I move—

seconded.

When the House adjourned on Friday I was pointing out how illogical hon. members opposite are when they criticize the policy of the Government in connection with orders for the railways outside of England. I pointed out how the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) also ordered in countries other than England and the strange thing is that we as a Nationalist Government may not do what other people do. I just want to recall that recently—shall I say—the jingo town Durban ordered material and requirements in Germany and I want to point out to hon. members that the Indian Railways, according to a report of the 25th July, 1928, in the “Rand Daily Mail” ordered 22 locomotives in Germany, namely in Munich (Bavaria). I want to point out to hon. members opposite what the Australian Minister of Railways has said. He stated that he was not satisfied with the answer of the British manufacturers to his request for tenders, that on account of their laxness it was very often impossible to give preference to British goods. I recall the ordering of a motorcar for the town of Kimberley. When Sir William Letts, a former president of the Association of British Motor Dealers and Manufacturers, was entertained there at a dinner, the Mayor of Kimberley said that they desired more British motors in this country and a little while afterwards the municipality bought a motor from America. And even hon. members opposite, especially the members who criticise here because the Government orders railway material in countries other than England, ride about here in Cape Town in American, French and Italian motors. Hon. members who don’t want to believe this may just go and look outside where the motors are standing in which hon. members opposite use to drive to Parliament. Recently I had a conversation, with an English-speaking man in my constituency, a person, who, like many English-speaking people, are satisfied with what the Government has done. He said, however, that the Government ought to buy more railway material in England. I pointed out to him that the great bulk of railway material for our country is bought in England, and that our Government bought in other countries only if it were a better bargain in other countries, if the terms were more profitable. Because England supplies many things well and profitably, I said to him many goods were ordered in England. I then asked my friend what kind of motor he had and then he laughed a little and had to admit that he was the owner of an American motor. The South African party use those arguments just to stir up a certain section of its supporters against us, because they cannot keep the people in another way. Those people must be frightened. In this connection I want to say something about our language rights. In 1910 a solemn promise was made at the Convention that the Dutch language would be placed on an equal footing with English. The then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, then issued a circular—it was in July, 1911—in which the attention of the officials of the Department was drawn to Section 137 of the Constitution regarding the use of English and Dutch as official languages and in which they were shown the provisions that every member of the public at any time could use one of the two languages in communications, in the courts, and anywhere else. Immediately hon. members opposite attacked the Minister because he wanted to take away the rights of unilingual English-speaking officials. We did not take away any rights, but we say that if a solemn agreement has been concluded in which English and Dutch are recognized as equal, then too that right must be maintained. If a member of the public comes into a Government office he must be able to use Dutch and need not bring an interpreter. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and other members say that the officials also have the right to say what language they will speak. What a state of affairs that would become! I have the right if I come into an office to speak Dutch and the official has the right to speak English. Who then must bring and pay for an interpreter? For years and years this was the chief point of attack on the Prime Minister and his party and in the years which elapsed when the S.A. party were in power we saw that under General Botha Act 28 of 1912 was adopted. I wonder if that Act would have been adopted if the present Prime Minister had been expelled from the Cabinet before it was passed. In that Act it was provided that after a certain time no one in the Government service could obtain promotion unless he was master of both languages. And what did the S.A. party Government do? While it was in power from 1912 to 1924 195 officials were given promotion in conflict with the provisions of the Act. Hon. members will remember that it was necessary for us in 1924 to pass a law to grant indemnity because the 195 officials were promoted in conflict with the Act, seeing that they were not master of both languages. But time passed and in 1925 the present Minister of Justice again sent out a circular in which was provided that in the police service no promotion could take place unless a person was bilingual. Immediately again an attack was made on the Minister of Justice and the Government. That is why I say it is in the interest of all inhabitants of the country who value that the solemn agreement that the Afrikaans language shall have equal rights shall be observed, that the present Government should come into power again. An attack is being made on us because this Government uses white labour on the railways. Hon. members opposite now say that they are not against the use of whites on the railways, but that they want to know precisely how much more white labour costs than native labour. In this way it is being covered up. They do not want to say that it may not be used—at least not the sensible ones amongst them. Many of the hon. members, however, especially those who depend on the native vote, publicly make attacks on the Government because white labour is being used instead of native. The hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) according to a report in the “Barkly East Reporter” —not a Nationalist paper—in a speech on January 25th criticized the Government on account of a number of measures concerning the natives. The hon. member included the colour bar, poll tax, and the substitution of native labour on the railways as well as the import duty on cotton blankets. Among the natives propaganda is being made by pointing out that we are using white labour on the railways and even also because we impose a tax on cotton blankets which is imposed to protect the produce of the wool farmers. When, however, they come among the farmers they say nothing about it. Alas, we are accustomed to such arguments but how then can the members opposite talk about immorality? In the Transvaal “Die Volkstem” is being used to point out how much has been done by the Government for the coloured people, but when the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) speaks he says that the Government has done nothing for the coloured people and that they can expect nothing from the Government. He is silent about the fact that the Government gives old age pensions to coloured people and he says nothing about the other benefits. In the Transvaal attention is drawn to the benefits, here they are concealed. Talk of immorality! On the 23rd September, 1927, Mr. Gijs Hofmeyr, now the accepted candidate of the S.A. party, held a meeting at which he said that he congratulated the Labour members of the Cabinet because they—although only one-fifth of the Cabinet—really ruled the country. The same month the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said at a congress at Pietermaritzburg that it was tragic to see the Labour Party sitting in Parliament bewitched and bewildered eating out of the hand of Gen. Hertzog, and satisfied that they were getting a little job here and a trifling concession there. Talk of immorality. The farmers are told that labour rules in Parliament, labour that they can accomplish nothing. The same hon. member who on 27th of September said in Pietermaritzburg that the Labourites were being bluffed and were satisfied with a few small appointments said just about ten months afterwards at Bethlehem that the real position was that Labour was master of the Government. Talk of immorality! Which of the two statements can be correct? On the 16th of August, two days after the speech at Bethlehem, the “Cape Times,” the chief organ of the S.A. party which is read by labourites in Cape Town, wrote that in the past Labour had paid a heavy price for the Pact and had shown that they easily surrender their principles. The paper knew that the Labour people had read the report of the S.A.P. leader’s speech at Bethlehem, namely, that Labour was master in the Cabinet and thus wished to put the matter straight again. The same sort of thing is happening in connection with protection. Before the factory owners the S.A. party pretend to be supporters of protection but the farmers are told about the import duties which are the result of the protection policy. Fortunately, however, the Afrikaans farmer has long ago found out what the protection policy means for him. Regarding our status the hon. leader of the Opposition in his election speech in 1920 said that all subordination of the status of dominions had disappeared and that independence had been obtained. In 1927, however, he was in Durban and the same man said that there was an inclination in South Africa to explain the new status as independence. According to him, however, this is not the case, and nothing is more wrong than to do this. Talk of morality! Amid “hear, hears” the same hon. member on the 2nd of December, 1919, promised our own flag and admitted that the Union Jack did not have pleasant recollections. What is his attitude to-day? He says that the Nationalist party are doing harm by taking away the flag at Windhuk. In “Ons Land” on the 7th October, 1919, we read that it was resolved at the S.A.P. Congress that steps should be taken to obtain our flag for South Africa. At the congress Senator F. S. Malan said that he was in favour of the Empire flag retaining a place of honour on official occasions, such as the opening of Parliament, but he saw no reason why our own Union flag should not be hoisted on ordinary occasions. And yet the S.A. party to-day want to stir up the English-speaking people against the Government, because we have established our own flag. The hon. member for Standerton now says that he stands for equal rights for black and white and that there must be no frittering away of the political rights of the natives. On the 15th January, 1928, at Ermelo he made this statement and said that there is only one principle, namely that of Cecil Rhodes, that there must be the same rights for all civilized people. At the same Ermelo, however, he said he was trying to tread in the footsteps of the late General Botha. What did the late General Botha say of equal rights? According to a report in the “Rand Daily Mail” Gen. Botha said on the 17th April, 1917—

In a little native paper I read that Mr. Stallard, Chairman of the S.A. party on the Rand and now one of their candidates, said in May, 1925, that the only solution of the native problem was an extension of the policy of segregation. To that Mr. Stallard added that the white race were faced with two alternatives, namely, exclusion or amalgamation. Talk of immorality! On the one side it is said that there must be no frittering away of native rights and on the other that an effort must be made to catch votes by saying to the people that if no change were made then the white people would be swallowed up. We are also referred to the example of India and it is said a small handful of whites rule millions of Indians. Let me point out that the Indian Government are represented here in South Africa by an Indian. Are hon. members opposite willing to have a native as our representative in England? [Time limit.]

When I first saw the anxious faces on my left, I felt like a traveller who had come across a rock in a weary land. After listening to some of the speeches, particularly that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and the Minister of Labour, I think you will agree with me that our friends on the left have taken a stand which will meet with the approval of the country. Some will no doubt think that this debate has already gone far enough, but it has certainly served its purpose, because it has brought before us several important points which the electors will have to consider at the forthcoming general election. I there fore say that this debate has served a very great purpose, and I think that the South African party can look forward to the decision of the country with every equanimity. Another purpose it has served is that it has shown that the Government, notwithstanding inflated balances and much good work accomplished in many directions, in the mind of all decent thinking men and women in South Africa the Government’s reputation is most unfavourable, and I think that when hon. members opposite move about the country they will find that they are not respected in those circles where they would like to be respected. The reasons for that have been clearly indicated in the course of this debate. The Department of Justice, which in all British dominions is looked upon as an emblem of purity in regard to administration, has been exposed by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and the replies given to his questions have been utterly futile. Indeed they have practically been an admission of the facts. It should have been impossible to have had such charges brought against the department, and then have them rammed down and proved. That must necessarily affect the Government, because the fact that justice is handled in such a way as this, and that there should be one form of political justice for one section and another form of political justice for another. I repeat that this cannot fail to affect the reputation of the Government.

Where has this happened?

My friend on the left has only just wakened up. I am not referring to colour, but to the charges which have been proved, and which have not been answered. Another thing which has shaken the confidence of the people in this Government is this black manifesto, which is one of the most regrettable incidents in the political history of this country, and if this is an indication of the way in which the general election is going to be fought, if this is the way in which we are going, if we are to have a repetition of what took place at Potchefstroom, it is difficult to imagine the pandemonium that is going to take place. If we are going to have repeated these arguments and submit to poisonous propaganda such as the allegation that fish-hooks were placed in the food at the concentration camps; if that is the sort of thing that is going to take place, then the future to which we have to look forward is a very hopeless one. Why could not the Government have sufficient courage to go to the country on their merits, on their programme, or on their policy, if they have one, and allow these untrue and wicked allegations to be forgotten. Another thing which has shaken the confidence of the people is the way in which the Government has jerry-mandered the voters’ rolls. Blocks of voters have been taken from one constituency and pitchforked into another for political purposes. If any Government is at liberty to move voters from one constituency to another in this way it can remain in office for a very long time. It is an unfair and improper thing to do. Then the concluding of foreign treaties—or rather the manner in which they have been concluded —has shaken the confidence of the country, and this is having a most profound effect on the minds of the people of South Africa. With regard to the Minister of Agriculture, I must remark upon the intensity with which he has carried party politics into his department. The Minister has done some good work, no doubt, but if there is one thing which has undone that work in the estimation of the public it has been the bitter racialism he has imported into his department. He should have resisted this temptation, but he succumbed to it. There has been a reluctance throughout this debate on the part of Ministers to defend themselves. We have had the Minister of the Interior sitting in his place day after day, and refusing to get on his feet. Why? Because he has been afraid of a man—afraid of somebody who would follow him and answer his statements. The Minister should have risen immediately the member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) sat down, and replied to him. Now I am sorry to see that the Minister of Defence is not in his place. It is one of the disadvantages we suffer under in a debate of this sort that very few Ministers sit in the House. To-day we have only three That makes it difficult for me to refer to the Defence Department, but I will anyway touch on one point which has been brought to my notice. I have just received a copy of the Imperial army list. This army list is prepared by the Minister of Defence of South Africa, as far as it concerns South Africa, and it purports to give a true and correct reflection of the armed forces of the Union. He informs the Secretary of State for War of the state of those forces up to the 7th September, 1928, and that the details have been corrected. That is practically up to to-day, because there has been no great change in the army of South Africa since that date. He puts himself down three times in this army list, and he describes himself as “Lieut-Col., retired.” That reminds me of the Indian who described himself as a “failed B.A.” If the Minister cannot see that this is a peculiar description of himself, he had better consult the first regular officer he comes across. When we come to the troops we have a still more interesting statement. It will interest the Eastern Province to know that in that district, according to the official return, prepared by the Minister, and handed to the Secretary of State for War for publication in the Army List, that there are in this district four mounted rifle regiments, four dismounted rifle regiments, three infantry battalions, and a departmental corps. In the Western Province district it is stated that there are five mounted rifle regiments, and seven dismounted, three-and-half battalions of infantry, corps engineers, corps signallers, a supply corps, a medical service corps and an armoured train. That is Cape Town. Returns from the Free State and Transvaal are very much in keeping with those I have mentioned. With this sort of statement being sent to London I can imagine that it must have a very great effect upon the British Government. When you see the immense army we have in South Africa you must realize that England would not wish to go to war with us. The only returns which are correct are those of Natal. Well, you would expect those from Natal to be correct. If the rest of the Department of Defence is conducted on the lines of this statement in the Army list, then there is a good deal which ought to be said about it. I now come to the charges levelled against the Government by the member for Zululand. I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior is under the impression that the members from Natal are disputing the question of the flag settlement; if so, there is no question of that, for we accepted the settlement as final. Why the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) brought the matter before the House is that we realize that the honour of Natal is concerned in the breach of faith which took place. Our word is doubted, and it is up to us to prove that every word said by us is true in substance and in fact. I do not intend for a single moment to contest the veracity of the Minister of the Interior, or of the Prime Minister. Their veracity is between themselves and their consciences—it is not a matter in which I am concerned. We did, however, have a rather strange and illuminating incident when the Prime Minister claimed that he could divide the word “lie” into two syllables—that he could pronounce the first and swallow the second. I have tried to do that, and I have come to the conclusion that anyone who is capable of such a gastronomic feat has achieved something which would test the digestion of most people. I am concerned only with matters which are established as facts. I have here all the original documents which have passed between the Minister and ourselves, and we have taken the greatest care of them. Now the first admitted fact in this controversy is that in October, 1927, a statement appeared in all the leading papers in South Africa that an undertaking had been given by the Prime Minister to the leader of the Opposition that the flag would continue to fly in Natal as heretofore. That statement remained uncontradicted for eight months. The next fact is that a meeting took place between the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior and the members for Natal, of course not including the representatives of the Labour party. At that meeting, which was of a very friendly and confidential character, certain things we claim were said, but these things are now disputed. We let it go at that; we let it go that the Prime Minister tapped me on the chest and said—

He says that did not take place; we will let it go. We do know that at the Prime Minister’s request the Natal members withdrew to put in writing what had taken place at the interview. The paper we returned reads as follows—

The Natal members were firmly of opinion that this is the gist of what had occurred. It would have been absurd to put down anything that was not agreed to, because it would have been immediately challenged when they returned to the conference room. Within three-quarters of an hour we returned with this document and handed it in. The document was accepted by the Minister of the Interior. He took no exception to any detail in the document, but apparently—the Minister may smile, but he should not smile yet it is too soon.

The House will know all the facts.

We are sticking to facts.

All the facts.

The Minister said “Leave the paper with me and I think I will be able to draw up a formula on the basis of this agreement, which will be acceptable to all parties.” We assumed that he did not like the rather dictatorial tone of the document and would like to tone it down. There is not the slightest doubt that was in his mind, and it was very late in the evening. He went home and wrote this document. I do not think it was written in his office: it is on private notepaper in his own handwriting, and I assume it was written that night on his return home while the facts were fresh in his memory. The document reads—

That formula as drawn up by the Minister on his first impulse acting under the arrangement that had been come to practically reflects the agreement which was arrived at and we would have accepted that. But something had happened that night. That something necessitated an addition to this agreement which is pushed in as an afterthought. This is what it says—

and then he adds—

That was never mentioned, and that has knocked the bottom out of the whole agreement. Why was that put in when he had already truthfully and correctly written out exactly what was agreed to? It was because he had done something which he had to cover up. At his request the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and myself were asked to see the Minister, and he never for one moment questioned that the promise had been made, but the lines along which he was arguing were that the flag should be flown practically all over, but that it should be hauled down at Vryheid and Utrecht.

Was that raised for the first time then?

No, I do not for a moment say that. But here we were coming down to the final bargain. The Minister knows perfectly well that both the hon. member for Zululand and myself said we were not there to bargain away the rights of any part of Natal, but we were there on one basis only, to carry out the original agreement. This went on for an hour and a quarter. I said to the Minister “Will you answer a question?” He said “Yes.” I said “Have you already promised the representatives of Vryheid and Utrecht that their flags will be hauled down?” He said, “I have.” I said, “Nicholls, we have been a couple of fools,” and the hon. member for Zululand said, “Dr. Malan, we cannot compete with you. We are too honest.” I think these documents will speak for themselves, and I think this one should be photographed. As we were leaving the room, the Minister came with us to the door and he was very strung up. He said, “what are you going to do now?” We said we should have to consult our colleagues. We did not know what to do because we felt we had been very badly treated and some explanation would have to be made. A consultation took place, and as a result, the whole story was put in the press from beginning to end and this document was quoted and has never been challenged.

You saw me only once in my office.

Yes, the Minister is i quite right. Once was quite enough. There was no occasion for any further meeting.

You have a very short memory.

To think that after leaving us that night and giving us to understand he would put in the form of a formula what had been agreed to he should go to the representative of Vryheid and say: “You are to haul down the flag but not say that the Natal members have agreed to it.” It is a shocking story. We are perfectly satisfied that what we did was right and as far as Natal is concerned they accepted our word. We ask this House to accept our word.

Yes, I will tell the House the full story.

I am not concerned with any story the Minister may tell. I am concerned with the document, with his own written statement which, if he had not altered it, would have been acceptable to us. Why did he add to that statement and insert words which altered the whole spirit of it?

I feel that I shall be neglecting my duty if, at this stage, I do not pull my weight on this motion of no-confidence, which has been so long debated. We have now listened for nine days to the debate of which I am certain the public outside are already very tired. The electors sent us here to look after their interests and the interests of the Union, and now, day after day, a debate is taking place that does not mean the least thing to him or his future. And why? Because the hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) on Jan. 29, at 2.30, handed his election ultimatum to the Government in which he says that the Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the people and that the people will not put the Government back on the Government benches. If the hon. member for Standerton had proposed this motion outside at a public meeting, I would have been the first on my feet to propose as an unopposed motion a hearty vote of thanks for that great and splendid chance which he has offered us to be able to speak so freely and enthusiastically to the people throughout the country in order to remind them that we are on the eve of a gigantic struggle and to ask the people if they have pondered over the question whether they want to go back to maladministration of a soulless government such as they had in fourteen dark and dread years, or to send back a Government of four and a half years which has contributed so much to the welfare and prosperity of the country. This Government not only obtained our free status and a symbol of our freedom but has also done much in financial, industrial, agricultural and economic spheres. A good deal has already been said in the House about the shooting down policy of the previous Government. Regarding the policy of the previous Government I admit that they ruled in a troublesome and stormy time from 1914-1924, but it is my intention to mention a few points where the previous Government let matters develop. In 1912 there were omens of disturbance amongst the people. It is unnecessary for me now to go into that but we find that already in 1912 the Government had strayed from the track. In 1913 we find that blood flowed in the streets of Johannesburg because the previous Government allowed matters to develop. In January, 1914, we find stormy discontent and strikes, not only in the railways, the pivot around which the whole future of South Africa turns, but it had also spread to the mines. This strike resulted in bloodshed. In January, 1914, no fewer than 70,000 burghers were called up and fetched from their homes and farms to suppress the strike, at a pay of 2s. 2d. a day. I myself was also commandeered with 180 men to guard the railway line and bridges. It would have been unnecessary if the Government had not allowed matters to develop. It was at that time, too, that the Government deported nine citizens of the country without hearing in a ship of a foreign shipping company, the “Umgeni,” and after they had enjoyed a glorious holiday overseas. The Government was obliged to fetch them back, and everything was, of course, at the expense of the State. If the former Government had the power to expel 9 citizens from the country, what then prevented them from deporting Massabalala, and Kadalie under the same law? The result was that it cost the State thousands of pounds. Then on the 28th of July, 1914, after the murder of the Archduke Ferdinand, in Hertzogovinia-Bosnia, the war broke out, and it was proposed in Parliament to undertake an expedition against our quiet neighbour and to destroy the dangerous German armies and the wireless station. In the Union Parliament, on the 7th September. 1914, it was resolved to undertake the expedition. There were meetings of protest in the Free State and excepting the member for Bloemfontein all 16 Free State members were authorized to vote against the expedition against a friendly neighbour State. Only 7 of the members remained true to the wish of their electors, and if hon. members do not stand by the will of their electors, they have no right to sit here. The result was that in the Free State everywhere the meetings of protest were held because the people did not want themselves to be involved in those troubles, but those protests were regarded as folly and ear was given to the pressure of certain people. On the 24th of October, 1914, I too, was commandeered under martial law to perform certain duties as a citizen against the old unforgettable patriot General De Wet. Gen. Maritz was at that time Commanding Officer of the training camp at Prieska. He received instructions to march with 1,000 innocent, ignorant and minor voung men without permission of their parents to Skuit Drift against the Germans. Notwithstanding the meetings of protest martial law was proclaimed in the Free State under which we as free citizens had not the right to meet in larger numbers than 5 to discuss the situation. A few of our citizens were even thrown into gaol, and a real reign of terror was introduced. But in 1914 too the unheard-of thing happened and it is surely the first time in history that the then Prime Minister, who 14 years before had been beaten by the British forces, together with the hon. member for Standerton, put on the British uniform and wore the British stars on their clothes to lead the German West and German East expeditions and subsequently also the European one. They left the administration to men like Mr. F. S. Malan and Mr. Burton, who afterwards were rejected by the people. It did us good and in this connection I would like to quote the words of President Steyn and refer the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) to them. He said “The language of the conqueror in the mouth of the conquered is the language of slaves.” The present attitude of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) and of Generals Botha and Smuts reminds me of what Langenhoven said, viz.: “The new convert to Roman Catholism is always keener than priests themselves.” The hon. member for Standerton still comes here and boasts that for 11 years after 1913 he ruled, but now take the period between say 7th September, 1914 and February, 1920. On no single occasion in Imperial matters did he neglect to take up the point of view of the Unionists. In 1915 he did indeed win the election, but then the Nationalist party was still in its infancy. But in 1920 the hon. member for Standerton as leader of the people was properly defeated. He could find no other help than that of the Unionists, the old friends of 1914. He called in their help and threw himself unconditionally into their laps. Then the hon. member also said that there was something which troubled him, viz., that the Government meddled too much in the appointment of civil servants. The hon. member for Standerton is indeed the last person to speak about that. For example, he took care that as regards the Defence Force that it was nothing else than a political machine, so that there were officials in that department who were nothing else than spies and political agents. It has already been proved that members of the Defence Force in 1924 told their men that they must vote S.A.P. otherwise they would have to clear out. Those election agents are there still to-day, but I hope that the Minister for Defence after the next election will come more in harmony with the countryside, so that we may regain our faith in the Defence Force. Hon. members opposite have also attacked us about our co-operation with Labour. But what was the position after the election in 1924? 53 members of the South African party got into the House of whom 14 were S.A.P. and 29 Unionists. On the Nationalist side 63 got into the House, and 18 Laboure members were chosen. Labour has remained true to the Government and the majority are still on the right side. And what do the South African party now want the people to believe? That the 63 Nationalists are being ruled by the 18 members of the Labour party but that the 14 old S.A.P.s on that side are enough to lead the 39 Unionists. Last year when the flag question came under discussion, the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay), said that he was not going to vote with the Government. He voted against us and when he maintained that firm attitude, friends on the opposite side gathered round him in the lobby and shook his hand heartily and congratulated him. After the development of the Labour quarrel, I asked an hon. member opposite if they were going to use the appeal of the Hoogtbestuur and he said, “Yes, we will take them so as to twist your necks with them.” I think they will have to wait a good deal still before they can twist our necks for the Government have already been in power for years notwithstanding the predictions of the hon. member for Standerton about revolutions, shedding of blood, and bankruptcies. To-day there are only hundreds of bankruptcies against the thousands of the previous Government. No less than twelve millions of capital have come into the country for different companies and there are still many millions waiting. In agriculture there was a great development and between 1924-1927 production increased by 18 millions to 27 millions. The tax of ¾d. on our wool in Britain has been removed which means an amount of £232,000 to the South African wool farmers. Better shipping conditions have been obtained for our fruit and agricultural produce to an amount of £134,000 for the benefit of the farmer. Further, 1,400 miles of railway line have been laid under the present Government, the road motor services have been increased from 140 miles to nearly 9,000, and farm telephone lines have been extended from 2,321 miles to 8,700 miles. Fourteen thousand poor white people have been given work on the railways, and 1,400 young fellows between 16 and 20 years who left school have been taken into the railway service and are going through a certain training to fit them for higher appointments. For old age pensions an amount of £780.000 has been voted and this amount will increase by 3 per cent, yearly. The pensions of railwaymen have been increased, and a tariff reduction to the value of £1,280.000 has been granted. Income tax has been decreased and exemptions increased and great changes were made in the Estate Duty. The establishment of the Iron and Steel Industry is another splendid act of the Government. To ex-soldiers an amount of £116,000 has been paid out, while ex-republican officials have received £339,000. We also hear a great deal said about unemployment and therefore I would like to quote a few comparative figures. In Great Britain the unemployment figure is 10.7 per cent., in Belgium 9.2 per cent., in Germany 14.7 percent., in Australia 8.9 per cent., in Canada 6.6 per cent, and in South Africa 3.1 per cent. We have also heard that if the present Government came into power mines would be closed down. As against a gold production of £38,307,676 in 1924, the gold production in 1927-’28 was as much as £42,997,000. Then the Government took over the technical industrial schools from the provincial councils and took a burden off their shoulders. On this kind of education the provincial councils spent £260,000, while today the Government devotes £424,000 to it. In its manifesto the Nationalist party accepted the securing of the cattle market in the Union as against the importation from outside, with the result that the importation from Rhodesia which in 1924 stood at 64,990 head has decreased to 40,000 in 1925 ’26 and to 20,000 in 1927-’28. Taking everything into consideration, I have the fullest right in saying that the people are the jury and the judge and that there can be only one verdict, namely, that the hon. member for Standerton with his whole following will remain in the wilderness. The people still possess the sense and the will to keep them there.

The constitution of the Government naturally makes this motion inevitable. The Government is a coalition government, and a coalition government is invariably a weak government, but in the present case it has proved particularly weak. It is a coalition between the National party, an ultra-conservative party that has been and is opposed to any change, and the Labour party. The National party is so conservative that they do not realize that a fundamental change has taken place in the status of South Africa, The Prime Minister first set out to smash the Union, and when he found this an insuperable task, started a futile and unsettling agitation with regard to higher status, and failed to realize a change that took place ten years before. The Labour party is an ultra-democratic, a socialistic party. It is a spend and squander party. It does not concern itself with the economic aspect, whether the country can afford it. When the wheel of fortune puts them on a pinnacle, never in their wildest dreams aspired to. I cannot imagine a more lamentable business than that of Doornkop. The astute Mr. Rosenberg, armed with a certificate of respectability from no less a person than the Minister of Justice, came into contact with the simple-minded Minister of Labour, and we know what has happened. It has cost the taxpayers of this country a matter of a quarter of a million pounds sterling. The Minister has proved a costly experiment to the State. The Labour party will not face economic facts and learn that it is vain to plead busines rights in the face of economic facts. With regard to the civilized labour policy on the railway, there is no doubt that it has resulted in a very largely increased cost to the users of the railway. That increased cost in terms of the Act of Union should be charged to consolidated revenue, and not to the railway account. The question has been asked: “What are you going to do with these men when you get into office?” I don’t think these men can and will be evicted from their jobs, but there is no doubt we must try to improve their condition. I warned the Government at the time against the fatuous policy of taking these men from their farms, where they lived a simple and a clean life, and putting them into the cities.

They went into the towns themselves.

Then you should have warned them against doing so. A good deal of salvage work will have to be done by the next Government. Many of these people are too good to be thrown away and wasted where they are now, and they must be given an opportunity of rising. We have heard from time to time from Labour members before they joined the Pact their party planks were state shipping, state banks, land tax and socialism. The Labour members were sent to this House to fight for those principles. Since the Pact government took office, the Labour members have been singularly silent in regard to those questions. This action or inaction amounts to a betrayal of their trust, and their deluded constituents will require an account. At one time, it was very popular in this House to rage against capitalism, but one does not hear so much of that nowadays, because, as a matter of fact, every member of this Assembly is a capitalist, even from the lowest to the highest, and as far as I can see, the Labour Ministers are now “bloated” capitalists. I should like to quote a passage from that astute thinker H. G. Wells, who says “that the capitalist system has never been defined; it has merely been indicated.” Labour is equally undefined. According to a communist informant, Labour is the proletariat, that is to say the people who produce offspring for whose education and up bringing they have made no provision. It is the propertyless class which works for wages and breeds so that it keeps those wages down to a subsistence level. It is humiliating to learn from the last Transvaal report of the Public Health Department that the mentality of 12 per cent, of the European population is not above that of the most advanced members of the natives. There seems to be parts of the world where there are too many people, and consequently a large number have to exist under conditions which are not becoming for a human being. The country has never given a mandate to the present Government. At the last election the Pact parties were told to support one another’s candidates, but there was not the slightest intimation from either section of the present Government of anything in the nature of a coalition. I remember the frequent charges the Prime Minister has hurled at the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) of having won the election before the last by a fraudulent representation, and we know the chicanery and trickery by which the Pact Government was formed. Some members of the Labour party were very unhappy regarding the Pact, notably the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). He spoke openly and I think wisely, when he said the Labour party had lost its influence and its weight in Parliament. He subsequently himself fell a victim to the cardinal sin by which the angels fell, to ambition, and to the lust for power and the glamour of office. The member for Benoni soon found out that principles which were dear to labour were ignored; those principles which he had so frequently and so eloquently expounded in the House. The late Minister now throws the blame for this on the Minister of Defence. This seems to me hardly fair. How much stronger would not the position of the member for Benoni have been if he had disassociated himself from a Government so inimical to Labour interests. One action of the Government which has given the greatest blow to the prestige and good name of the State is its confiscation of rights legally acquired in regard to the sub-division of farms on the alluvial diamond diggings. Modern civilization is based on the security of property.

It was done by Milner, who confiscated all mining rights in the Free State.

It was never done by a legally constituted Parliament.

Your Government deported us giving us no rights or liberty.

Another matter to which I wish to draw attention is the granting of life passes without any justification to unofficial members of the Railway Board. These passes were given not for services rendered to the State but for political services. How is it that this privilege has not been granted to some of the old officials in the higher grades of the railways department who assisted to build up this great railway service? If the Government had done that parliamentary sanction would have willingly been granted. I refer to such men as Mr. Wallace, chief engineer; Mr. Reid, chief accountant; Mr. Tippett and Mr. Potter, assistant general manager, and others. I think, according to his lights, the Minister of Agriculture is doing his best and is trying to instil into the farming population the necessity of their becoming self-reliant. I think where he is somewhat lax is in not giving sufficient State assistance to the progressive farming population by, for instance, cheapening the cost of transportation of mechanical power. The time is coming when ploughing and other farm work will have to be done by machinery, and we should have made much further advance in this direction if the charges on power oil plant were not so high. If a farmer has a tractor and cheap power he can get on with his ploughing even after a drought, when animal traction is either lacking or sadly deficient in power. I have had correspondence over the matter with the Minister of Finance, but I could not get beyond the statement that the subject is receiving consideration. On this point I am voicing the views of all the leading agricultural societies, that farmers must have cheap power. There is no doubt that the right hon. member for Standerton is right when he says that the native problem is more of an economic than a political question. The native at large is not concerned with the vote, but with the improvement of his economic standard. The native has been brought into closer contact with civilization and that has increased his wants; he now desires better clothing and food, amusements and for life to be made more pleasant. In other words, what he wants and what he should have is a fair deal. The taxes on natives are often oppressive; some natives can pay, but many cannot. If the European can show that he cannot pay the Transvaal poll tax, he is exempt. No such relief is afforded to the native at large. I submit as a matter of fairness and justice this should be remedied. Our duty is to try and improve the lot of the natives just as much as the Europeans. There should be no bar against progress. Let the native expand, and let him qualify and improve himself to the utmost extent of his capacity to enable him to become a useful citizen and to give of his best to the State. The other day the Minister of Finance said the object of the Government was to make secure European civilization and living conditions for our children and children’s children. That is a policy which commands support, but I have never yet read that you can keep any race in subjection by legislation, and in the long run it does not pay. Those who wish to make history must make history. The white man must prove his supremacy by his inherent capacity for government, or else go under. Any attempt at restriction will react upon him. Recently the Prime Minister, in speaking at Bethlehem on August 9th, referred to the fact that the increased cost of living affected the native. I am quoting from the “South African Farmer.” He went on to warn his hearers that—

Commenting on the speech, the paper says—

Here we have the official organ of the Transvaal Agricultural Union condemning this policy. I just wanted to put these few points forward for consideration. In regard to the Wage Board, there is no doubt the application of its determinations has inflicted a terrible hardship upon certain classes of artisans. Employers have told me, “Some of the men in our employ are not worth the minimum. At that wage we can get people to do the work much better and these unfortunate people have to go.” The intention of the South African party was to apply the Wage Act to cases of sweated labour, but its operation should never have been applied to cases of this character. Men working for years and years at a particular job and making a living are suffering by the harsh application of the determinations of the Wage Board.

I get up with a feeling of sympathy for the member who has just sat down. He is, I believe, unfortunately one of “the old gang” who according to the “Cape Times” must go. This afternoon he made an effort to support the statement of that paper that there is no more life in the S.A.P. The hon. member did indeed want to make the impression that “there is life in the old dog yet.”

And he is right.

That is just the objection that the “Cape Times” has against them that there is still a measure of life in them. This makes it so difficult to get rid of them. In any event I must have sympathy with the hon. member and also with the hon. the leader of the Opposition.

Don’t waste your sympathy.

I want to be generous and show sympathy even where it is not appreciated. The hon. member for Standerton in this debate has again experienced one of his great failures and disappointments. He imagined that a great and hefty debate would ensue after the introduction of the motion of no-confidence. At the same time an election would take place at Potchefstroom and at one or other period of the debate a telegram would come that the S.A.P candidate had won with a majority. With that the people would have said “amen” to the motion of no-confidence. That was the scheme, this motion was the old flint-gun which was loaded and at the Potchefstroom election it had to go off. but unfortunately the cap would not spark. Potchefstroom thus became a second Wakkerstroom but unfortunately for them it became in the literal sense of the word a Verneukpan. I have a great deal of sympathy with my friends opposite. I listened attentively to the hon. the leader of the Opposition and many of his bllowers. The hon. member for Standerton the motion had to be proposed because the country was saying this and that. We have learned long ago that when the hon. member for Standerton begins to talk “The Country” he really means Jan Smuts.

The hon. member must speak of the hon. member for Standerton.

The hon. member for Standerton likes to play the role of Louis XIV in the country. “I am the people, I am the State.” The hon. member thinks that the people must think as he thinks and that when he is of opinion that a motion of no confidence must be proposed the people feel that the motion must be proposed. What portion of the people have no confidence in the Government?

The majority.

I have listened to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to learn what portion of the people according to him have no confidence in the Government. It is clear from the speech of the leader of the Opposition that the portion of the population who according to him ought to have no confidence is the British portion or the English-speaking portion, or shall I rather say the Imperialistically inclined portion. There lay the gravamen of his speech because when he became most eloquent the Union Jack was dragged in and an appeal was made to that feeling as has so often been done in the past at elections when we heard the cry “Vote British.” The hon. member is again counting on that portion of the population for his motion of no confidence. That portion must be brought under the impression that this Government is not sufficiently pro-Empire. The great grievance of the hon. member is that this Government does not sufficiently place the empire first. On that most emphasis was laid and hon. members opposite have followed this. Here and there something was also said about the native problem. If the Opposition are so desirous of keeping this question outside of party politics then they ought not to have dragged it into a motion of this nature. But the chief effort was to create the impression that the Government is hostile to Englishmen, that the Government, with its slogan of “South Africa first,” is bitter and hostile towards England. This was the gravamen of the speeches and the little tune has been sung throughout the length and breadth of the country in recent years. Only recently a man, who has a fairly high reputation in the journalistic world of South Africa (an Englishman), said that there could be no doubt that the Government had done excellent work, but there was one thing against them and that is that they are anti-British.

That is correct.

What about the German treaty?

Let me give the hon. members opposite who are continuously raising that cry the assurance that they are doing their Empire no good by doing that. If —people are fostering hostile feelings towards the Empire, then it is the people who say of everything that we do that it is against the Empire. I think that the hon. member who just now made the remark is also one of the hon. members who has a great deal on his record of encouraging this feeling although I admit that as a rule he is not so sharp. What, however, are the facts? This, that this Government with its firm policy of “South Africa first” has done more—sometimes even more than has won my approval—to reconcile the people of South Africa somewhat to the British Empire than any other Government before. There are many people in the country who take it amiss of this Government, who think that the Government are going too far. The hon. member may laugh, but it is a fact that this Government has done more for conciliation than any previous Government. The former Government followed a policy which embittered our people more and more, but this Government has calmed the feelings and washed out a great deal of that bitter feeling towards the British Government.

That, perhaps, was the intention, but what are the facts?

That the good intention is acknowledged is something at any rate. Let us look facts in the face and not accuse the Government unfairly while it was active in just the opposite direction. I want to mention just a few points to prove that the Government in all its actions has shown its desire to be friendly towards the British Government. Let me, as a small example, just remind hon. members of the visit of the British Heir. The Government spent £31,000 in connection with that visit and members opposite know as well as I do that if this Government had not been in power the visit would have passed off very differently. Would the spirit of many Nationalists, of rebels who in the past had a hard time under the British Government, have been such under the previous Government with their explanation of the British Empire? Would there not perhaps have existed more of a spirit of boycott as in India towards the Prince of Wales? Would the reception have been as cordial as now under the leadership of the Prime Minister? Would commandos, mounted commandos of former rebels, hard Nationalists, have taken part in the reception like that? This Government has done more to develop a feeling of friendship towards the British Empire than any previous Government has ever done. The attitude of the Opposition, however, will contribute towards entirely destroying what the Government has done and the Opposition is fast on the way towards that. I want to mention another instance of the good feeling of the Government. There are thousands of people in the country who are of opinion that the time has long ago arrived that the Governor-General ought to be a South African, either English- or Dutch-speaking. This feeling is strong, not only among Nationalists, but also among Saps. In spite of this feeling, although the Government knows this feeling, the Government has gone out of its way to ask his Majesty the King to appoint the present Governor-General again for a period. Does this testify to bitterness against England? Does this not show that the South African people are only too ready to appreciate it if people from elsewhere are willing to feel at home here and to identify themselves with the people of South Africa? It is as a result of this that the feeling in the country to-day towards the Governor-General is not at all as it was towards the Governor-General in the past. It is a proof that that gravamen of the attack of the Opposition—that our attitude is anti-British and anti-Empire—does not take into account facts and that they are destroying what they are so very much in favour of. The hon. member for Weenen in connection with the Flag Act again tried to stir up feeling and here I shall leave him in the hands of the hon. Minister for the Interior who knows all the facts inside out. The hon. member accuses us of being anti-British in our attitude, but recently I met one of the chief S.A.P. supporters in Weenen and asked him why their member was now running away to stand as a candidate in another constituency. His answer was that they told the member that he must clear out because he was such a fire-eater. Although he accuses us of bitterness he runs away to Durban because the people of Weenen do not feel as bitter as he does. The result will still be that more of the Natal members will have to run away. According to my knowledge of Natal I can say that the feeling there is not as bitter as we hear from the Natal members. Take even the Flag Act, in connection with which hon. members opposite will not look facts in the face. Even there the Government did something towards the Union Jack which had never been done before in the country. We did not hide our feelings towards the Union Jack but it is through the action of this Government that to-day it has been placed on the Statute Book as one of the flags of the Union. It is not easy for us to swallow this but it would have been much more difficult for an S.A.P. Government to pass it. This proves that the Government is not filled with the anti-British feeling with which we are accused. The Government went out of its way to meet the Imperially-minded portion of the population half way. At the Imperial Conference a feeling of friendship was shown and more than once I have said that our representatives went too far. My feeling I showed in the House. Yet this snows how unfair the S.A.P. attack is. At the Imperial Conference the hon. Minister of Finance was one of the first to get up and say that we would build an air-mast for the promotion of the traffic of airships—which according to statements in the British Parliament are being built for Empire defence. I even took this amiss of him but how unfair it is of Opposition members to stir up the feeling of English-speaking people as if we are opposed to the Empire and against everything that is English. Now the German Treaty is thrown at our heads. If there is one thing which is going to stir up an antiBritish teeling in the country then it is the unfair and unjust agitation against this treaty.

It is against the way in which it was drawn up.

If the hon. member noticed he would see that the treaty follows almost word for word that of the Anglo-German Trade Treaty. I wonder if the hon. member objects to the way in which the Anglo-German Treaty was drawn up. I do not now want to anticipate the later debate on the treaty but the untruths which are being published in the press ought to be knocked on the head. Constantly it is being announced by the press that the treaty is a proof that we are hostile towards the Empire. After the first announcement the South African Industrial and Commercial Periodical” said that it is a gesture of friendship.

Towards whom?

Towards the British Empire. This observation appears in the December issue of the paper.

Then the paper did not understand the treaty.

Apart from the fact that the paper says so it is absolutely true.

What of the other papers?

I do not speak of papers which are conducted by Opposition money and who are stirring up feeling against the Empire. In fact they are—and particularly the Natal papers and members—the greatest destroyers of the Empire in South Africa. I have never made a secret of the fact that I am not a man of Empire ideals because I am a born republican and from a republican point of view I am grateful to Natal.

We’re not ashamed of it.

Is the hon. member not ashamed of stirring up feeling against the British Empire? Nor does he understand what I say. I repeat once again that the German Treaty is inspired by a spirit of friendship towards Britain.

There you are wrong.

Just take the facts which the man in the street never hears when he reads Opposition papers. The fact is that in the preference which we give to Britain we have given the cream of the preference which South Africa can give. The British manufacturers who need it most have been systematically sought out and in the treaty with Germany they are not touched. We are doing exactly what the leader of the Opposition and Mr. Burton said in 1923 at the Economic Conference of the Empire, namely, that they considered it sound policy to grant the Empire preference on special articles instead of granting a general preference. This is exactly what the present Government has done.

The Government has taken away a lot.

The hon. leader of the Opposition and Mr. Burton said that it must be remembered that we needed markets in the world outside Britain and that they want a free hand to develop those foreign markets.

Who is our greatest purchaser?

When the facts are put before the hon. member, as will happen later, he will find that Britain is by no means such a big consumer of our articles as is alleged. Later on I shall prove with figures that Britain consumes only 27 per cent, of South African imports. I exclude gold which goes through Britain to the world outside and the goods for which Britain is a commission agent. That distortion that Britain is such a great consumer of our export goods should be knocked on the head because it is not true. We want to develop trade with Britain and be friendly, but the truth in connection with this matter must be acknowledged. If ever unfair and unjust criticism has been made then it is this howl over the German Treaty. Why are the Opposition papers and hon. members opposite systematically silent about the fact that Britain gets preference on the preference of our trade? This aspect of the matter is not touched. The value of the preference on the specified goods can be increased even a hundred-fold notwithstanding the German Treaty. They are silent about the fact that our preference to Britain places us in a very undignified position. A row is now being made, but we give preference to Britain without the existence of a trade treaty with Britain. It is still the old idea that we are colonies to be plundered and sucked out, and it is against that idea that we are taking action. The fact is that while to-day as a State we have the right to enter into trade treaties on the quid pro quo basis we to-day give to England a much greater preference than what we get from her. Why are these facts not made known to the public outside? Britain gives us a so-called preference on wine, tobacco, preserved and dried fruits. It is a so-called preference but it is not a preference. It will only be a preference if Britain gave it to us over our competitors, but the preference is also given to Canada and Australia who compete with us. Let Britain also give a preference on our wool and mealies then we are willing to meet her further. The fact remains that the preference which to-day we are giving to Britain exceeds that little bit of rebate—not preference.

Oh no.

The hon. member ought to know the facts. Now I wish to return to the question which I put myself at the beginning. What portion of the people have no confidence in the Government so that the motion of no confidence is justified? I have shown that the English-speaking portion of the population and Imperially-minded Natal have not the least right to complain. The way in which they are behaving is only calculated to destroy the good feeling of friendship which the Government has fostered towards Britain, and they are fast doing this.

What of the Government Service?

The speech which the hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Giovanetti) made a few days ago is one of those speeches that do the most harm, but it has been so answered by the hon. Minister for Mines and Industries that it is unnecessary to go into it. It is that kind of speeches of unfair agitation against the German Treaty which do harm. Even in the English papers in Britain they are stirring up feeling. We read that even in Britain money is being collected to fight the Native Bills of the hon. the Prime Minister. The English papers received an echo of the same feeling which is being published here about the German Treaty. Here before me I have a letter which is written to the “Morning Post” by a man who pretends that he knows a great deal about South Africa. He was here from 1899 to 1902 and again in 1905 and in 1910 he accompanied the Duke of Connaught as private secretary. In connection with the German treaty he writes—

It is a letter about the German treaty, and the writer is the ex-secretary of the Duke of Connaught. It is these things which do so much harm and which break up the Empire more than anything else. I repeat my question: what portion of the population wants the motion of no-confidence? The English-speaking portion of the population certainly have no reason for it. Do the farmers want it? The fact has been quoted, shall I say ad nauseam, to let the public understand what the Government has done for all sections of the farming population. I do not believe that a single section will vote against the Government, neither the wine farmers, neither the mealie farmers, neither the grain farmers, nor even the sugar farmers of Natal. We know how the Government is meeting all sections of the farming population to which we do not even need to add the general things like locusts, scab, telephones and so forth. Will the mines vote for it? The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) said that we are not sufficiently sympathetic towards them. I do not know if he put these words into the mouth of the leader of the Opposition when the hon. member for Standerton at Johannesburg said exactly the same thing. He said there that the policy of the Government in general was good, but that much more sympathy towards the mines was necessary. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Enrest Oppenheimer) admits that the Government indeed understands the secret thoroughly of what is for the welfare of the mining industry. He admits that the Government prevented a great critical condition, a serious crisis in the diamond market in the whole world, if this Government had not acted so well, but he says that the Government is not sufficiently sympathetically inclined. I know of many people in the Transvaal who say that the Government was too sympathetic by taking away tre employers tax from the provincial councils and not taxing the mines in other ways. We must not forget that the burdens of providing for phthisis sufferers have been greatly increased, but when the hon. member for Kimberley said that the Government was not sufficiently sympathetic towards the mines he mentioned two things. In the first place the hon. member said that the Government did not consult the industry in regard to the Mozambique Treaty. On that the Minister pointed out that the mines had indeed been thoroughly consulted from step to step. The other argument was— and there the hon. member displayed a bitter feeling—that the Minister had said that this Government had put the capitalists in their place a little. The hon. member spoke about “waiting on the doorsteps.” We know what complaint à la the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) was mentioned here. The mine magnates, of course, expected that to them the doors of the Government offices would be thrown open wide as formerly and to them I do not know how many chairs would be offered at once, but instead of that they are treated by this Government just as a poor digger. The Government treats everyone alike. And now the Government is not sufficiently sympathetic because the rich mine magnates are not treated with greater distinction. I want to ask the question again if the mines, the farmers and the English-speaking portion of the people do not want this motion, if now they have no reason for it whether the labour people want it. Have they reason for it? We have witnessed the comedy when the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) last year went round and time and again was rapped on the knuckles by his own press when he tried to speak about labour legislation. The speech at Knysna has already been referred to. I want to recall an interesting article which was written by one of his own papers, “The Friend,” in connection with the speech at Knysna. “The Friend” waited six days and considered whether it would go so far, but then thought that it must speak because it was too bad.

We have had a great deal of sympathy from the hon. member (Dr. van der Merwe), who spoke last. I am afraid it was not appreciated, but if the facts are as he stated that nobody in the country stands behind this feeling of want of confidence in the Government, except a band of jingoes, then we need his sympathy. In spite of the fear of the hon. member, he must recognize that the jingo—I am glad to say—is a rare bird.

The jingoes are on the Government side.

A number of the Nationalists see a jingo behind every bush.

What about our Natal friends?

They are good South Africans.

Quite as good as any of the Nationalists.

My confidence in the hon. member’s statement was a little bit shaken when I found how relieved he was at the result of the Potchefstroom election, for if Government members regard that as a great victory, then they must be in a very doubtful position. I did not think that a reduced majority on an increased poll was even worth paying an extra shilling a day to road labourers. We are not in the least disappointed at the result of the debate, or regret having introduced the motion. Of course we do not expect to carry it.

What is the object then?

Our object is to bring clearly before the electors the grounds on which we are going to claim their support in the general election.

Do you expect to carry it in the country?

Yes. Before Mr. Speaker felt obliged to rule the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) out of order, I was in hopes that the Government would accept it. It put the position, it seems to me, very plainly; namely, that the Government, in the opinion of the hon. member, had lost the confidence of the House, but as the election was so near it was not worth while disturbing them. But now I am afraid our friends over there are not going to take the risk of voting against the Government. Even the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) on due consideration, does not seem prepared to take the risk. Well, so be it.

Commonsense.

Yes, I think in his case it is commonsense. But what defence have we heard by the speakers against this motion? I must say I have seen very little. Almost every paragraph from that side has begun “The right hon. the member for Standerton.” I do not say that counter attack is not sometimes the best defence, but in this case it has been counter attack rather than defence, an attack on the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I would like to enumerate one or two points on which I expected to hear a defence. On the question of finance we have heard a great deal about abundant surpluses. Well, there have been surpluses, but whether they are entirely due to administration or to the general recovery of the prosperity of the country I will leave to the electors to decide. But we have not heard much defence about the railway funds. How is it with this enormous increase in railway traffic and revenues we find expenditure going up faster than revenue?

Is that so?

Is it going to be better this year?

Certainly.

Will it lead to less expenditure?

Wait and see.

Well, I have my own ideas. What we object to is that the railways, instead of being used as the transport means by which this country can expect to get its produce on the markets, it is used as a kind of milch cow on which all kinds of things are saddled. The Government, when they came into office, immediately took thousands of men on the railways to relieve them from unemployment, in order to be able to go about the country telling people: “See, we have given employment to thousands of men.” Why should the railways pay for that? Why should the railways be used as relief works—because that is what it is— in order to gain political credit for the Government? That is what we complain about in regard to this so-called civilized labour policy. We do not complain of civilized men being given work on the railways, but the word “civilized” should be used in its proper sense. Employment on the railways and elsewhere in the State should be open to civilized men, not merely white men, and should be paid civilized wages. The man who is employed under civilized conditions, and is required to live under civilized conditions, should be paid a wage which will enable him and his family to live in better accommodation than they can afford to live in now, not in slums. We are not against civilized labour—I know that is going to be said all over the country—but we object to the railways being used as relief works.

Are you going to discharge these men?

Of course we are not going to discharge them.

Are you going to raise their wages?

You must put us in power first. Let us get the responsibility first. Then we have had defence about unemployment. They say they have done so much. What have they done? Unemployment in the country has certainly been reduced since they came into power, but that is due to the general improvement of business conditions throughout the country, and most largely to the enormous expansion of the diamond diggings. But what has the Government done? Has one scheme been mentioned, except Doornkop? No scheme has been initiated by this Government which they did not find when they came into office.

There are twenty schemes I could mention.

I am sorry the Minister, with that excellent memory of his, did not mention these things when he was speaking. Then there is industrial development. Of course there has been industrial development. The country has not stood still industrially, but I do not think the Government are entitled to claim that as the result of anything they have done. We have heard of the development of the boot industry in Port Elizabeth. Is that due to this Government? No. The protection that industry got was given to it before this Government came into power. We have heard about the avoidance of strikes. Fortunately, we have been free from serious industrial upheaval. That is perfectly true. With regard to strikes, Labour members, and particularly the present Minister, have done much to bring about peace where strikes have broken out, but if they had done half as much to settle strikes when we were in power, instead of using them as a weapon against the Government, they would have saved much of the trouble and bloodshed. Labour members and Nationalist members went about using the industrial trouble on the Rand as a weapon against the Government. We hear a great deal about what happened on the Rand in 1922, but members on that side cannot get rid of their share of the responsibility. These were the main points on which the defence was put up, and it does not seem to me it was a very strong one. As for the counter-attack, it was largely an attack on the right hon. the member for Standerton, an attack which we have heard throughout the country for a long time now, and which we take at its true value. The country has begun I by this time to understand what its true value is. It was thrown up to us that we were a divided party, divided on the question of industrial policy and on native policy.

So you are.

Are the Government party who sit opposite me all of one view and of one mind on these questions? The Prime Minister some years ago laid it down that a part of his settlement of the native question was that the coloured man was to be taken into the European society and community, and that politically and industrially he was to be treated as a European, and that was proclaimed widely on platforms by the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Railways and Harbours— in the Cape Province, of course. Is his party in agreement on that?

Yes.

Well, I can only say that the Bill they’ have put before the House is a very poor attempt to carry that out. What does the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) say about it? If the Prime Minister has not a good deal of difference of opinion inside his own party as to complete political equality for the coloured man, I must say I am very much disappointed with the effect he has given to it in the Bill put before the House. We know that there is a disagreement in that party, as there is in this party, on the political treatment of the native and coloured people, and that is why it is impossible to treat it from the party point of view. What about the attitude of the Labour party? Are they in permanent alliance with the Government or not. —I am referring to that section of the Labour party which is sitting opposite. The Minister of Defence said that in 1913 there was a break in the South African party, and it ruled for 11 years after that “and so shall we.” “We.” He is going to be asked; if the National party cannot do without him, and then he will come; but if they can get a majority without him, they will be very glad to dispense with him. That is a very nice position for the Government parties to be in, though they cannot agree on principles, they will co-operate if they cannot get in without each other. I think it is an unprecedented thing in South Africa, and it is not a common thing in any part of the world, for any Government to be carried on by two parties held together like this, only by the bond that they cannot hold office without each other.

Coalition.

Coalition, as we know from the Minister of the Interior, must be founded on a union of principles. I do not intend to go into administrative details, but rather to deal with general principles. Before I come to that, I would like to say that I am surprised that the Government has done nothing in regard to the charges brought by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in connection with the administration of justice. I am not talking now with regard to those charges dealing with the police force.

Why didn’t the hon. member speak before the Minister was called upon?

He did not have the opportunity.

He had every opportunity.

A member of the Government has spoken since then and has dealt with these charges, but has given no assurance that there will be an inquiry into these charges. What I am dealing with are the charges the hon. member for Illovo brought in regard to the non-prosecution of persons charged with serious offences in this country, and he wanted to be assured that the administration of justice in regard to the prosecution of offences is clean and impartial. Facts were brought forward by the hon. member which caused serious doubts in the mind of any reasonable man—with regard to one of the provinces, at any rate. The Government ought to have told us immediately whether these charges were to be inquired into, because no civilized country can stand any imputation being cast on its administration of justice, and if we get it that this is a subject of personal influence, this country will suffer the greatest fall. The Government ought to have taken notice of these serious complaints— that a man charged with a serious offence managed in some way or other to be set free without a preparatory examination having been taken and his being brought into court. In regard to administration generally, what I would complain about is that the Government has run the administration with an eye to politics. The Minister of Railways and Harbours told me when I was making some remark about what he had said at De Aar, that he was a politician.

When I go as a Minister, I go as a Minister, not as a politician.

My recollection is the Minister went to a public meeting and said he would be at a certain place on the following day which was the polling day. The Government look to the political effect of their action, and not to the proper administration of the affairs of the country. With regard to public service appointments and promotion, they have told us—I do not know whether that is going to be denied, too—that, other things being equal, they will appoint those who are politically in sympathy with them. They ought to do nothing of the kind.

You appointed your own, other things not being equal.

I do not say political appointments were not made by this Government when it was in power, but I do object to appointments being made of political sympathizers, other things being equal. The public servants have to do their duty by the country, irrespective of their politics, and they should expect promotion irrespective of their politics. The Government has destroyed that feeling in the public service—they cannot expect that impartial consideration of their services which they are entitled to expect. In any case, it is not to my knowledge, and as far as my experience of South African history goes back, it has never been laid down until by this Government, that public service promotion depends on political views. There is one thing for which I blame the Prime Minister seriously, and that is with regard to the attack which was made by a Minister of the Government on the Auditor-General last year. Now this House knows what the position of the Auditor-General is. He is a servant of Parliament, and can only be removed by a vote of both Houses. What happened? A member of the Government—or rather he was then a member of the Government—accused the Auditor-General of dishonesty, the most grievous charge that was made against an official. He was accused of using his position to further the interests of a political party. What did the Government do? I say it was the clear duty of the Government either to bring in a motion for the dismissal of the Auditor-General or to require the Minister who made the charge to withdraw it. The Minister stated the Auditor-General never actually called attention to things which happened in the case of the South African party. Well, I say that the one thing to do was to require the Minister to prove the charge he made, or withdraw it. If the Government stood behind that charge it was its duty to bring in a motion asking the Auditor-General to resign. That is what the Government should have done if it stood behind such an accusation.

It all depends upon the interpretation placed upon it.

I cannot see what other interpretation could be put upon it.

The Auditor-General himself said so.

Another thing that I bring against the Government is that they are governing South Africa on a narrow outlook. Let us take the question of immigration. In the days of the old Transvaal Republic, the uitlander question was a very serious one, and under the stress of that problem there grew up a feeling that the uitlander must be kept out of the country. I complain that that feeling is still the motive power of the Government.

Why?

As far as my experience goes one of the greatest needs of this country is to get more European population from outside. If the present state of affairs goes on it will become a question before long whether we shall be able to maintain our European civilization in this country. What does the Government say? “No.” The Minister of Justice says: “We shall not bring people from outside South Africa to share our poor loaf; keep them out, and let us sit round our fire and keep the other fellow away.” You should bring them in; we want them to come here. We should spend money in bringing them here.

How much did you spend on it?

That is not the argument. We had nothing to spend on anything. We spent a little, but we could not spend large sums of public money. If what it costs is the only argument, then that surely does not apply now. I say again that what the thinking people of this country want to see is more immigration, but it is sheer obstinancy and a policy of bugbear that keeps the Government back.

What is your policy?

The Government is not moved by that broad South African party spirit. All our wars in the last 25 years have not been in vain, because they have brought about a proper spirit of South Africanism. The Government, however, has not tackled this question in that spirit, but have been mainly influenced by those to whom I have already referred. The Government must get a broader outlook. The same thing applies with regard to our surrounding States. There was a time when the two old republics had to fight against the Empire for their existence. Their policy was to keep themselves to themselves. That is the policy underlying this manifesto. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) called attention to the fact that we are vitally interested in the north, and that we should try and make our influence felt up there.

By stopping them from building railways?

Well, I would rather take that kind of interest than none at all. This manifesto is a spent squib by now. I don’t believe that it ever was anything more than a stage stunt. The speech of my right hon. friend was made, I think, on the 17th of January. Ten days after that the Prime Minister and his friends slept soundly in their beds. They did not have this nightmare of a sudden onrush of barbarism, but “Die Burger” saw a chance of making capital out of misrepresentation of that speech.

What misrepresentation?

The misrepresentation was that there was nothing in the speech that would lead anyone to suppose that South Africa was to be merged into a combination of black states. I read the speech very carefully, and no reasonable man reading it could suppose that it was other than applying to the distant future, a look into the distant future.

Is that the policy of the South African party?

The policy of the South African party does not look at what is going to happen hundreds of years ahead. What the right hon. member meant to indicate, as far as the policy of the South African party is concerned, was that we should keep the road open, and not try to build a Chinese wall around ourselves. There are great movements in the world, and a great clash taking place or about to take place in Asia and Africa between different civilizations and between ruling and subject peoples. That clash is now existent, or will very soon come. South Africa is going to be in the very front of the attack, and it does not matter how many walls you build to cut us off from the rest of Africa. The effect of what is done with regard to policy between white and coloured, between dominant and subject-peoples will be felt in South Africa. The clash is going to be felt in this country. Let us keep the road open, and see that the decisions taken with regard to that clash are wise decisions. I quite agree with what the hon. member who spoke before me said about the improved relations between the South African people and England. I think relations have improved, and I give credit to the Prime Minister for what he did at the Imperial Conference, not that I think that he brought into being a new state of things, but he devised a formula, a way of expressing what had taken place, which avoided a great many of the suspicions and fears which people in this country had. The new status was established before in the stress of war, under conditions which many people in South Africa took strong exception to, and the status which grew out of those conditions did not seem to be what they could adopt; but the Prime Minister expressed the relations between South Africa and the rest of the Empire in a manner which removed apprehensions. But I hope this relation will not depend upon the National party being in power in this country. We should use the new outlook to improve our relations with the other dominions. Let us get away from the old feelings which are the relics of a past that is no longer with us. The Minister of Finance said that they were going to make this a white man’s land. There again I complain that the Government is being ruled by a policy which does not respect modern conditions. The relations between the white people of this country and the natives in the early days were relations of conquest. The white man could make his way only by force of arms. He was living under arms in the middle of a vast barbarian population. But we have come to a new outlook with regard to our relations with the native races. No one can suppose now that the white people in this country are going to maintain their civilization and supremacy by force of arms. The time has passed for that kind of thing. You want an adjustment by consent. You want a condition of things where the white man must rule by superior abilities and civilization, but in such a way as not to have under him a mass of discontented, dissatisfied and slighted people. We want a policy that will give confidence to those races that we are going to treat them fairly and justly, to give them opportunities of improving their position, and not create the impression that we are going to rule them by injustice. We forced through a colour bar Bill some years ago—the Government forced it through. We were told that without it, the white man’s position was in danger, and the Bill was forced through, though it lined up the natives as one man against the whites, and not a single regulation has been made under it. Yet, that Bill was forced through four years ago.

It had its effect.

Many effects, most of them bad; but all that was needed under that Bill, as we told the Government from this side of the House, could have been got without subjecting the native people to all the irritation that measure caused. I agree with the spirit of the Minister of Finance when he says that this must be a white man’s land. It must be a white man’s land in the sense that it must be governed by a white civilization as long as we are in a position to uphold it; but we cannot do that by refusing the benefits of white civilization to those who are uncivilized. We cannot rule South Africa as it is now, with all these race-conscious natives growing up, on a policy of keeping the native down and keeping the immigrant out. That will not do for the South Africa of the future. We cannot live on the labour of a population to which we refuse the opportunity to rise. No nation has ever done that. If this policy of keeping out the immigrant and of oppressing the native is to be pursued, the white civilization will be in grave danger of perishing.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has just referred to the fact that I had not yet taken part in this debate. He was preceded by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), and in the circumstances I ought perhaps to explain to hon. members, I think, that the ordinary rule, as followed by this side of the House, and rightly followed, I think, is to wait for the attack upon the motion of no-confidence before one rises to defend oneself. The chief critics of my colleagues got up one after the other and my colleagues one after the other rose to defend themselves. There are two of my immediate predecessors who, until this afternoon, have taken no part in the debate. If I had spoken before them, and they had got up thereafter to criticize me, then I consider it a discourtesy on my part to allow them to make an attack, and to adduce arguments without my being in the position of replying thereto. Therefore it was only right to wait until at least the hon. member for Yeoville had risen to speak in the debate. Let me say with reference to the speech of the hon. member that for my part I am always glad to see that he, as one of the big guns of the Opposition, who has been kept back to make a great impression, has far from shown the same assurance which we saw at the beginning of the debate on the Opposition side. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in his speech merely assumed that far and away the largest part of the country was behind him and his no-confidence motion, and had lost all confidence in the present Government. He regarded that as an accepted matter, and there was the certainty and assurance on his side. The hon. member for Yeoville, whom I regard as the chief lieutenant of the leader of the Opposition, has shown that much of the assurance has vanished. I think that the trumpet which has been blown this afternoon had a considerably duller sound than that blown in the beginning. If this is the result of the debate in the House last week, then we have every reason to be satisfied. I do not wish to deal in detail with everything brought up by the hon. member for Yeoville, but want to confine myself to a few mistakes, to which we shall not return, in answer to the criticism raised. One matter on which I want to make a remark is the charge by the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with what was said here by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) about the administration of the Department of Justice. The complaint is that the rules do not allow a minister to get up immediately after the charge of the hon. member to promise that we would institute inquiries. The accuzations of the hon. member were twofold. The first part dealt with the police administration, and the second with the duties or discretions which ought to be exercised by the Attorney-General. If the second part of the charge is as hollow and unfounded on closer investigation as the first part, then I think the Government was fully justified in not immediately replying to it. The hon. member for Illovo told us of various things which were done by the present commissioner of police, and he attributed them to him with the express object of creating the impression that the Government is ultimately responsible, because the Government appointed the present commissioner. The facts in connection with the matter were mentioned by the Minister of Lands. It is a matter for which the Government is not responsible, but which, under’ the existing law, forms a part of the duties of the commissioner of police. The commissioner who gave the instructions referred to under his own signature is not the present commissioner, but his predecessor, who is to-day a Sap. candidate. If the first part of the charge had as little in it as this part that I have just mentioned, then the Government was fully justified in not going into it. The Government is not in the least called upon to do so if the responsible Minister is absent for a few days and cannot consult with it. The hon. member for Illovo gave notice of a motion this afternoon, and in the circumstances the Government will have a full opportunity to deliberate about the matter, and to announce its action in connection with the matter when the motion comes up for discussion.

Will the Government give facilities for discussion?

It is for the Prime Minister to decide what facilities motions before the House shall have. Another matter raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, and which I want to comment upon, is that the Government and its supporters have governed the country from a narrow point of view. I waited with interest to hear what proof would be given of our narrow outlook on things. Then it came out that it was immigration, and that we, as a Government, had not decided to encourage immigration by taking a large sum of money from the Treasury. That is the chief proof to show the narrow point of view of the Government. Then the hon. member goes further and says that the view here is that every person from overseas is a foreigner and unwelcome. A more erroneous representation of the truth I have not seen for a long time. The Government has always been extremely sympathetic towards the coming of Europeans from overseas, and if the hon. member for Yeoville wants to go back further to the day when the complaints against the Nationalist party was still stronger on that point than it is to-day, when they considered that we had a still narrower outlook on national matters, then I want to refer him to the programme of principles of the Nationalist party, which says that the party welcomes suitable immigrants from abroad, who want to throw in their lot with us. I go further and say that the present Government has opened the door wider for immigrants from abroad in certain respects than did the hon. member for Yeoville in his administration. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) announced the other day how the hon. member for Yeoville used the immigration laws in a way they were not intended to be used. The restrictions which he made on the intention and solemn assurances when the Act was passed did not assist us. Apart from that, the Government did more than the former Government in connection with the practical side of immigration. If you want proofs you can look up the official figures, and there you will see that for years on end more white persons left the Union every year under the previous Government than came in to live here permanently. From the first year that the last Government came into office it is just the opposite. It is not yet as we should like to have it, and we hope that the stream of immigration will become stronger and stronger. Yet this change came about so that we get more Europeans as permanent inhabitants every year than leave the Union to go and live abroad permanently, In practice we have done more than our predecessors ever did. Why was that? Simply because under the present administration there is a little sympathy towards the interests of South Africa in general and more particularly towards our industrial development, a better chance is offered to people from abroad to come into the country and make a living here.

Some people are, nevertheless, leaving the country.

I should like the hon. member to tell me of one country in the world where some people do not leave it. I ask again what the policy of hon. members opposite is with regard to immigration. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has on occasions inside the House, and I believe outside also, said that his policy is to take £1,000,000 a year out of Government funds to bring in immigrants from abroad. Is that a policy which is also adopted by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)? Is it adopted by the whole Opposition? It is a very important matter, and one on which the public will also have to judge in the coming election. We do not only want to know what their attitude is with regard to this as an independent matter, but we want to know how it corresponds with the policy to assist the poor section of the farming population with land. They have principally lost the ground, without any fault of their own, and the hon. member for Standerton has at various places said that what we need in the country—he was speaking of farming—was new blood. During the last election he spoke of new blood and indicated thereby that the people we had here were not suitable for land settlement, and to be assisted by the Government, but that we should get people from abroad. I want to know how they regard state-aid, which is to be given, and which, according to the opinion on this side of the House, should in the first place be given to sons of our own people in relation to those immigration schemes. We are not unsympathetic towards people from abroad. We are willing to assist and to receive suitable and useful people, but our policy has always been, and still is, that the sons of our own people have a first right to be assisted to buy ground with State funds. When the Prime Minister, not long since, said that an important part of the proceeds of the State diggings would be used for irrigation and land settlement, how was it received by the Opposition? I have not heard of a single case where they welcomed it on a political platform, and said it was something which the Government should have done long ago. On the contrary, the press organs which published the views of members opposite tried to ridicule it, and represented as ridiculous the possibility of making the greatest use of water out of the low Vaal River and the Orange River, and tried to throw cold water on those schemes. That is all we got from the Opposition, and to-day they are hotly in favour of immigration from abroad by State aid. So far for the points of the hon. member. As for the public service, I shall deal with it later. In connection with the motion of no-confidence, I should like to say personally, and every member on this side agrees, that we are indebted to the hon. member for Standerton for this motion. The hon. member for Yeoville explained to us why the motion was introduced. He gave other reasons than those of his leader, the hon. member for Standerton, and said that the motion was introduced to give expression to a fact, namely, the fact that the people no longer had confidence in the Government. The hon. member for Yeoville now comes and says that they are thinking of the pending election, and want in this way by means of a motion of no-confidence to put an easily understood and short resume of their case before the people. I think the explanation of the hon. member for Yeoville is more accurate. But then I want to express my hearty thanks for the motion, because we have had an opportunity we do not usually have. If my opinion was asked on the tactics of the other side, I should, I think, say that it was the worst tactics to introduce this motion, worse than they have ever indulged in before. They would have been much better off without the motion of no-confidence, because in the first place they possess the press of the country, and we are practically excluded from reaching the English-speaking people in the country. Their newspapers put matters from their point of view, and what we say is represented in such a manner that, to put it mildly, it is not done justice to. They would be much better off if it had remained so. But in this debate speech has been answered by speech, every attack has been replied to, not only by an answer, but also by counter attack, and we had the opportunity in this House and through the English-speaking press, which, at any rate, at least for decency’s sake, had to report what was said from this side—

Still they do not do so.

An English-speaking South Africa gets an opportunity of hearing something of our arguments which otherwise they get very rarely. There is only one regrettable thing, and that is that everything which is said so often outside the House is not said in it. Then we should have had a still better opportunity than we have now had to rebut the arguments of the Opposition. To mention only one thing. We should, e.g., like to have seen repeated here what the hon. member for Standerton said outside about the Wage Act. He made speeches in all parts of the country, and the thing he most dealt with was the Wage Act. Everyone who read his speeches at Moorreesburg, Knysna, Riversdale, etc., can come to no other conclusion than that he condemns the Wage Act root and branch. He even went so far at Moorreesburg to explain to the farming population that the reason why they were suffering in certain respects was the Wage Act. He went so far, think of it, as to say that the Wage Act was now there, and even now the unheard of thing was being done of applying it to shop assistants, girls who served behind counters, and that the minimum wages was fixed for them. I followed the course of his speeches carefully, and I could not find him saying a single word in favour of the Wage Act. Sometimes he came so close to condemning it that he almost said that it must be repealed. He said, inter alia, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has already quoted it, that a change of Government was coming and that one of the first steps would be to see that the Wage Act no longer crippled industry, and sowed distrust, and no longer prevented the coming in of capital. He further said that they would clean the channel for industrial development.

At the adjournment I was just saying that I was very sorry that the Opposition did not bring up everything on the motion of no-confidence, which they said outside; then they would have given us more opportunity than we have had to meet their arguments. Mention has already been made of the fact that the leader of the Opposition took up the attitude in the outside districts with regard to the Wage Act, which he was not prepared to do at the Bloemfontein congress, or to repeat here in the House. The question that arose in my mind was that the hon. member for Standerton, the leader of the Opposition, did not there show the political far-sightedness to a certain extent in a measure, that he sometimes shows, but not always We have not yet forgotten how the hon. member for Standerton spoke against the Wage Act at Morreesburg, and had not a word to say in favour of it. Then in his own principal organ in the Cape Province, the “Cape Times”, a leading article appeared, in which the Wage Act was defended in principle, which practically said that it would be a calamity if South Africa were without the Wage Act, as it had been introduced in all civilized countries. The question, to my mind, is whether my hon. friend was not put on his guard by another principal organ of his party in the Free State, namely “The Friend” in which the following paragraph occurred—

I say if we notice the comparison between the hon. member, speaking at Moorreesburg, and at the Bloemfontein congress, and at the House, then it looks as if he had received a timely warning from his own party organ. From our point of view we are sorry that he, or any other hon. member there, does not say the same here as he said outside. The same applies to another question, namely the Indian question. The hon. member for Standertan has repeatedly spoken on the subject, especially in the Transvaal, and yet as has already been explained by hon. members on this side, he did not have the courage, when the debate on the subject was on, to say a single word. It is a different thing to what we expected from the most responsible member of the Opposition. The hon. member said things outside the House we dare not repeat here, namely, the present policy is the policy of this Government, but my policy is segregation of Indians. Now I ask, if our policy is not his policy, and his party wants to continue the policy of segregation of Indians, why he did not say that to the House, and compare their policy with that of the Government. Is the hon. member possibly afraid that his lieutenant on the right, who is an opponent of segregation, would get up and contradict his leader. As for the Indians, the hon. member had much to say about “joy rides” which Indians under the present system are making in hundreds and thousands at the cost of the Government. I am much surprised that in the whole debate on this matter not a single question was asked, and that although for a considerable time—I may say almost two years—such Indians have already had the right of returning. If hon. members think that the danger is so great why have they asked no questions? Why did they not raise the matter in the debate? Then they would have got an answer from this side of which they are probably afraid, namely that not a single Indian has yet returned in that way. And that although already 1,000, and now about 2,000 have had the right of coming back to South Africa.

They may not come back within 12 months.

Precisely, but the 12 months is past. I am surprised at hon. members not having the courage to follow up the statements in a paper published by the headquarters of the South African party at Pretoria; that hon. members have not repeated here what the pamphlet, prepared by the famous, now made notorious by them, Mr. Poutsma, has said. That publication of the headquarters of the South African party inter alia made a personal attack on me. Why? Because I dined in the Mount Nelson Hotel with the representatives of the Government of India when the conference with those representatives took place here. Now I ask whether the hon. members for Yeoville or Standerton assume responsibility for arguments and tactics of that kind. If not, then why is their pamphlet issued by the headquarters of the South African party at Pretoria under the heading “The Raised Status of Indians in the Union of South Africa,” prepared by H. J. Poutsma, P.O. Box 404, Pretoria? Why did they not have the courage to repeat arguments of that kind used outside the House here? Can the reason be that Parliament sits in Cape Town, and that Indians have the franchise here? Now I come to another point namely the so-called political immorality of the Pact which the hon. member for Standerton emphasized in his speech, and which forms about three-quarters of the platform speeches outside the House. I particularly revert to that because my name is specially mentioned in that connection, and that in connection with a certain statement I made years ago at Malmesbury. I think the House can claim that I should deal with that and should refute those accusations which have become hobby-horses of the South African party so that they are almost ridden to death right throughout the country. In the first place I want to say that what I said there was that the coalition—and it is clear from the whole speech that the coalition of which I spoke there was a coalition such as was formed during the war in European countries between Government parties and the Opposition—ought to be disapproved of. There were such coalitions in England and in France and I think in a number of other countries of Europe. Governments were formed, made up of the Government party and the Opposition. I did not of course speak of block Government, but everybody will know that it was impossible for me, if I had any knowledge of the political position in the world to disapprove of block Government in all circumstances. Nor did I do so. We find today in a number of countries in the world, as well as in England, that a Government cannot be formed, or often cannot be formed out of a single party simply because there is no party which is strong enough, because political life is split up into quite a number of parties, and the only possibility is for them by forming a block Government to form the Government. As for the Labour party, it was never in direct opposition to us. We were always two separate parties but there were always quite a number of points which we defended along with the Labour party against the Government of the day. What however I want to show is that in the speech I kept proper account of the fact of the possible co-operation between us and the Labour party, and that I to a certain extent, contemplated the co-operation which we subsequently received. I just want to quote what I said further. I said that the Nationalist party and the Labour party would not cooperate any longer than their respective principles would permit, and also ought not to stand further away from each other than their common interests and principles and the protection of the public against capitalism and monopolies demanded. I even went further, and said that if there was to be a block Government, if there was to be co-operation between parties I personally preferred to co-operate with the Labour party, because they were much closer to us than the South African party. The Nationalist party (I said) aspires after greater liberty and opposes imperialism, militarism, capitalism and monopolistic control. Then hon. members who are laughing over there probably do not understand it. I further said that our aim was a great liberal party for South Africa, and as that was so I was not ashamed to say that, in spite of radical differences between myself and the Labour party we yet were much closer to them than to the well-known firm of Smuts, Smartt, Hoggenheimer & Co. Therefore to make out to-day that I myself there had openly declared against all co-operation between the Nationalist party and the other party, and was subsequently nevertheless agreeable to a coalition Government which was formed, and that that was political immorality on my part is simply drawing on his Imagination. In that speech I did not speak of a block Government, but of a coalition between the Government and its Opposition. [Time limit.]

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I object.

Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. members on the other side to call out “sis”?

I listened carefully to the case put by the Opposition, and on every occasion when hon. members over there were asked what they would do, after they had been criticizing the actions of the Government and its policy, they said: “Wait until we come into power.” When we have given them a blank cheque and they have come into power, their policy has been entirely different from the one they enunciated before the blank cheque was given. When the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) spoke of the railways being saddled with all sorts of things, such as civilized labour, he said he was not against civilized labour but was against the railways being used as relief works. I would ask him and his party, what is their policy in connection with civilized labour? Are we to carry on our economic life on the lowest standard of the country? Are we not to encourage the private employer to build up on a higher scale? I take it, when the Government went in for their civilized labour policy on the railways, they did so as a permanent institution with the object of turning the eyes of South Africa away from this cheap labour policy based on the lowest standard, and they adopted a higher scale policy. If hon. members opposite want that cheap labour policy they must carry it right through and into the higher walks of the land. If they did so certain gentlemen are filling positions that could be filled by educated natives and their salaries should be based on the lower salaries that the natives would accept at the same job. Why confine it to the railways? Why is it uneconomical there, and why in that case should the cost be charged to the general revenue of the country? Why should we base our wages on what it costs a native to live—a native who lives under a blanket and in a kraal? When hon. members opposite were asked whether they would discharge these men on the railways the reply was: “Wait until we get into power.”

No, we did not.

Did hon. members opposite offer any solution?

If I may be allowed to explain, the Minister of Defence asked whether we would discard these men. I said: “No.” Then he asked whether we would raise their wages. I said: “Wait until We get into power.”

Is it the case that the hon. gentleman does not dare to tell these men what they are going to do—tell them so before the election? After the election many of these men might be discharged, and they would again adopt the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)— that of cheap labour and making up the wastage of civilized labour by native labour. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Duncan) also said that the Government had done nothing with regard to unemployment on the Witwatersrand. But will the hon. member tell the House and the country that there is as much unemployment there today as when the Government took over? Had the South African party been returned to power, I feel certain that there would have been thousands of men fewer employed on the Witwatersrand to-day. The Chamber of Mines saw that the Government was not in favour of the cheap labour policy. When the hon. gentleman spoke about the boot industry at Port Elizabeth and said that that industry as well as other industries would have gone on just the same had the present Government not come into power, we know how certain people held a pistol at the heads of the South African party Government when it tried to give them a slight measure of protection. The hon. member also stated that he would assume that the Minister of Labour had done his best to keep industrial peace and to prevent strikes. It is a great pity that the hon. gentleman did not do so much in this direction in the past as they are doing to-day. Hon. members know perfectly well the reply which was received from the leader of the Opposition when they approached him in regard to the upheavel of 1922. He said he was waiting to see the situation develop, and that the people of South Africa should have an opportunity of seeing what dangerous revolutionists these men on strike were. When those men were fighting that was the advice given by Gen. Smuts. Did he tell the mining houses that they were wrong, and that the men were wrong? No. He said the men must go back on the best conditions they could get. That was the only way he had of settling a strike. The hon. gentleman has been entirely out of sympathy with the members of the working classes. How did he handle a strike in 1907? He assisted the Chamber of Mines by bringing in blacklegs. In 1913 we had the same position, the mining houses were allowed to evade the mining regulations so that unqualified engine drivers could be allowed to carry on in order to enable the employment of black labour. At that time the South African party was out of sympathy with the workers, and were on the side of the mining houses. I hold no ill-feelings against the hon. gentleman: he looked after my health so well that I ought to be grateful. Well I am grateful. He not only gave me a health trip, but he gave me a very nice hotel on the Rand to stay at, and I had an attendant to look after me day and night. Some people are not capable of appreciating such favours. The late Government was always helping the Chamber of Mines, waiting for the situation to develop, and then blaming the workers when the situation got out of hand. In the past the South African party has been a very good father to the Chamber of Mines, and while we expect a Government to play a straight game with the Chamber of Mines, we also expect it to play the straight game with the men. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) referred to immigration, and stated that the old idea of retaining political power was at the root of the evil. He said that we should spend money to get immigrants to come here. Ninety-nine per cent, of the immigrants to New Zealand, Canada and Australia are unskilled men, men without capital, and I would ask where is there an opening for that type of man in South Africa? Immigrants to other countries are passing our shores in thousands, because they are going to countries where they can work and still retain their places as citizens. Did they come to this country their position would be entirely different. The whole of the economic policy of this country is to obtain the cheapest labour possible, and that in my opinion, is what is keeping immigrants away. When the hon. gentleman says that a country cannot be built up upon the labour of inferior races, I agree with him. He also said that the cost of carrying out the civilized labour policy on the railways should be charged against revenue.

I did not say that.

Well, one does not know where one is half the time with the South African party. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asked: “Why from a farmer’s party.” We, of the South African party, are a farmer’s party.” Then, if you want to form an industrial party he asks: “Why, the South African party is an industrial party.” The same thing applies in regard to free trade, protection and civilized labour. Where is the South African party on all these questions? They have no policy, and that is why they have been such a failure. I would like to say a few words regarding the de Villiers award, and in that connection I want to deal with the question of the principle of introducing legislation to legalize an award when there was a conciliation board. It so happened that the award was in favour of the working man, and as a result of that we had a clamour for legislation legalizing that award. If that award had gone against the workman would we have had that clamour; would we have had a demand for legislation in order to legalize an award in favour of the working classes? For that reason I did not think that the trades unionists would agree in principle to a Bill for the legalization of that award. Then we come to the question as to whether the Government committed a breach of faith in not going on with that Bill. After the Bill was introduced, men in the mine workers’ union said that the measure was not the De Villiers’ award. The men were under the impression that the award was to be based on present day wages, and that every man was to get a 20 per cent, increase on present day pay. Consequently, when they took the ballot for a strike, men getting 22s. 6d., 25s. and 27s. 6d. voted for a strike, because they thought they would get something out of the De Villiers’ award. I make no apology for my actions in connection with my trip to the Witwatersrand. I saw that the workers had been misled, and that if they came out on strike they were heading for disaster. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir E. Oppenheimer) belongs to the mining industry, and I want to say that he did his very best to secure better terms for the workers than they actually got. I am not ashamed of any part I took in connection with those negotiations, because I worked in the best interests of the working classes of this country. We got an advance for the workers, and left them in a far better position than if they had gone on strike. Very few men were getting less than 21s. a day, very few of the contractors, and many of the men had had their increase over 1918 rates. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) stated the other night that the farmer pays the taxes through the customs. When the South African party are in the country districts, they tell the farmers that the farmers pay all the taxes, but when they are in towns, they tell the working class that the workers pay the taxes, and that the farmers are evading payment of their fair share of taxation. The farmers have got to make up their minds that if they want a home market for their raw products, they have got to support a policy of protection. If they want to build up countries overseas, they will go in for a free trade policy. The idea of the South African party in standing for free trade is that the mining industry wish to get their goods in at a lower rate. They don’t wish to see many industries built up in this country because these industries will require labour, and the mining people will then be short of labour. The policy of the Chamber of Mines is not the best policy for South Africa in that respect. The Chamber of Mines also want free trade, in order to bring down the cost of living. They say they want to bring down the cost of living in order that the worker on the Witwatersrand may benefit by the working of lower grade ores. The benefit, however, would not be passed on to the workers, but would go to the Chamber of Mines. It is far better for the farmers and the workers to pay a little extra for their commodities and build up industries in South Africa, than to agree to a free trade policy. Members on the other side of the House have made attacks on the Wages Board. What are they going to put in place of the Board. Do they want co-operation in the industrial life of this country? They have always been complaining in the past about interference with the workers, and the stirring up of strikes. Do they want to see the workers in the position of having to strike in connection with the conditions of their work? Surely there can be nothing fairer than a board going into every aspect of a dispute from the employers’ side and the employees’ side, and then laying down fair conditions for the carrying on of the industry. Which particular award of the Wages Board is it to which they take exception? On what ground do they object to any award? Do they object on the plea that the wages given are too high, or that the working hours are too short? When they talk about the Wages Board to the working class, they ask what the Board has done for them, and say it has done nothing. In the rural districts they say that the Wages Board and the high wages fixed by it are ruining the country. I would like the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to say what particular determination of the Board he disagrees with, and why. I have not heard one item of detail put forward by the other side in connection with all these vague objections to the Wages Board. We have heard about the man and the muckrake, but I have not heard anything about the work of the Government in the economic life of the nation. Let us have definite charges. When we weigh up the work of the two parties we find that the Government has done more for the mass of the people in five years than the South African party did in 15 years. I say this as the father of a family who is looking to see what the opportunities are for the rising generation. Attempts have been made to frighten the farmers by pointing out that if the operations of the Wage Board continue unchecked they will have to pay more for labour. We cannot, however, build up a huge farming population unless we change our outlook. By the use of machinery and up to-date methods of farming and the employment of a higher form of intelligence to work the machinery our farms will produce four times as much as they do to-day. If this country is to be built up agriculturally or industrially on the cheapest labour then the man who is doing unskilled work to-day must do semi-skilled to-morrow and wholly skilled the day after, until finally he takes his place in the higher grades of life when we shall have a mere white skeleton supervising a huge black community. What do we mean when we talk of the right type of immigrant? The right way to settle people on the land is to employ them in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs and then they will work themselves up until they become landowners. But if we bring people out to South Africa we shall have to prepare and fence the land and build houses for them. The experience of Sundays River and other settlements shows how difficult it is for a man with even a capital of £2,000 to make good. The thing that really matters is the economic aspect of cheap labour which prevents South Africa going ahead as Australia and other countries have progressed.

Is it not a fact that a greater number of people left South Africa every year under the late Government than they do to-day, because there were no openings here? Fortunately the present Government has reversed that, although it has been a slow process. If the people of South Africa are wise and keep the South African party in oblivion for 20 years the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) will see greater progress in that direction. I agree that South Africa is top heavy commercially and professionally, but that cannot be avoided if there are no openings in unskilled and semi-skilled occupations. Competition is now so keen among the professional classes because the field is so over-filled that lawyers are doing estate work and becoming money-lenders and by and by we shall have demonstrations by unemployed doctors and lawyers. Where are our children to find openings? We cannot expect to have a whole population intelligent enough to keep itself by performing skilled work only. Why-should those less endowed with brains be denied the opportunity of undertaking unskilled work except at native rates of pay? Even at the risk of being called a “mbongo” of the Nationalists I have no hesitation of supporting the Government. The Labour party pledged itself to work with the Government during the life of this Parliament and I have always honoured that pledge, unlike some members who desire to have it both ways. Many members of Parliament take up the attitude adopted by Adam in the garden of Eden, placing the blame for his fall on Eve. When anything unpopular is done they say they fought like anything against it in the caucus, but when the Government does something which is popular they always take the credit for supporting it.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) joined by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and other members, launced out in the general chorus of condemnation as far as the Attorney-General of the Free State was concerned, and some of the actions up there. The Minister of the Interior has dealt with that portion of the debate, but the hon. member went further, and in giving the case of Mr. “H.” he told this terrible tale of how this man’s house was burnt down and the insurance company eventually sued this man, but the Attorney-General refused to prosecute. This is a very grave charge to make against the Minister in charge of that department. I feel, if this is correct, the Minister should have immediately investigated the matter and found out what was at the bottom of it. The hon. member for Illovo forgot to tell us that it was his own Minister in 1923 when this house was burnt down. Here is the communication I have had from Vredefort [translation]—

That is the way the hon. member for Illovo has introduced these charges against the Government, and the chorus has been taken up by the hon. member for Weenen, and they have all shed crocodile tears. The hon. member for Illovo had all the facts in 1923. He was a great friend of the Minister who now sits in another place. Why did he not bring these facts to his notice, and why does he now leave the House under the impression that these things took place in the life of this Government? The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) made a very half-hearted attack on the Government with regard to its mining policy. He made a statement that prospecting and mining have suffered at the hands of this Government. He knows, as well as I do, that if there is one thing that has not suffered in the life of this Government, it has been prospecting, and as the result of that very prospecting, the hon. member has had to come to this Minister to get relief on account of the over-production of diamonds. The mining discoveries have, in the life of this Government, excelled anything that took place in the 14 years of the Smuts Government. You have had platinum discoveries, manganese iron discoveries, you have had Lichtenburg and you have had the further development in the East Rand, which the hon. member for Kimberley and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) have a very large share in. He also stated that capital was leaving the big financial houses in South Africa on that account. Does the hon. member know that the hon. member for South Peninsula, who is on the Gold Fields Board, has withdrawn all his capital from Canada and brought it back to South Africa? The hon. member for Kimberley has had large shares dealt out to him through this Ministry in connection with the East Rand. The Government had given him claims to develop, and it was very wrong for him to come to this House and say development was not going on because they have not the confidence of the Government. The hon. member knows that it is not so. He knows the country has progressed in mining more in the life of this Government than during the 14 years of the Smuts Government. That is not my only complaint against the hon. member for Kimberley. The hon. member has told the House that there are two sore spots that this Government must answer for, and the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) also dealt with that. He said Lichtenburg was a sore and a blot on this Government. He said the conditions were appalling and were the result of the actions of this Government. I want to read this document—

This was signed by H. Erkom and W. P. Tong. What was this given for? In their affidavit before the Court, they stated—

Erkom met Joel outside the Rand Club, and they had a conversation—

It seems to me that this is rather irrelevant. I do not know what it has to do with the motion before the House.

I am trying to prove to the House that the matter which the hon. member alleges as a ground of no-confidence was brought about by his own actions. I do not think that I would be out of order in stating that as the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) alleges that the diggers themselves had been worked up into such a state of dissatisfaction, this was directly worked up by these two gentlemen at the instigation of the hon. member, and the object of that was to try to discredit this Government as far as Lichtenburg was concerned. When we were trying to pass legislation in connection with diamonds, the hon. gentleman and his friends on the other side were trying to reimburse two gentlemen, to try to defeat that, and in working them up. As far as the affidavit goes, they did support the Bill, but tried to protect the owner’s interests. Those were the conditions that prevailed as far as Lichtenburg is concerned, but the House does not quite understand the position as far as Namaqualand is concerned. In that case we have this curious position. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has stated that if his party were returned to power, they are not in favour of State mining, and they would review the position. As the result of the discovery of the Namaqualand fields, the Government has sold £1,200,000 worth of diamonds, and there are locked up in the Government safes half-a-million carats, valued at £12 10s. per carat. What I would like to ask the House is what the position of the hon. member for Kimberley will be as the embryo Minister of Finance on the other side, if they pass this motion and turn us out? He will have to adjudicate as Minister of Finance as regards the holdings in connection with the diamond diggings. I have it on the best of authority that the supply of diamonds at Alexander Bay, at the present rate of extraction, will last for ten years, and that further up on the coast there will be similar discoveries. So we can expect that seven or eight millions worth of diamonds will be taken out every year. That will not be included in revenue, but in loan funds, and that money is to be used for irrigation works, and, if necessary, to alleviate the burdens of taxation. If the right hon. member for Standerton comes into power and alters that policy (of allocating these diamonds to these purposes) to the Diamond Syndicate on a profit basis, is the public going to get value for these diamonds such as it is getting at the present moment? This is the only way in which the Government could have handled this rich and fabulous discovery in Namaqualand, and the burden of taxation will be relieved if we continue that State mining. When the right hon. member for Standerton was Prime Minister, shortly after the great war, when South-West Africa was annexed, that mandated territory fell to the Union, and the right hon. member had it in his power to do what he liked in South-West Africa. The late German Government derived a revenue of something like three-quarters of a million per annum from their diamonds there, with which they ran and administered the whole of South-West Africa. The right hon. member said he did not believe in State enterprise, so he handed it over to a company which the hon. member for Kimberley sponsors. The revenue of South-West Africa, in the last few years, has been about £140,000, and the difference between this and the three-quarters of a million is the bill which this country has to foot when there is a shortage of revenue in that territory. The right hon. gentleman has shown us when he had the disposal of that country, what he was going to do with it, and has shown us that he does not intend to run a State enterprise in Namaqualand. It is for the public to judge; should the right hon. member be in a position to dispose of the State diamonds that exist in Namaqualand?

Fairy tales.

Those are the people who are always talking about economy to us—fairy tales from them about finance, saving and economy. What did the South African party do when they had the opportunity of spending money? As far as value is concerned, there was not twopence of value in any speech delivered on the other side on this motion. With regard to the position on the Rand, the relationship between the workers and the employers has never been better than it is to-day, and yet we have quite recently had that stormy petrel of finance, Mr. Joel, here, who told us that the mines would have to close down there shortly unless we could reduce working costs— the same old story we had in 1922—when we were told that they could not produce at a profit any longer. Fortunately for us, we have the ratio during the four-and-a-half years this Government has been in power—practically nine natives to every white man working regularly, and the efficiency in the mines is higher than it has been in any period under the late Government for fourteen years. The amount of ore extracted to a man and shift has been higher during the four-and-a-half years this Government has been in power than during any period in the life of the late Government.

How do you account for it?

It is difficult to explain anything to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). If he studies the report of the Government mining engineer he will see the proportionate ton return, and that he can read for himself. I notice a little piece of news emanating from that highly impartial South African party press in Cape Town. To show what the friends of the South African party think of them, it is interesting to take the opinion of their press. On the 8th February, “The Cape” published the following—

That is the opinion of their own followers, their own press, and these are the people who want to move a vote of no-confidence in this Government and bring back into power a party with no sap. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we have listened very carefully to try and find some reason for this no-confidence motion, and if this House is honest, I for my part think that after what has been heard, it will reject this motion without a division.

I was rather disappointed with the indictment made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) against the Government. One would have expected that anyone indicting the Government would have given some substantial backing to any criticism that was offered. On the contrary, there has been no evidence adduced that the country has lost confidence in the Government. We all know that the Opposition has no confidence in itself, but that is not sufficient ground for spending a fortnight upon debating a vote of no-confidence in the Government. I believe that if the leader of the Opposition had been certain that a budget debate would have given him the opportunity desired to level his criticisms, he would have refrained from proposing this motion. We know that all such motions are the time-honoured way of arousing a rather apathetic public and for quickening the interest of political followers. This sort of thing partakes somewhat of a competitive nature, and it might do some good in the way of diverting public attention from things of real importance if there was any outstanding difference among the ranks of the parties, and if they were not very solidly behind their leaders, something might be said for it. We find, however, that both the Government ranks and the ranks of the South African party are solid. We have found, as this debate has gone on, that any differences which existed were not so much differences in policy as differences in respect of leadership, and I will try to show that if the leaders wish to keep their parties, and the parties wish to maintain their hold on the country, they must do away with this element of personal bitterness which is in the background of all apparent divisions on lines of policy. In my opinion, each of the three leaders would be doing a signal service by handing over their leadership to someone else. My own party having shed its erstwhile leader, has done a signal service to the country, and I believe that either of the three leaders, or all of them, could retire with a distinguished record.

Have not you elected a leader also?

Yes, we have, but he still has his reputation to make or mar. We find that to-day, when this country is looking for new political gospels and theories, and trying to weld itself into one people, so as to pursue its task of development, these leaders are stirring up the European population by a divergence of outlook based mainly upon personal antagonisms, then I say they are detracting from the value of great things they have done in the past. It is clear that this vote of no-confidence depends upon the vote of the Labour members, and on looking round, one sees one-half of those! members on that side of the House claiming that because of their geographical (or topographical) position they are more closely allied with the National party than those who sit on this side of the House.

We do not claim that. What about your amendment?

The Minister for Labour tried to make great capital out of the simple matter of the rearrangement of seats in the House. The Labour party, in deciding how to vote on a motion of this nature, must necessarily look at the records of both of the big parties. We must go back over the history of our experiences when the South African party had unchallenged supremacy. During the regime of the South African party we found a complete absence of understanding of those things which the working classes of this country require. We found that the South African party, when it granted any amelioration in conditions, did so in order to avoid the upsetting of discipline, social, economic or political, but never because the workers’ demands were based upon equity or justice. We found an utter failure to understand why the rural workers should be brought into line with the workers in the towns. Unemployment throughout the country was looked upon as something that was inevitable, and that would be qualified by saying: “These people are the failures in our human material.” Instead of looking upon those people as an asset, instead of recognizing that that material was the essential material for the development of the country, and for the securing of the future of European standards, and endeavouring to save it, there was a desire to hide it in relief works, afforestation and irrigation works, etc., in remote places. These works should not have been done as relief work. When I view this country’s achievements in the matter of irrigation and afforestation, I think we have advanced very little further than the days of slavery, when the pyramids were built. Some of the great works done by these so-called “relief workers” will be a memorial to this century for a thousand years to come. The workers deserve something more than the mere existence, which was the lot of thousands of our unfortunate people. Then we have the passing of the Industrial Acts, which were passed in grudging fashion. I don’t want to stir up the bitter memories of the times when we came to actual physical conflict, but we found that invariably the period following such was a time of activity in regard to industrial measures. Thereafter, the passion for industrial reform ceased to exist. On the other side the Nationalist party, whilst just as conservative as the South African party, had at heart to some extent the interests of the poor whites of the country. They came into closer touch with the people who were dispossessed, those who were less efficient for the reason that their whole method of living had changed in one generation. We find that prior to the incursion of the English into this country, and to the passing of the two old republics, living was not exceptionally difficult for the rural people. The man who was a by owner could kill enough meat to keep himself supplied for a year, and he could acquire an ample supply of cereal food. His wants were few, but those people at that time were not equipped for the fight for existence in the towns. They were entirely rural on their habits and training, and were not trained to compete with the English artisans. After the passing of the republics, when these people found themselves forced into the industrial centres, they had to compete with the English artisan. The English artisan would not admit them into the trade unions because they did not get standard wages. They tried to join the unions, but the bosses would not employ them at the full rate, and they could not join the unions. Those men did not gravitate to their natural political home, the Labour party, because the Labour party at that time was under the domination of the imported trade unionist, and the imported trade unionist had not brought himself into tune with the conditions of this country. He has not yet made a study of the conditions of this country. The Minister of Labour said that the hon. member who sits beside him had a record of 25 years’ work in connection with the trades unions of South Africa. The trades unions, to my mind, under their retrograde leaders, have degenerated into being a hindrance to progress. They are chambers of labour commerce. They have been concerned with making their own commercial goods of greater value without being concerned with the great ideals which should animate trades unionism and the Labour movement, viz., the general uplift of those unfortunates at the bottom of the scale. The history of trades unionism in this country has been that unions have endeavoured to make their own positions snug without regard to what other unions were doing for other classes of workers. I know the Minister will assert that I am saying something which will please the South African party, but it is high time a Labour member stated what the trades union leaders have not had the courage to say. The Minister of Labour might have done something to instil some of that idealism rather than jobs for pals, so as to get the trade unions to adopt a wider field in which to face industrial and labour problems, not only for the benefit of those fortunate enough to be trade unionists, but for all who live by their labour.

Why didn’t you help?

The Nationalist party appear to be more closely allied in sympathy with the conditions prevalent among the poorer Afrikander population than our so-called Labour leaders. There are about 18,000 fewer English names on the Rand to-day than there were in 1914. To-day it is the rural-born man who is the worker on the Rand, not the overseas man, not the man from Cumberland and Glasgow. As to the interjection of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), it is because we have attempted to help in the direction I have indicated that a great deal of the friction which exists in the Labour party to-day owes its existence; it is because we had the courage to do what the Minister of Labour said he would do in a speech at Edenburg: “Organize 20 country constituencies, so that we can hold the balance of power.” His allies did not take umbrage at that, because they knew he would not do it, but when we said we would do it, they did take umbrage, because they knew we would be as good as our word. When the Minister of Labour said he had cured the unemployment evil, he was like a disease microbe bragging that he had frightened the medical faculty. To say, when you have placed thousands of picks and shovels by the roadside, and tell the unemployed people as they march past to pick a tool up, that you have, therefore, solved unemployment, is most absurd.

I agree.

This is the gentleman who, when he met the starving unemployed in the lobby the other day, could find that the most promising thing he could say was: “That in communist Russia, there were 1½million unemployed,” and the Minister was pleased that it was so. He would have been better pleased had it been 15 millions, so that comparatively less discredit should fall upon his own failure. No attempt has been made to solve the unemployment problem, certainly not on the lines foreshadowed in the fighting programme of the Labour party in its old manifesto. I have that old manifesto here—issued by the Minister of Labour when he was national organizer—and in it he held out assurances of a solution of unemployment should the workers place him and his friends in power. Instead, he has carried on in a less efficient way than any conservative Minister would have done with the evils of all systems and the benefits of none. He told us what the new Parliament must do—it must free South Africa from the baleful influence of financial trusts. What support did he give the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) in the Cabinet when the latter made his fight against the Graaff Trust and the shipping ring? The Minister went on to say in his manifesto: “That vigorous, effective and comprehensive measures must be taken to relieve unemployment by carrying out useful, reproductive public works and by stopping the importation of cheap, uncivilized labour.” This Government came in under a pledge to reduce the amount of imported native labour used on the Rand mines. It found 65,000 imported natives from Mozambique working on the gold mines; to-day there are 105,000 of those natives working on the mines, and a convention has been entered into under which the number is to be reduced to 80,000 over a period of five years. The Minister of Defence has been very fond of saying that “we will turn off the tap,” and the result of his turning off the tap is that 40,000 more natives have been allowed in under the present Government.

Where do you get your 40,000 from?

From Mozambique. The Minister of Defence has for almost 20 years told the public that he proposed to turn off the imported native labour supply, and he says this in spite of the fact that every day a man dies from silicosis on the Rand. That is amusing to some of the Labour members. What would this European death-rate have been if this crazy theory of the Minister’s of stopping the importation of native labour had been put into practice and their places been filled by whites? The cream of our white population would be decimated. He has not had the courage to tell the country that if his theory were carried out, he would close down 20 gold mines, and not only throw the miners out of employment, but those who depend indirectly on the mines for their means for existence. That sickly grin which is so habitual to the Minister does not in any sense refute the truth of what I say. We have seen through this pose, and his attitude is not impressive to members of the Labour party who sit on this side of the House. That superior smile does not tend, in the least, to invalidate or vitiate the hard facts I am giving. If the Minister of Defence had the courage of his convictions, if he believed truly in what he has professed to advocate for the last twenty years, he would say this Government must find avenues of employment in other directions immediately to replace the unhealthy mines which he would close down, I myself—what am I being accused of personally? I am told I am in the pay of the Chamber of Mines by the disciples of the hon. gentleman sitting there, and they have never been rebuked. It has been bandied about that we fellows, if not actually in the pay of the Chamber of Mines, are at least open to receive offers. If there was ever anything more contemptible than tactics such as these, I want to know about them. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) is one of these clean administration apostles. He is a gentleman who has planned to fill a dead man’s shoes before death had emptied those shoes.

Who told you that?

The hon. member can enjoy his joke. This Government has spent large sums of money in advertising this country in the United States, in England, Europe, and all over, and I say a great deal of the good done by that advertising is going to be off set if the Government does not pay particular attention to the personnel of the allies which it takes to itself now. The Government came into power on several bases of understanding. One was the limitation of native labour, another was the Asiatic question, and unemployment was another. I have traversed unemployment and native labour. Regarding the Asiatic question, we find the Prime Minister, when he decided that he did not know the Labour party, but that he only knew certain members, resolved to get rid of one member and take another in. I wish him joy of him. If he wants to know of any method by which he can undo that good done overseas by costly advertising, by costly ambassadorial positions they are setting up, I advise him to proceed with his work in the hands of his latest associate. The present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is a gentleman who lent himself not only to what was contrary to the Government’s Asiatic policy, but actively applied himself to defeating the intention of the law at that time, viz., that Asiatics in the Transvaal should not accupy land. I will read some extracts from “Truth”—

There follow instances of men overseas who invested their all in this country and lost their all. One man is an officer who had paid £875 for a five-acre plot. Instead of the £500 a year he should have derived, his total return to May was £9 18s. 10d. And so it goes on. The directors of the company were H. W. Sampson, O.B.E., M.L.A., Patel, Patel, Myers, Faure, M.P.C., Harvey and Naylor. The two Patels are Indians. The shameful side of it is this— that plots were laid out and surveyed by this company, and were let to Indians, and Indians who were not able to purchase this land were made occupiers under the aegis of this company. This is a statement made by the hon. gentleman himself in an interview given to “Forward”—

The Labour party’s clean administration campaign of some years back decided to investigate these matters amongst others which were bringing the party into disrepute. The investigators were Senator Briggs, the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) and myself. The National Council of the Labour party was, at that time, absolutely under the control of the present Minister of Defence. Here is the resolution condemning the action of the present Minister, which was edited by the present Minister of Defence himself.

Edited by me?

The fact is the Minister committed perjury.

Prove that.

The hon. member must not say that.

Yes, I will prove it. I have the affidavits made before the magistrate by the Minister. I have the documents in which he said the people were present when the resolution for registration was passed. In his defence he said there was a very poor light in the room, and he could not tell whether the people were black or white. The law insisted these people should be present, and after he concurred in the personel of the directorate when these resolutions were passed, he made this affidavit to the magistrate, but he denied this at the enquiry and afterwards he made the puerile excuse I have quoted. When I made the allegation, which I did, it was for this reason, that he said he had never sat on a directorate with any Indians. It is so stated in this interview, yet there was documentary evidence that he had done so with his own signature to the affidavit. This is the gentleman the Prime Minister has taken into his Ministry. They have a gentleman called Harmse, a foundation member of the clean administration group, who misappropriated trade union money; we have one, Duthie, a special constable during the 1922 trouble, and we have one, McCann, who went out of the party owing £162, and was the first secretary of the clean administration vigilance committee. We have a gentleman, a well-known provincial councillor in the Cape Province, also a prominent collector of clean administration affidavits, who, by his questionable conduct of his financial affairs, got into trouble. The Minister of Defence, in his passion for clean administration, and in order to save his agent from exposure, cancelled all his engagements and rushed to Cape Town to use his influence to have proceedings stayed. And he was not above receiving or soliciting assistance from Mr. Kairowsky.

To whom are you referring?

Now we have a gentleman named Perreira, the candidate for Langlaagte, a gentleman who, when he was known as Pearson, changed his name for sundry good reasons, who has been before the court with regard to his own illegitimate coloured progeny. He was the election agent for the communist candidate in a provincial council election in the Cape and stood himself as a candidate for communism for the City Council in Cape Town.

Will you repeat these outside?

I have repeated them outside. [Time limit.]

I do not intend to traverse the ground the hon. member has covered to-night, which has been well prepared for him by persons outside.

No.

I hope the hon. member will take the first opportunity of making these charges outside against these people. I think the hon. member is abusing the privileges of this House

The hon. the Minister must not say that.

The hon. member is sailing very near the wind to-night, and some people might consider it almost an abuse of the privileges of this hon. House—an attack on persons who are not here to defend themselves. He has publicly charged me with perjury. If that charge is made outside, I guarantee I will have satisfaction in the courts of the country. There is no such thing as perjury in connection with the statement he has read. It is an attestation made by me before a magistrate in regard to a certain statutory meeting held under the co-operative law to the effect that the meeting had been held and that the persons whose signatures were attached had been present. That is a statement of the truth. How can the hon. member say it is perjury. I did not say any such thing as that no Indians were present. After my return from Geneva I was told there had been these attacks made upon me, relating to Indians being present together with myself at a meeting of the board of directors. I made a denial of that statement then, and I deny now that I sat on any board where Indians were present. The hon. member can verify that. The minutes of the board meetings had to be lodged with the registrar. It would be a falsehood to say or to allege from what is contained in that document that I had committed perjury. I am quite prepared to contest that in any court of the land, and let the public decide. I am glad in a way that the hon. member has said it here to-night, so that I can deny it.

I do not want to take part in the sham debate which has just taken place, nor to give it any support as members of the Opposition have done. I want to get to the motion of no-confidence, and must say that if I were in the position of the leader of the Opposition I would have done precisely what he has done and introduced a motion of no-confidence. I do not see how the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) can introduce such a motion, because his attitude, and that of his party has been so satisfied and quiet of late years that his own followers are beginning to doubt whether it is still worth the trouble of following him, as their leader. The Opposition press has from time to time asked whether the Opposition was still alive and where they were. Therefore, after it became very bad the leader of the Opposition had to do something to again attract the attention of the public and of his followers. We know that his English press has never yet taken up such a line against the hon. member as it has of late. An extract from “The Cape” has already been quoted. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) also reads it.

I do not.

But then the hon. member does not even do his duty as I thought. I thought there was not a single paper he did not read. That possibly is also one of the reasons for the hon. member taking the wise step of giving up politics. If he does so now we will forgive many of his great sins. In any case I do not blame the leader of the Opposition for introducing this motion. Even the English press speaks of those opposite as the unburied dead. They, however, still have the privilege which the ordinary mortal does not have of making their own funeral oration. There has not been a single speech opposite that was not so effectively answered from this side that I doubt whether we shall ever hear of it again.

What does “The Cape” say of your leader?

I do not know, but I know very well what is said about my hon. friends opposite, and I believe that it will be a long time before all the dead wood is cleared away on the other side. It is hopeless to try and cover up the dead wood opposite. I want, however, to mention a few things as a representative of a farming constituency. Hon. members opposite made a few little assaults and my eyes just happens to light on the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler). He did not actually criticize as a farmer, but he said that the Minister of Justice was now coming to Bethal, and that he would give him a drubbing. Now I just want to say to the hon. member that I shall see that he gets a notice when the Minister of Justice holds meetings in Bethal. I am sorry that in the future I shall not be able to speak of him as the hon. member for Bethal, but I shall see that he gets the notices.

You always prophesy wrong.

The hon. member for Standerton, whom he has always followed is, however, a far greater false prophet, and if the hon. member followed me it would, anyhow, be an improvement.

Then I shall fall into the ditch.

You are already in the ditch. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) indignantly shouted that the Minister of Railways was too shamefaced to quote the scale of payment of apprentices on the railway. The Minister himself supplied the information for members. How, then, can he be ashamed? The hon. member for Cradock knows nothing about the position. The wages are not paid for ordinary railway work, but to apprentices. Neither the hon. member nor I could live on them, but yet we are doing something. What did they do? They allowed the people to walk about the streets, which is much cheaper. They were satisfied to allow them to wander about hungry, but we are, anyhow, giving them something. What, however, I should like to know, and we should all like to know is, what they are going to do when they come into power. Those stories will no longer have any effect on the country; the people want to know whether the South African party will pay more or less than 3s. 6d. to apprentices. But not one of the members has yet said that they are going to pay more than 3s. 6d. if the South African party comes in again. I am glad the leader of the. Opposition takes so much interest, I am glad he is finally going to say what he will do.

He will not say it.

Yes, I am certain that he is going to do it, because the hon. member for Standerton always likes to give me an answer if it is possible. Another thing which has already been repeatedly asked on the countryside is what the Opposition is going to do if they come into office. We do not know what the policy of that Government will be, but there are certain things which are definitely fixed. One of them is that they will give up a certain amount of the proceeds of the diamond or gold mines, about £1.000,000 for State-aided immigration. I should like to know if they are going to do so. That is a grievance we have against the old Government of the Unionists, and to-day we are still absolutely opposed to State-aided immigration. I should like to know what the policy is going to be. I wish the hon. “member for Standerton to state it very clearly, but I also want to know from hon. members behind him whether they approve of it?

We shall tell you that next year.

You are not going to mislead the voters. They want to know what the policy of the Opposition is, and not one hon. member dares to say: “I am going to support the scheme of the hon. member for Standerton.” Not one of them dares to contradict him. The hon. member said that they would tell us next year, but outside the House they will not get away with saying that they will make a statement later. Hon. members will get no opportunity of saying it next year, because this side, and the largest section of the public outside, have not the least idea of the Opposition coming into power again. But I want to go further and ask hon. members if they do not agree with the policy laid down by the hon. member for Standerton, but the one laughs, and the other shakes his head, and the third says: “Next year.”

We do not want to answer that rubbish.

The man outside will not say that it is rubbish, the poor man who gets an apprentice’s wage of 3s. 6d. will not say that the £1,000,000 used for State-aided immigration is rubbish. I only wish that hon. members would say yes or no to my question. When they introduced a motion of no-confidence, they must say what their policy will be, but they have not the courage to do so. They say all kinds of things outside the House, but they always enquire first what the hon. member for Standerton says. But to-night there is not one of them who dares say whether he supports that hon. member’s policy or not. The voter outside knows that the Opposition has only; opposed two things, but they dare not say whether they are going to give the railway workers more or less, and we are to-day more than ever convinced that hon. members opposite are controlled by the capitalists. The grievance of one hon. member there was that as a matter of fact, we kept the big capitalists in their place. Where did we hit the capitalists? By opposing the Diamond Act, and the Iron and Steel Act. They also opposed other things, but that was nothing but camouflage. They always use their majority in the Senate to oppose the will of the people. The members of the South African party danced over there in the Senate—

Order. The hon. member must not discuss the Senate.

I was afraid that I might not do so, and I will therefore not say so. Yes, hon. members opposite are glad that Mr. Speaker cannot allow me to refer to the Senate and to say what they did.

You ran away when the Iron and Steel Bill was on.

No, I voted for it. The hon. member was not here. Hon. members opposite are always talking on platforms of the extravagance of the present Government, inter alia, by paying hundreds of pounds more to members of Parliament, but I want to ask hon. members which of them, or whether their party will propose that those allowances should again be reduced? That is another of the sham fights that take place in the House. If hon. members were opposed to it, it would never have been necessary to pass the increase. I asked them will they move for the reduction of the amount? Again not a single answer. Now I want to reply to a few things said by the hon. member for Cradock Mr. G. C. van Heerden). I should not have taken much notice of them, but the hon. member is one of the younger members of the South African party who, at any rate, will belong to the green wood when the old wood of which “The Cape” speaks has been cut down. When we listen to him we notice that he is still in the green tree. This afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) complained that the Minister of the Interior did not sneak sooner on the motion of no-confidence. Why should the Minister have done so? It is surely not a motion of no-confidence in the Opposition! When the Minister of Agriculture spoke, why should he have said what good things he had done? It is for the Opposition to prove his neglect of duty.

The thousands of cattle that are being smuggled in.

If time permits me I should like to form a possible South African party Cabinet, and if the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) continues a nuisance I shall put him in it because he is the type of man who will be in it. The hon. member for Cradock told us that the South African party Government had swept the house clean, and that now there was only dust left, either lying about or just in one corner. He said that the South African party Government had eradicated scab. No, the last Government gave it up in despair and could do nothing, more. The hon. member should not make the: mistake of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in accusing the Government when it subsequently appears that all the misdeeds actually took place under the South African party Government. When the Natal members sow how badly they came off in that matter, and when there were still other very serious charges against the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister unanswered, and when they knew very well what would happen to them then, the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), after the Minister of Interior’s time had expired, rose and objected to an extension so that the Minister had no opportunity of replying. In all the time I have been in the House I have not seen anything more worthy of censure. The Opposition press greatly welcomed the charges, and made much of the terrible discoveries, but before the Minister could demolish them any further an objection was made to his continuing. When the hon. member for Standerton talks of the low level that our political life has reached to-day, then it is due to acts of that kind, and nothing else. Now we hear from the would-be Minister of Agriculture in the shadow Cabinet of the South African party that they just about eradicated scab. Actually they had quite given it up, and the officials were sitting with their hands in their hair. On account of their impotence it was then proposed to force the farmers to eradicate it. Fortunately the Nationalists wrecked that proposal, because it contained stiff penalties. £100 for the first offence, £200 for the second, and £500 for the third contravention. Now I want to ask where the clean stable is that the South African party Government bequeathed. Not only was all the dust found, but the South African party Government had to be raked out from underneath before the present Government could clean the stable. The hon. member who makes these allegations is for sooth the person who a few years ago said that scab in goats was not infectious and that it was caused by drought. In the second case he was right, because when there is a drought then the goats are taken to other districts and then it even spreads to my constituency. The hon. member raved about the document in connection with the wages of apprentices on the railways, and asked the question what the previous Government had done, and he said that they had established Hartebeestpoort and put the people on it. The Minister of Lands completely demolished that. The dam was not yet finished, and this Government placed the people there. The loud talking about the Land Bank was also so typically South African party. It reminds me of how one of his friends in 1924 boasted at meetings what factories the Government had established. When he was asked to mention one factory his answer was: “A boot factory.” I want to know where it is. When people asked him to mention another the answer was: “The Land Bank.” The Minister of Lands also put that thing right. But where are the grievances against the Government? Is that a defence of their Government and yet a hopelessly wrong defence? Ought they not to enumerate the bad actions of this Government? Do they think that those stories will still go down even with the most stupid voter in the country? The hon. member for Cradock further said that the late Gen. Botha once warned the maize farmers not to sell their maize for a 1d. less than 13s. When did that take place? When I said that such a thing had never occurred, the hon. member did not reply. I asked other farmers opposite if they knew of any such thing. I see that the hon. member for Cradock is whispering to people to say that they do not know it, but they will not be able to comply. They want to magnify the acts of the late Government, and say that it did so much good for the wool farmers by selling the wool to the British Government. I want to quote a few figures. The “Cape Argus” in 1923 had the official notice that the wool bought by the British Government during the war amounted to £214,000,000, that most, of the wool was now sold and that it was expected that the rest would soon be disposed of. The nett profit on the wool was £64,000,000, of which £33,000,000 would go to the dominions and the other £31,000,000 to the British Treasury. If it were not for the Nationalist party, the British Government would have had a contract to buy all the wool as long as the war lasted, and for a long time thereafter. Does the hon. member think that it was in the interests of South Africa that that great profit should go to the British Treasury, and not to the producers here? That is another clear proof of what “Empire” first means. And when “Empire” is spoken of, it means England only. The hon. member is disappointed in his followers, and his press talks about dead wood. Take the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). He said that when the Nationalist party came into office the Government could get no tenders for the hire of places along the East Rand as capital was frightened away. That member still has the shamelessness, I might almost say indecency, to say that the Government could get no tender for the lease of mining ground. The hon. member surely knows better. Hon. members opposite are, however, in such difficulties already that they no longer know what is correct. The hon. member, if he wanted to be honest, should have admitted that enough tenders were received, but that the Government maintained the people in their places, and did not accept the tenders on the conditions that the capitalists considered good enough. The Minister was there to see that the country got value, and therefore the contract was not granted as under the previous Government. The stories now going round in connection with the German treaty are an indication of statements that will again be made that British capital is being frightened away. At the last election hon. members told the country that they had already received letters from friends in England urgently asking them to cancel the request to buy farms for them, in as much as they were afraid of the Nationalist Government, and therefore did not want to invest any more money in South African farming propositions. My hon. friends opposite are to a large extent business men, and I want to ask them whether, when they buy a motor-car, they do not try to get it in the cheapest market. Hon. members opposite say that the South African party is coming into office again. It will be good business for them to enquire what the price of ammunition is. I think it will be a good opportunity. We always listen with pleasure to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) because he honestly means what he says. He wanted to do his duty and not to leave his leader in the lurch even if Ke did not come off very well. He said that there were surpluses, but that the electors would say whether they were satisfied with them or not. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), another financial expert, also spoke of the increase in our debt. How does it arise. By the increase of the expenditure from loan funds. Is there anything against which hon. members opposite have protested in connection with the expenditure from loan funds? [Time limit.]

It appears to me that the fire of hon. members opposite has vanished, and therefore I want to use the opportunity to say a few words of defence. In a motion of no-confidence we have to consider whether the Government which at the previous election got the confidence of the people still deserves such confidence, and in the depths of my heart I am quite certain that the Government has given its best to the people and has fulfilled its election promises. The Government did not hesitate to tackle the problems of the country, notwithstanding opposition from the other side Here I may mention the Flag Act, and the Iron and Steel Bill. The Government deserves the confidence of the people because it has maintained the interests of every section. I have gone round a good deal and every section is contented, except possibly a small group of business men opposite who in my opinion are not quite in earnest. What for instance was their attitude on the raising of salaries of members of Parliament? With hypocritical fire they got up and told us that the public, as well as the Nationalists were against the increase, but when the division came only 33 of the 53 hon. members opposite voted against it. The others remained in the lobbies or went home. When the matter came up in another place we thought the proposal would be thrown out, but actually it was put through all the stages in one day. During the debate it appeared to me that most hon. members opposite accused the Government of having put through unsound legislation, which was either socialistic or worthless. If the charge was true I would advise the Government to resign immediately, but the Opposition did not succeed in proving it. In 1925 the Government passed 17 Acts, in 1926, 23, and in 1927, 20. Hon. members opposite know what they are, and I challenge them to say which of them were socialistic. Was it the Wage Act? No, the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) quoted a speech by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in which he said that the Wage Act was partly good. Then it was asked what other Acts were bad, but we are still without a reply. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) challenged the hon. member for Standerton to say whether he would repeal the Wage Act, if he came into office, but no answer has been given. Last Friday the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) gave chapter and verse and quoted that the Wage Act was originally one of the Opposition’s Bills, except that the farmers were not excluded. The then Wage Bill was passed in this House, but rejected in the Senate because the farmers were not excluded. After we came into power we practically introduced the same Bill, except that we excluded the farmers. Now I ask the Opposition whether they still want to repeal the section which excludes the farmers. No, they cannot reply. When the Government came into office the financial position of the country was hopeless. Towards the end of the South African party regime the accumulated deficit was nearly £2,000,000, and this notwithstanding the fact that £2,745,000 had been taken from the loan fund to meet current expenditure. The present Government’s first duty was to put the finances in order. The Minister of Finance succeeded splendidly in that, so that right from the end of the first year he had a surplus of £800,000 and last year one of £1,750,000—this without the imposition of further taxation. Now the Opposition says that the people have to pay much higher taxation, and they compare the customs’ receipts in 1927 with those in 1925. If the same quantity of goods were imported in 1925 as in 1927 then the comparison was right, but very much more was imported in 1927. The importation of petrol for instance has increased from 10,500,000 gallons in 1922 to 34,000,000 gallons in 1927. When this Government came in confidence was restored, and there was general prosperity. It was as if the whole of nature were rejoicing with us that the South African party Government had fallen. On account of the greater purchasing power of the people imports increased and this made the revenue more. Hon. members opposite say nothing about income tax, because, although the people pay more income tax to-day on the whole than in 1924, farmers know that there has been a reduction in the tax, and that the increase in total receipts must only be attributed to the increased prosperity. Since 1924 the mileage of the railway has considerably increased and far distant parts of the countryside have been brought nearer to the market. By the extension of the road motor services to places where railways would not pay, the farmers have been still further assisted. Then the Government took over the New Cape Central Railway. Everyone knows how deputation after deputation went to the previous Government to request the taking over of the railway because the old line was hindering the advance of the south-western districts. The last Government did not however take over the line, but to-day we see how the south-western districts have developed on account of its having been taken over. Traffic has increased so much that the administration has been obliged to strengthen the line by heavier sleepers. Then railway rates were reduced, and they were fixed as low as possible to assist the development of the country according to the Constitution. Shall I speak of the Fruit Export Control Board’ Shall I mention the erection of cold storage in the docks? They are all things to push the trade in deciduous fruits, and to help the farmers on. Was noticeable that the Opposition did not much attack the agricultural policy of the Government, yet there were a few points of criticism, and I therefore want to say that, together with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) I attended a meeting at the invitation of the Farmers’ Association at Montagu and that the hon. gentleman was honest enough to admit that the present Minister of Agriculture had done much to advance agriculture. The Minister has reorganized his whole Department. As against an expenditure of £886,339 in 1924, with a staff of 1,965 ordinary and 265 professional and technical officials the figures in 1928 were an expenditure of £978,495, with an increase of 98 technical officers. The expenditure has increased by 10.5 per cent., while the assistance to farmers has increased by 33 per cent. East coast fever has been successfully combated, and in comparison with 125 new cases in 1925, there were only 87 in 1927-’28. Cattle farming has been pushed by the erection of an experimental farm at Messina where the farmers can get important information, and further the importation of inferior cattle from Rhodesia and from the Protectorate has been reduced. Scab has been much reduced by better organization. In 1923 there were 14,315 infected flocks as against 6,667 in 1927. In 1924 there were 26 districts in the Union that were declared clean while in 1927 the number was increased to 187. On account of the eradication of scab the embargo of ¾d. on our combings in Great Britain was removed, and it meant thousands of pounds a year to the farmers. The fee for water boring was reduced from £5 to £3 10s. a day and this brought £44,000 a year into the pockets of the farmers. In 1925 the export of agricultural produce was £19,000,000 in value, but mounted to £27,000,000. We have the best agricultural settlement in the world and any poor man who has a little ambition and support can become a land owner to-day. One of the best works of the Government is its civilized labour policy. We know how the Opposition, year after year, fought us on it, but it is remarkable to see how we have progressed in this respect. In 1925 there were 5,301 Europeans and 5,812 coloured workers in the railway service, a total of 11,113, and to-day the total is 29,063. The number of natives in the railway service has been reduced by about 9,000. Farm telephones has increased from 3,920 in 1924 to more than 20,000;niles to-day. This is very important to the farmers, and enables them to remain on the land better. There has been a large increase in the number of co-operative societies. Our mother tongue has come into its own and Afrikaans has been given equal rights with English. The name of God has been put into the Constitution. The Government is also now engaged in making enquiries into the coal industry, and £30,000 has already been earmarked to make a commencement with experiments for the manufacture of oil from coal. As for the building industry I merely want to ask hon. members to notice what new buildings and enlargements are noticeable in Adderley Street and St. George’s Street. That is a sign of development and progress during the last few years. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) attacked the Prime Minister about the manifesto, but it is remarkable that hon. members opposite tried to defend the speech to defend the big black dominion. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said that that manifesto was one of the meanest documents he had ever seen, but I want to remind hon. members of the document which was a hundred times worse, which was published shortly before the 1921 election. I refer to the low pamphlet of 1921 in which a native Masabalala was supposed to have said on a platform that the Nationalists had promised that if they came into office they would give the natives arms and ammunition to fire on the Europeans and drive them into the sea. Hon. members and the drafters of the pamphlet knew well that it was untrue, but it was circulated in thousands, and in my constituency as a result of it I was defeated by 26 votes in 1921. Old people came to me: “We would like to vote for you but we do not vote for a party that wants to arm natives against the Europeans.” The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) said here the other day that we ought not to co-operate with the Labour party because they held meetings on Sunday. I do not approve of that either but then the hon. member must be a little consistent, and also improve things in his own party. I remember the correspondence in the “Eastern Province Herald” on the 4th July, 1922. The Town Council of Port Elizabeth had refused to allow the sports grounds to be used for sport on Sunday. In this connection the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. I). Reitz) wrote to the secretary of the tennis club that he was surprised to hear that such an old fashioned and antiquated provision was still in force. He further wrote that he was under the impression that with regard to sport in the Cape it had long since been tacitly considered that the provisions of the 1835 ordinance were obsolete. He further wrote that he would see what could be done to get the application of such restrictions prevented, and that he personally had never objected to sport on Sunday and regularly played golf himself on Sunday. I also wish friendship to be maintained with our neighbours in the north, but how do they treat our people there? How is the Dutch speaking Afrikander treated there? I have here a letter from a young Afrikander who went there to work. He says that he has been there two months and done everything in his power to get work but the atmosphere there is such that it is quite impossible for an Afrikander to get a living, that the vacant posts are given to English people and foreigners. He therefore asks if I can find work for him as, notwithstanding all his efforts, he cannot find work there. That is how they treat our people there. I only wish to add a comparison between the policy of the-last, and of this Government. We follow the policy of civilized labour. The Opposition attacked us about it every year. Our Government is striving to develop industries in our country. We want to get work for girls and boys. What however was the attitude of the South African party towards the Iron and Steel Bill. They fought it tooth and nail, but Col. Mentz, a former South African party Minister recently said that they were anyhow not going to repeal it. Therefore the attack was not seriously meant. The Nationalist Government stands for equality of both languages. What was the Opposition’s attitude when the Minister of the Interior dared to appoint Mr. Andries Pienaar as a member of the public service? Their attack lasted for two days owing to the Minister having dared to appoint a bilingual man. What about the relation to the British community of nations? When Gen. Hertzog went to the Imperial Conference he said at Stellenbosch that he was going to get a declaration from the world about our status. The hon. member for Standerton then announced that it was secession he was wanting. We stand for equality of language, and for our independence, and can co-operate with people who are also in favour thereof.

One of my hon. friends asked why we should further fire on the Opposition because what use was it to shoot at a flying enemy? But that was one of the great mistakes we made in the second war of independence, that we did not shoot at the retreating enemy, and that we did not pursue him. I shall not make that mistake again. The hon. member for Standerton was brave enough to move a motion of no-confidence in a Government which was better than any Government he had ever known, and I ask hon. members now not to run away, allow us to shoot. I just want to explain to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that I always heard that on the countryside they spoke about “Slim Jannie,” but I notice that at the Bloemfontein congress they called him “Onze Jan.” The Saps, have apparently found out that he is not quite so clever as they thought, and I must agree with them, because the most stupid thing I have ever seen was the introduction of this motion. It is just as stupid as the hon. member’s action against the workmen years ago, when he ordered them to be fired upon. I say that if a man sits in a glass house he must not try to throw stones. During this debate all the old quarrels we have buried have been once more again unearthed. We are always blamed by the opposite side for co-operating with the Labour party, that is always the stick we are beaten with. Hon. members always say that if it were only the Nationalist party, they could co-operate with us, but the Labour party, that terrible bogey we are co-operating with makes it impossible. When the hon. member for Standerton again leaves Cape Town he will once more speak about that terrible bogey, notwithstanding the fact that he invited that very Labour party to co operate. We prefer to work with Afrikanders, but, unfortunately, there are still Afrikanders on the countryside who do just as stupid things as the hon. member for Standerton has twice done. We have co-operated with the Labour party, but no one can show that we have introduced legislation to the detriment of the country or the people. Then there is the old hobby-horse of the Opposition, whose back is already broken, namely, the Wages Act. Hon. members on this side ask—are you going to repeal it if you come into power, which, of course, will never happen? Then there is never a reply. My chief care during the past five years has been to enlighten the public, but just like the hon. member for Standerton, they are so hopelessly blind they have not yet discovered how they have been swallowed up by the Unionists, and I wonder if their eyes will ever open. They watch the leader of the Opposition, and where he leads they follow. If they could only see how their party is controlled by the Unionists, then many of them would not remain sitting there. The old Sap of the countryside cannot understand, as they say, that this is a “trick” of the Unionists for them to join the Saps, unconditionally. Who can believe that the Unionists who abide by their principles would unconditionally become Saps.? If the Unionists had themselves joined up unconditionally that party would to-day have been much stronger than is the case. When we see how many of the old Saps, remain, then we find an insignificant number, about 12 or 13, and I ask the farmer on the countryside does he really believe that the old Unionists have been converted, that they have given up their principles, and just joined up with the Saps.?The man who thinks so is quite wrong, and when they cease to believe it there will no longer be any Dutch-speaking Saps, on that side. It cannot occur now, but I am certain that if the country farmers were sitting in the gallery, listening to the speeches and replies their eyes would immediately open. Let us for a moment take the example of the Englishman in language matters. He will never speak anything but English, but the language of the hon. member for Standerton is English. Take the previous session. The hon. member for Standerton made about 38 or 39 speeches in English, and one short speech in Afrikaans. The Englishman will never give up his language. There are, indeed, some farmers opposite who are not quite able to speak English, and who, therefore, stick to one language, but the man who despises and abandons his language is lower than the Englishman. I have never yet heard of English-speaking people dropping their language and adopting another. My friends opposite are very much upset, the motion was stupid because we have now completely disorganized them and they have just as much chance of winning the election as they had five years ago. I am sorry for them. South Africa is a very good country, but it needs a good Government, and I, therefore, hope and trust this Government will come back again. It is good for the country, and, therefore, for the South African party also. So much has been said about our relations with the Labour party, but, at any rate, they did a good thing when they assisted this Government into office and released the people from conditions under the previous Government.

I know the House wants to come to a vote and that the hon. member for Standerton is ready to reply, yet I want to ask him a few questions. In the House we are sometimes only too apt to minimize matters, but we must admit that there are great men on both sides. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), one of their principal men, spoke this afternoon, and when his time was expired, we proposed that he should continue, because we know the country takes notice of him. What did we get in return? When the 40 minutes of the Minister of the Interior were up, an hon. member opposite rose to object to an extension. Is that the spirit which should be shown when the country’s leaders are speaking? Let me say that I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) when he said that decent Saps, and Nats, are tired of this quibbling and hairsplitting. Yet the most bitter speech was made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). I say that the time has come when the people who belong economically to one another should stand together politically. The English-speaking farmers on the countryside ought to stand by the Nationalist party because their economic interests are the same as ours, yet we find bitter speeches made by hon. members opposite.

What about the Prime Minister’s speech.

What of the speech of the leader of the Opposition? He said at the Bloemfontein congress that he would not sheath his sword until he had won every seat in the Free State. Is that the way to unite the people? Was the hon. member serious when he said that? If that is his policy, the people ought to get another leader in his place as soon as possible. The hon. member for Standerton says that the people are tired of us, and that he will come back into power, and now the people want to know from him why he has re-introduced the flag question into politics. Here in Cape Town we sat round a table, and after the flag solution the leader of the Opposition sat with us and ate the cake of peace. Thereafter we went through the length and breadth of the country making speeches and the people took the flag as a symbol of our national unity. Now the hon. member is again trying to drag the flag into the election struggle, but I want earnestly to appeal to him not to do so. During the last election the hon. member for Standerton held a meeting and accused the Nationalist party of being the racial party. Now I ask, who has done more in the country to produce union between the races—the South African party or the Nationalist party? I say that there is more unity to-day among the various races than ever before. There was a time when the hon. member for Standerton said that the Minister of Agriculture would be the Minister of Defence in the Nationalist Cabinet, and that he would have the disposal of the guns and proclaim a republic. He wanted to frighten the voters, but the Minister became the Minister of Agriculture, and under his leadership our agriculture has progressed with giant steps. Both English- and Dutch-speaking farmers are grateful for what he has done. I do not say that the previous Minister of Agriculture (the hon. member for Fort Beaufort) never did any good, but what became of the prophecy of the hon. member for Standerton, that there would be no room for the English-speaking person in South Africa? We are grateful that the Government has acted justly in connection with promotion and appointment of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, and the Minister of Mines and Industries has already read out a long list of English-speaking officials who have been appointed to higher offices. Equal treatment of the two sections is the only way to get unity in the country, and in this respect the Government has laid the foundation on which we can build a united South Africa. Here I must express my appreciation for the support we have got from our Labour friends. I long for the day when the Nationalist party can form its own Government, but I admire the Labour party which has stood by us throughout. They voted with us to get the national flag, and also in all the other good things we did in the interests of the country. We also know what the Prime Minister did in London to get our freedom acknowledged. We are on the eve of an election, and I want to ask the hon. member for Standerton what his policy is regarding civilized labour and the protection of our industries. The people are anxious to know it, and if he cannot reply then we shall get him to answer the questions at Aliwal North, Wodehouse and Colesberg. These are important questions which the election even if he does not appear in Albert. There he will surely go during the general election will decide, and, therefore, I now ask him respectfully for a reply. Then I want to deal with a matter in connection with the native question. I am one of those who deeply regret that this question must play a part in the election struggle, because I always hoped we could find a solution sitting round a table. Now, however, we find that the leader of the Opposition said in Bloemfontein that the rights of the natives must not be tampered with. I was a member of the commission, and it is my honest conviction that the policy of the leader of the Opposition is to give all natives the vote as they develop and reach a certain grade of civilization. The Minister of Lands has quoted what the leader of the Opposition said at the congress of the African People’s Association, that it was his policy to give all civilized people the vote. We know that that was the policy of Cecil Rhodes. We should like to know when the leader of the Opposition is going to extend the native franchise to the north. Does he want to wait until there are so many native voters in the Cape that they can dominate 58 Cape M.L.A.’s? I do not want to accuse the hon. member for Standerton falsely, but I want him to say whether he actually made that statement at the congress. The Prime Minister is going to introduce the native Bills, and at the eleventh hour I still hope it will be unnecessary to bring the matter into the election struggle, and that the leader of the Opposition will give a clear answer to the country. In conclusion, I want to say that we are going into the election with the greatest confidence because, during the last four-and-a-half years, we have had a Government which has done everything in the interests of the country.

At the last election the people passed a motion of no-confidence in the South African party Government, and rightly so. In the first place I want to refer to the irrigation policy of the last Government. They spent £9,000,000 on irrigation, but imported bad people from abroad to carry out the scheme. The poor farmers thought that they would be prosperous under the irrigation schemes, but on account of bad policy the expenses were driven so high that the water rates became intolerable. Accordingly irrigation died out completely, and now one of the capitalistic newspapers of the South African party comes and represents irrigation as ridiculous. The old schemes of the South African party were all failures, and the Government had to write off a great deal. The Kakamas scheme was the only success. The water there, however, was not taken out by the efficient engineers that the South African party imported. Some of those people are still at the head of the Irrigation Department, and if the proposed schemes are to be built on the old lines, then it would be better not to start them. I am a supporter of irrigation, but it must not cost too much, and there must be enough water so that the people below the schemes run no risk of going insolvent. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who was such a wonderful business man, started the electrification of the railways to Sea Point, Simonstown and in Natal, but now that the money has been spent, and the countryside robbed of the chances of development we find that electrification does not pay. There were political objects behind the electrification. If the Opposition come into power then the hon. member for Cane Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will be the Minister of Railways, and then we shall have a Minister who knows nothing of railways. I do not envy the officials who have to work under him. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) filled the places of Europeans with natives, but what will the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) do seeing he is so terribly concerned about the native voters in the docks? A man who had the temerity to call himself a major after a few recruiting meetings cannot be at the head. God save us if that happens! In connection with land settlement the Minister of Lands has seen to it that the price of ground is not put up when the Government wants to buy. The Opposition is inclined to forget that they permitted that, and therefore made the subsequent writings-off necessary. Many attacks are made on the civilized labour. A railway was built in my district, and a great deal was done by piece work. The prices were high, and the people earned their money well, but they worked from 3 in the morning till 11 at night. They were paid by the foot for sand, etc., and the estimated cost was higher than what it actually was. What will be the position of the people in my part if the South African party comes back? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that they would not get rid of civilized labour, but he probably intends a reduction of the wage to the level of the coloured people. The country wants no South African party Government. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) actually opposed the line when we eventually got it, they want the business to come from Cape Town, and the north must not go ahead. What the South African party has done in the past it will do again to-morrow or the day after, and my constituency will not want those conditions back again.