helped the Nationalist party in building up those things that were good for the country. In those 14 years of our Government they, on the other side broke down and placed party interests above those of the country. If someone were to charge the Minister of Railways with often using the railways to strengthen their party or to win an election he could not honestly deny it.

Where?

Lots of people have been taken, and taken to a definite section and registered there. They were kept there long enough, and when the election came we found that these people were registered and could exercise their vote.

Where did this happen?

I shall mention another case. A young man came to me and asked if I could help him with work. I asked him if he had already tried the railways and his answer was he had tried. When I asked him what they said, the answer was that they asked what his experience and age were, and then they asked him to what party he belonged. He further said to me: “Well, Mr. Louw, my father has always been S.A.P., and I said that I, too, am S.A.P.” He never again heard anything of the matter. I know the young fellow and his parents. Another young fellow applied and soon got work. When his friends asked him how he had managed it, seeing he too is S.A.P., the answer was that he had had advice to say that he was Nationalist, and he soon got work. What happened at the last election in my constituency? On the eve of the election the Minister of Railways addressed a meeting at De Aar. I have no objection to that, but the Minister said that if there were people with grievances they must not air them there, but come and see him the next day at his hotel. The next day there were numerous motor journeys from the poll to see the Minister. The Minister was honest enough to admit that he had won the election, but is this dignified conduct of the Minister? Now it is said that under the Present Government there have been no strikes. We must admit this, and I am grateful for it, and I also consider it the duty of every rightminded citizen to do everything in his power when there is danger of industrial troubles to remove those dangers. I don’t believe that on hon. member can deny that this has not always been our attitude, that when there was danger of trouble we did not co-operate to remove the danger. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite if they are of the same opinion as I am in that respect. How often have we not heard of the troubles in 1922? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) Mr. Strachan) has told us how under the present Government troubles threatened, but that the Minister of Labour held conference after conference, and that then at the eleventh conference they arrived at a settlement. He said, however, that if only in 1922 only one little conference had been held, that the difficulties would have been removed. Does he not know that conference after conference was held, that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen Smuts) himself went there to see what could be done, and that a judge sat to see how we could get out of the troubles? All possible efforts were made, but will hon. members opposite say what their attitude was, and what they did? The leaders of the Labour party fanned the flames, but when the fire was blazing they were here and made speeches. They did not go there. What did the Minister of Justice do? We know that he met delegates, and we never heard that he had said that the people must not go any further. And what was the attitude of the Minister of Labour? He said: “You have Smuts on his knees, press him further.” And the Prime Minister? He had a secret meeting at Witbank. We do not know to this day what took place there. No, I think it was a dangerous thing for the leader of the Opposition in those circumstances to hold a meeting. After the meeting we heard the stories that help would come from the burgers of the Free State and the Transvaal.

Stories.

Stories? But the stories did arise from a meeting which the then leader of the Opposition had with people who were concerned in a revolution. Those stories did an amazing amount of harm. When hon. members opposite speak of no revolts under the present Government then they must admit that we never took up that attitude but have always tried as far as possible to put out the fire. This they did not do in 1922.

Your policy was, let develop.

It is you who made the position so hopeless that the hon. member for Standerton said then that matters must develop. It is you who allowed matters to develop so that blood flowed. We hear so much of the people who at the election will give its verdict, but what is strange to me is that the people have never yet said to the Nationalist party that they want them as the governing party. It seems to me that hon. members who came into Parliament later do not know what happened, and therefore it is well to remind them. What was the origin of the Nationalist party?

South Africa first.

The hon. member was then not yet in politics.

I was one of the founders of the party.

No, the cause of it was that the Prime Minister would never submit to the voice of the majority. It is a fact that the origin is to be sought in that the late Gen. Botha said that the two races must work together. Then fun was made of conciliation, and the hon. the Prime Minister went about and made speeches which were in conflict with the policy of the late Gen. Botha. The Cabinet must speak with once voice, and when the lateen. Botha scolded him he said he would go to the caucus. Gen. Botha asked him if he would submit himself to the caucus and then he said he would go to the congress. We also know what happened at the congress. At the outset he was asked if he would submit to the majority, but he said he would go to the people if the congress were against him. For 14 years the Prime Minister has been going to the people and has never yet obtained the majority.

We have worked you out.

With the help of your allies. At the last election, however, more S,A.P.s than Nationalists voted.

The natives also voted S.A. party.

The hon. member has on now a white suit, but if he had had on a black suit he would not talk like that. Although the hon. the Prime Minister for 14 years has been telling the people how bad the S.A. party is it did not help, and that is why he was forced to enter into a Pact. It is only with the help of the third party that the Nationalists are sitting there.

How many S.A. party votes would you get without the Unionists?

How many votes would you get without Labour. To-day we find that the Government speaks with many voices, and the reason is that the Prime Minister has not himself chosen his team with which to work. That is why we find they pull together so badly. Some day when we read history then I fear that of the Prime Minister we shall read that he was not a Prime Minister who led, but who followed. We constantly see that the leader of the Transvaal speaks, and that the Prime Minister then follows him. We see that the leader of the Cape speaks, and the Prime Minister follows again; we see the leader of the Labour party speak, and though we cannot understand it we see the Prime Minister again following. His reputation will be that he was a first-class follower of his fellow Cabinet Ministers. The co-operation between the two parties opposite I can understand on the part of the Nationalists, but on the part of the Labour party I cannot understand it. As we see to-day by their co-operation they have committed suicide. The Prime Minister was asked if he would take a donkey home to his house if it had helped him out of the mud. No, he said that he would take it to a stable and feed it. That is the position to-day. The Labourites sit in the stable and are being fed, but it will not last too long. If the Nationalists see that they can get on without Labour, then they will do so, but that day South Africa will never see. The Prime Minister will have to count on their support, or again hand over the reins to the S.A. party. Amongst hon. members opposite there exists great anxiety and uneasiness although they are trying to hide it. The other day I heard a son asking his father whom he was going to vote for, Gen. Smuts or the “Patch.” From the mouths of sucklings we hear truth, because if you see how much “patchwork” is necessary to keep the agreement together then there is cause for such a name. There is another cause of their uneasiness. Their experience during the fourteen years was said, they tried everything possible to get there and with patchwork they succeeded, but they know that if their feet are knocked from under them then there will come a great statesman—a fourteen year statesman—into power, who will again remain 14 years in control of affairs.

I did not mean to take part in the debate, but the duty has been imposed on me especially on account of what has been said in the House, and outside in connection with the provincial bye-election in Potchefstroom. I can well understand that there is great disappointment among the S.A. party at the result, for at the election they respected nothing. No trouble, expense, sacrifice nor means of whatever kind were too much, thus they were disappointed that they have not attained their purpose. And then there was a general idea that the result of the election would bring much water to the mill of the Opposition, but since the announcement of the result there is no more water over their mill. The hon. member for Colesberg, (Mr. G. A. Louw) spoke for instance to-night like one of the old windmills that cannot revolve any more. There is no more steam in the kettle and the S.A. party is cold. One feels that, the hon. friends speak because they must speak, but I think that they must have regretted very much already after the result of the election that their leader ever introduced this motion after all they have heard from this side. There was a general opinion—and I think it is right— that the result of the bye-election in Potchefstroom—would be a test for the following general election.

Tell us about the 1/- a day.

Wait, my mill still has wind, and I shall get to it. I do not take it amiss of my hon. friends that they regarded the election as a test because the latest delimitation did not touch us. Those who voted at the provincial bye-election we shall again be able to use at the Parliamentary election if they are not dead. We know that there will not be a great change. Without boasting I think I can say that I again shall gain the victory.

At the bye-election the Nationalist majority was reduced.

I must remind the hon. member that there were 41 spoilt papers through the post, and of these 90 per cent, were Nationalist. It was the vacation of the Potchefstroom University College, and many students were away. This time we had an accident, but one does not make the same mistake twice. We can well understand the disapointment of the S.A.P. because I have never yet seen such an excited election. 90 per cent, of the electors voted and it was a life and death contest. We do not grudge our S.A.P. friends this strenuous struggle, but I am not sorry that they lost. What, however, I cannot understand is the reason which members opposite give for their defeat. It is alleged to be an election purely on racial lines. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has remarked on it and the English papers were full of it. It is an irresponsible argument, and it is a very bad way in which to go and look for your help. Hon. members opposite know well that to-day there are many right-minded English speaking people in the country who have strong sympathy with the Nationalists. They are people who are no longer out to be led blindly, and who are tired of party politics. They are people who say: “Give us a Government that works for the welfare of land and people. That is all we want.” The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) laughs, but he is a business man, and in his heart he thinks so too. Parties come, and parties go but the welfare of the country is the great thing for the future. There are many English people who think like that about the matter.

Especially the road workers.

You have got it on the brain, but I shall get to it. I say that there are many right thinking English-speaking people in the country who to-day are tired of that sort of politics. And now I get to hon. members opposite and their press. They are now going to attribute the Nationalist victory at Potchefstroom to racial feeling which the Nationalists in Potchefstroom are supposed to have fanned. I say that this is an irresponsible statement. It seems to me that in their anxiety they grasp at anything. Have we not had enough of race hatred, and do the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his friends not think that our Nationalist party do not realise that the time has come for seeking co-operation between those who really mean well with South Africa, and has the Pact Government not proved this? We are working together with Labour, people with English feelings, just as good as those of anyone in the country, just as good as those of any Unionist, even though they are of different opinions. The Opposition are crying over that co-operation and are feeling sore. The leader of the Opposition predicted that it would result in disaster, but has turned out differently. It was alleged that the election at Potchefstroom was run on racial lines. This was said by reason of the great meeting of the S.A.P. on the 28th January, at Potchefstroom. The majority of these people at the meeting were Nationalists. Immediately the chairman of the local branch of the S.A.P. took the chair, the people said that they wanted to chose a chairman, but this was refused. Over that a dispute of 40 minutes arose. Eventually Mr. Alberts the candidate on our side stood up to ask the public to accept the chairman. He expressed the hope that the speakers would not offend the other side. That way of choosing a chairman was wrong, and a provocation. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) not long ago addressed a so-called S.A.P. rally at Potchefstroom, and the meeting was so orderly that the hon. member expressed the opinion that the people in Potchefstroom were very peacably inclined.

What about the stories in “Die Weste?”

Grown up people do not believe in stories. The second folly was, where the majority of those present were Nationalist, that Mr. Barnard the S.A.P. candidate conducted the election campaign with personal references to Mr. Alberts. He joked about the big body of Mr. Alberts, and spoke of his little knowledge and experience, and followers of Mr. Barnard also spoke of the illiteracy of Mr. Alberts and that he did not even know English. At the said meeting Mr. Barnard again said that he was only a little fellow compared with Mr. Alberts, that Mr. Alberts had such a big person, but that if he crept like a small flea into the waistcoat of Mr. Alberts, Mr. Alberts would have more sense there than in his head. The meeting did not put up with it and gave Mr. Barnard no hearing. After that the ex-Minister Col. Mentz appeared on the platform—He is called by the “Cape Times” the sharp ex-Minister—and he immediately commenced with mean attacks on the Government, and spoke in a regrettable manner of the native legislation of the Prime Minister. The audience did not want to listen to this any longer either, and then disorder arose. And now it is said that racial feeling was stirred up. Unfortunately Mr. Barnard is a born Englishman and Mr. Alberts is a born Afrikaans-speaking person. Now who then caused the disorder? When the Nationalist movement came into being the late Gen. de Wet, the great man in the hearts of Afrikanders, came and had a meeting at Potchefstroom, I think in 1913. There was at that time a large English camp, and the English soldiers were brought out of the camp to come and cause oproar at the meeting, not only uproar, but to use the lowest means to humiliate the Afrikander. This was shortly after the war of independence when wounds were still raw. Are the Boers going to allow this to stick to their clothes? From that time until 1919 the Nationalist party has not had the right to hold a public meeting in Potchefstroom. That spirit continued there.