I move:

This measure was sent to a select committee as an opposed measure, and I am pleased to state that it has now emerged from the committee as an agreed Bill. For that reason I need not take up too much time to explain the measure. The opposition of a riparian owner, Mrs. van Reenen, has been met and satisfactory arrangements have been come to with her, resulting in the withdrawal of her opposition, and there has also been further simplification of this Bill as a result of the decision of the municipality to withdraw that portion of the Bill dealing with the Pienaars River scheme. I first wish to deal with the necessity of this water scheme. The present water supply in Pretoria is insufficient. Pretoria gets its chief supply from the Fountains Valley. It is roughly 5,000,000 gallons a day, and on this amount Pretoria, in the past, managed to exist. In 1921 proceedings were taken before the Water Court, and subsequently before the Supreme Court, and Pretoria was awarded, in a judgment, 1,000,000 gallons of private water from that supply. It was also awarded certain secondary rights over that water, and at the same time Government was granted 300,000 gallons a day for its own use. The other two supplies are smaller matters and for practical purposes can be eliminated. In later years Pretoria’s demand has increased beyond the capacity of this supply, and during times of water shortage and drought and of peak demand, the supply has not been able to meet the requirements of Pretoria. For the last few years Pretoria has been faced on several occasions with such a shortage of water that the municipality has been compelled to call on the citizens to use only a certain quantity a day. The need for more water in Pretoria is further exemplified by the fact that townships have been springing up in the neighbourhood which are clamouring for incorporation in the municipality and to share in the municipal water supply, and the municipality has been advised that for health reasons it should grant these townships water, and I believe they intend doing so when they can augment their present supply. There has been a growth of industries at Pretoria, and in the near future we are hoping to commence the iron and steel industry there, which will demand a very considerable quantity of water. There is a large quantity of effluent for this purpose, that is sewerage water, going down to the sewerage farm where it is purified. Some 2,000,000 gallons of water can be obtained from that source which will be given to the iron mines at the cost of purification. With the augmentation of the Rietvlei scheme Pretoria will be on a perfectly safe wicket, at any rate for the next 15 years. That is the advice of the experts, and we in Pretoria are perfectly satisfied about the position. The urgency of this water scheme was accepted by the committee and the report is in favour of it. I want now to come to the scheme itself. After much trial and tribulation the Pretoria municipality hit upon the Hennops River water in the Reitvlei area. This area is some 12 or 15 miles from Pretoria itself. The river feeds the Crocodile River, which then flows into the Hartebeestpoort dam, and gets its water from springs rising in this area. The normal yield of water from these springs amounts roughly to 2,000,000 gallons a day. This flow has been bought by the promoters of this scheme, and sold to the municipality for roughly £220,000. In this connection I would like to say a word of appreciation of the Minister of Agriculture, who intervened in Pretoria’s water troubles at a very critical moment. The Minister was able to bring the promoters down by £100,000, and for that Pretoria is duly grateful. It is proposed also to build a dam in the bed of the Hennops River in order to augment the supply of water I have just described. The capacity of the dam will be about 511,000,000 cubic feet, and it will yield about 2,000,000 gallons a day. So the scheme is estimated to yield to Pretoria a total supply of 4,000,000 gallons a day at an estimated cost of 11d. a thousand gallons, the total cost being in the neighbourhood of £650,000. Fortunately the scheme is a gravitation one. A portion of the water will be taken direct by pipes from the fountain heads without purification, and the water from the dam itself will have to be purified. The scheme, after examination by well-known experts, received the blessing of those experts. We come to Parliament for sanction for this water scheme chiefly for this reason, that protection is given under the Hartebeestpoort Act to the surplus water flowing from the Hennops River into the Crocodile River, and from there into the dam, and unless we get parliamentary sanction for the scheme it cannot become operative. The House must appreciate that the normal flow is not protected. That belongs, of course, to the riparian owners. It is the surplus water which is protected and runs eventually into the Hartebeestport dam. The committee learnt that the Government had been satisfied by the proposal made by the municipality and that the flow into the Hartebeestpoort dam would hardly be affected, with the result that Government did not oppose the measure, but in order to safeguard the position, section 3 has been introduced into the Bill, which I would ask hon. members interested in the matter to look at. That section represents the actual agreement with the Government come to by the municipality, and hon. members will see that it protects the Hartebeestpoort dam in every way. (Clause 3 (a) (i) (ii) and (iii) read.) From this it clearly appears that the Government is amply protected, and if during the course of the next five years they find there is an appreciable difference as far as the inflow into the Hartebeestpoort dam is concerned, they can bring into operation the provisions of this Act in order to protect themselves. I do not wish to detain this hon. House any further, except that I want to emphasise that this is an agreed measure and that I hope the Bill will have an easy passage.

I support the motion. I do not wish to detain the House because the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) has already explained all the points in the Bill, but as (hairman of the select committee that dealt with the Bill I just want to make a few remarks. I want to say that we unanimously approved of the Bill and agreed that the necessity for it had been proved. The Bill was first introduced as an opposed Bill. It was opposed by one of the riparian owners, Mrs. M. J. van Reenen, but hon. members will see from the report of the select committee that—

Thus her opposition disappeared. Altogether there are four persons affected by the Bill who did not give their consent at the beginning. As hon. members will see from page 16, Question 156, they are Mrs. van Reenen, and Messrs. Krige, Glen, and Jorissen. Of these Mrs. van Reenen has now withdrawn her opposition. Mr. Jorissen has also now agreed so that there are now only two riparian owners who have not agreed to it. As for them we find from Question 157—

Therefore as far as they are concerned there can ultimately be no objection. The result is that the Bill practically has the consent of everybody affected by it. Then the select committee received the report of the director of irrigation. It was considered, and I may say that all the amendments suggested by the director of irrigation were made by the committee, as were also all the points suggested by the parliamentary draftsman. Even after Mrs. van Reenen had withdrawn her opposition amendments which she subsequently requested were made. Hon. members will therefore see that full agreement has been reached in this matter. As for the Government’s position I want to refer to the evidence of Mr. R. J. van Reenen, the chairman of the Irrigation Commission, where in Question 3, he is asked about the position of the Hartebeestpoort dam—

Mr. Papenfus then asked a question whether it was very small, to which the reply was—

Then again in Question 7—

The answer was “yes.” Thus provision has been made regarding the rights of the Government of the riparian owners and of any person affected, so that there are no private rights which are encroached upon without compensation being granted, and consent obtained. I want to add my appeal to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that the Bill should not be opposed, but should be allowed to pass as quickly as possible.

I have pleasure in supporting the second reading of this Bill. The Government and municipal experts have gone into the details of the matter and the Town Council has unanimously agreed to it, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to say very much. Pretoria has been very fortunate in regard to its water supply in the past, but the town is growing, the population to-day being something like 90,000, and the supply of water at present is certainly restricted during the hot season, so the Town Council has been looking for future supplies. The engineers have gone into the schemes, and have finally decided upon this one as being the best supply. I would like to point out that there is no opposition to this Bill, and that all the public and private interests concerned have been met. I therefore hope that the Bill will receive the approval of the House.

I am rather surprised to hear the hon. member who has just spoken say that there was no opposition to this Bill. This is a matter of extreme importance, especially in regard to the future of Pretoria itself as the capital of the Union. I would draw attention to this report of the select committee, and ask the House whether it is quite fair to have this evidence put before it within the last hour. I am very suspicious of private bills. They generally cover some astute movement to put money into the pockets of certain individuals. We are asked to agree to the principle of this Bill on the assurance that it is needed in a hurry. That is one of the excuses for rushing this through the House. In view of the future of Pretoria it becomes necessary for me to speak very clearly on the question and what this Bill purports to represent. In the first place, so far as a permanent supply of water is concerned, we all know it is precarious, as precarious as it must be where there is boring into the dolomite formation. In Johannesburg we found that occasionally the huge pumps suddenly started pumping air, and the result was that we wisely went to the Vaal River for an assured permanent supply. Water cannot cost too much if you get an ample supply. You can afford to pay anything it costs. In Australia they went as far as 120 miles to obtain adequate water. Kimberley in the early days laid pipes 25 miles to the Vaal and never regretted it. In Johannesburg we were, first of all, humbugged to the extent of a million of money for a supply hat was hardly worth having, and the people who got that money retired over sea, either to become lairds in Scotland, or to England to be knighted. We went to the Vaal River, and although it cost a lot of money, we were certain of what was secured. It is an extremely serious thing for a community that has a waterborne sewerage system not to have an unlimited supply of water. There is no substitute system to fall back upon in the event of failure of the water supply. Pretoria can well afford to spend a million upon obtaining a permanent supply which they can be perfectly sure of. It would only cost £60,000 a year interest and redemption. The Hartebeestpoort dam cost one and a quarter millions, and perhaps the Government were wise in preserving that entirely for agricultural settlements, but they are now allowing certain of the sources of that supply to be tapped, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture to frankly explain why he has withdrawn the veto he once put upon this scheme. Since the meter system was introduced in Pretoria and a user has to pay for what is actually received, it is astonishing what economy in regard to the use of water has been effected. The introducer of this Bill has evidently been rather misled judging by some of the bold statements made by him. My experience is that lawyers take assertions and representations made by them as statements of fact. They usually see only one side of a question, and that their own side. People go to them with fairy-like tales, and they at once become very-enthusiastic; therefore I ask the hon. member to listen to the other side of the case. I could mention many other places which have dealt successfully with the question of water supply besides Johannesburg and Kimberley. I ask the responsible Minister of Agriculture whether the head of the Irrigation Department has given his approval to this scheme.

Yes, he has.

Where is the evidence of it? What is the excuse given for hurrying this matter? The excuse is that Pretoria is to have an iron and steel industry. Heaven forbid that I should stand in the way of that enterprise, because I am a pecuniary loser by having made that scheme possible. I may also mention another forgotten man, Mr. Apercrombie. We induced the late Mr. Beckett to put up his and our money to make this scheme industry commercially practicable. I am therefore naturally interested in the success of the iron and steel industry, even though this anti-British and pro-German Cabinet is carrying it out by buying German material and placing it under German control in the manner in which it is doing. It is, however, going to be three years before a steel rail is rolled in Pretoria, or a girder made, so that there is no necessity to hurry to get this Bill through this session. It is a fairy tale to say that the industry will be held up if the Bill is not passed immediately. What is this scheme? Here I am going to be very frank. We find that graft, which curses everything in South Africa, is at the bottom of it. I challenge the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) to deny it. If he denies it, then all I can say is he is more innocent than I thought. Someone has seen that something substantial can be made out of Pretoria. People who see this chance say: “We can sell at an immense profit to ourselves the right to collect water on the surface and bore for it underground. You may have some future Government who will say: “What right had you to sell our drainage area of the Hartebeeste dam?” To which the vendors’ reply is: “We are selling only our right to collect water and Pretoria can put as many pumps down in the dolomite as it likes.” The men concerned are fairly wealthy, who need not do anything of that questionable kind. I think all the vendors are prosperous, but they will be even more prosperous if they can put their hands more deeply into the pockets of the people. Amongst them are two ex-mayors, who ought to know better; and quite a number of men in Pretoria are going to make thousands of pounds out of it. It was mentioned to me that the amount of profit is at least £137,000. And what for? So that men may make this money who themselves tell you that this country is being squeezed by cold-blooded foreign financiers. Pretoria is now being gripped by very influential men who have carried their influence so far that they have used it even in this House in the expectation of rushing a private Bill through to give power to them to make an immense sum of money. I protest against it, as the member for Pretoria (West), the residue of poorer workers who will have to bear the weight of increased rates. I am going to ask the House to hang up the measure until we get further evidence. The testimony before us is insufficient, and time has not been allowed to warn Pretoria that they are spending over £600,000; whereas, if they were to put up a million of money for a permanent source of supply, they would have that supply for ever. In the interests of Pretoria, therefore, I beg this House to suspend the Bill until it can be demonstrated that it does not cover a big bit of “graft,” but that the citizens are buying something which will be worth while. I will at least give the facts, so that this House will know what is being done right under their noses. I take full advantage of the proper privileges of Parliament to make certain accusative statements, and I ask the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) to combat if he can these statements. The first statement I make is—

That is statement No. 1. I will now give the rest—

1. (2) Dr. du Toit and Dr. Hall, in reports, state: “We are only buying our own water.”
2. (3) The purchase price is out of all proportion to the value received.
3. (4) There is only some ground surrounding the water-holes given by the vendors.
4. (5) An enormous profit is made by the vendors.

Who makes these statements?

I may or probably may not satisfy your curiosity in time. Who shall we put the pin through when promoters wish to punish those who have stood in their way in making fortunes? But I will go on. An enormous profit is made by the vendors.

1. (6) With the funds of the original syndicate giving out, Mr. Schlesinger came to the rescue, and for the expenditure of a few hundreds is to receive a commission of £21,000 for putting through the scheme.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture to attend to this fact for a moment.

1. (7) Gen. Kemp in a letter to the Town Council absolutely refused to allow the water of Rietvlei to be taken by Pretoria. As soon as Mr. Schlesinger appeared on the scene, another letter was received from Gen. Kemp, allowing the purchase of Rietvlei, a source of Hartebeeste dam.

I want to know whether the hon. the Minister refused at first to allow the water of Rietvlei to be taken for Pretoria, and why he afterwards changed his mind. Was the head of the Irrigation Department consulted? I have the highest opinion of the Minister of Agriculture, and am perfectly certain he would not be mixed up with “graft” of any kind, but he may have been misled, and I want to know whether he afterwards allowed purchase of Rietvlei, and, if so, why. Was this change of opinion brought before the select committee? How long has the select committee been at work?

A whole week.

Less than a month in all; and what notice did the public get; and how did the people of Pretoria, who are going to be skinned, ever have knowledge of the select committee. The statement proceeds—

Personally I am not pleading for any particular proposal. We should see that there is no suspicion of graft or undue profit in any scheme submitted. The statement proceeds—

The Minister of Agriculture is so little concerned that evidently he does not trouble to give the subject the attention a Minister might. I hope the Minister will give us a clear statement regarding his action in this important matter. I hope I have put the subject in sufficiently clear terms that the House will understand that it is being pressed to see that justice is done to the ordinary taxpayer, and particularly the small property owners. I have no axe to grind; I am being turned out of Pretoria as politically undesirable, and deported without trial, but as a last service to Pretoria I want to see that it is not subjected to what this unfortunate country has suffered from severely in the past, and that it will not be placed in the grasp of graft by people who want to make a fortune out of the necessity of their fellows, or in the greedy grip of those who are selling a rather valueless commodity at an immense price. I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I do not like doing anything that would damage Pretoria, but it is true, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) said, that we have not had an opportunity of reading the report of the select committee. Moreover I should like to receive information from the Minister of Agriculture about the position of the farmers adjoining the Hennops River. Will there be no danger to them when the scheme enters upon the dolomite water on Rietvlei? When they go into the dolomite water we shall have the same position that we had years ago with the Klip River scheme at Johannesburg. When the water in the dolomite formation on Rietvlei is pumped away then the farmers along the Hennops River up to the Crocodile River will suffer. Although I do not like opposing the Bill, because Pretoria is extending and needs water, I should like to see provision made for the farmers along the Hennops River up to the Crocodile River.

Provision has been made.

Does the hon. member assure me that they will receive compensation?

Provision has been made for compensation.

Then I have no objection, but with a view to the experience with the Klip River scheme at Johannesburg we must be careful to see that the dolomite water is not pumped away, and the farmers along the Hennops River impoverished. In the case of schemes like this there are usually birds of prey, and although I do not say that it is so in this case, I want to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to provide for the farmers along the Hennops River.

It is unnecessary to answer the insinuations of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) because we are accustomed to his constant attempts at creating a smoke screen. Yet it is my duty to explain to the House why in the first instance, I objected when the Pretoria Town Council approached me to obtain water on the farm Rietvlei. My first objection was that the purchase price of the water rights —£330,000—was too high for the Pretoria taxpayers, and, in the second place, I wanted an enquiry to be made first of all to see if it would not have an injurious effect on the catchment area of the Hartebeestpoort dam. I had an enquiry made from which it appeared clearly that there would be no such injurious effects. I looked after the interests of the farmers, and I can tell the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that he can leave the protection of the farmers entirely to this side of the House. As for the statement that I only gave my consent as a result of the action of Mr. Schlesinger, I may say that I know nothing of Mr. Schlesinger. I received a letter that the Rietvlei could be bought for £220,000, that is £110,000 cheaper than the previous offer. The letter was sent to the Pretoria Town Council, and they came to see me and asked me for my approval of the purchase. As the price was more reasonable and as the scheme would not injure the Hartebeestpoort dam, I was prepared to withdraw my objection, and to allow a private Bill to be introduced into the House.

It is stated that the pumping of water at Rietvlei will not injure the Hartebeestpoort dam, but let me say that that dam, notwithstanding an extraordinary rainfall, is not as high to-day by half as it was some years ago. Whether the farmers along the Hennops River up to the Crocodile River will be injured I cannot definitely say, because I have not yet had the least information from them, seeing that we only heard about the Bill a short while ago. I thought that if two schemes, namely, the Rietvlei and the Pienaars River scheme, were included, then the water would be pumped away, and the farmers along the Hennops River would suffer, and I expected the Government in such a case to stop the scheme. I want to tell the Government that I have had experience with dolomite water. I got a Bill passed in 1915 to compensate people who had been damaged by being deprived of dolomite water. It was then merely a few morgen about a spring in the Klip River which was sold to the Johannesburg Water Board, but a few hundred farmers on the Rand were damaged in consequence and were on the verge of bankruptcy. At Rietvlei we now have the same formation as the Klip River formation in the case of Johannesburg. I have often visited the spring, and I know that if the water is pumped away to Pretoria then it will be a similar case to that at Klip River. The flow of water in the Hennops River up to the Crocodile River will diminish. Anyone who understands dolomite formation will know that that is so. I do not wish to oppose the Bill, because I appreciate the need of Pretoria, but if I am to believe that a large number of prosperous farmers will lose their water, then I cannot give my support to the Bill. The Minister says that the farmers are satisfied, but I have heard nothing from them. Not a single farmer from the locality gave evidence before the select committee, and probably they are much dissatisfied. I think we might be creating a dangerous condition, and might be depriving the farmers along the Hennops River of water if the dolomite water on Rietvlei is pumped. There is only one other fountain in the Hennops River except that at Rietvlei, and that is a weaker one. If the fountain at Rietvlei is pumped from, then the lower fountain in the river will also probably be affected, and this will impoverish quite a number of farmers. I am not prepared to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), because I do not know whether Pretoria can wait another four months. It is, however, desirable for us to have more information. I want further information in connection with the Pretoria water schemes. They commenced with their schemes last year, but the members of the council and the mayor are so much interested in the schemes that they can come to no decision, and that is why the water supply of Pretoria is so bad. I do not know how far they have a hand in this matter as well. Probably they have not, but if they wanted to act fairly towards the Pretoria taxpayers, then they would long since have introduced a scheme for the supply of water. Why do they not join with the Johannesburg Water Board to get water from the Vaal River? There are millions of gallons of water in the Vaal River running annually to the sea. Why can they not co-operate with the Rand Water Board?

Ah, there is the rub.

Yes, they can co-operate, and lead the water to Pretoria. Then they will have a surplus supply, but today it is suggested starting with a small scheme What is 3,000,000 gallons for a population like that of Pretoria? It is not even sufficient for a year; it is like a drop in the ocean. Millions and millions of gallons could be supplied by a larger scheme, but this small scheme is only a drop in the bucket. If we can get the information, and Pretoria must have the water, then I will not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (West). In any case, Parliament will very soon be meeting again. The new Parliament will be able to deal with the matter within four months. I do not want to delay the Bill, but I cannot vote for it when it may possibly mean the ruin of hundreds of farmers.

As a member of the select committee which sat and reported on this measure, I would like to reply to the objections raised by my hon. friend on my left (Mr. Hay), who based his first objection on an allegation of graft, and his second objection was that he did not consider the supply adequate. In regard to the allegation of graft, the facts before the select committee were very plain, and that the interested parties affected by the scheme were compensated. We know how these water schemes are started. A number of enterprising individuals see that a town will need more water, and they get options on the farms affected, and offer the scheme to the local authority, which seeks to augment its water supply. That was exactly what happened here. There was no evidence of any graft whatsoever. It was a very straightforward and simple scheme, and there was not the slightest suggestion of graft. As regards the adequacy of the supply, we can go only on the evidence which was placed before us, and that was also very plain and simple. The engineers who gave evidence on behalf of the municipality stated that the supply would be adequate for some 15 years. The select committee could only be guided by the evidence before it, and it was not possible for us, who knew little or nothing about it before, to say that it was possible for Pretoria to get a better supply. I believe the decision of the town council of Pretoria was unanimous, and the engineers were satisfied. Under the circumstances there was no objection, and no other course could have been adopted than was adopted. I take it that the correct place for the hon. member to have made his objections, and to have substantiated the accusation of graft would have been before the select committee which, it is true, did not sit very long. We were fully satisfied as to the bona tides of the scheme and its necessity.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has dragged politics into this private Bill, and I regret the way he has dealt with the matter. I want, to point out that this Bill has been before the select committee representing all sides of the House, and if there were anything of the kind we on this side would have been the first to prevent the Bill passing. I just want to tell the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius), who is now flirting with Pretoria (South), that one of those who will come under the scheme will be a certain Mr. Jan Smuts, who has been compensated. There is no question of graft. Pretoria needs water and must get more water for its increasing population. The hon. member for Witwatersberg said that it ought to come from the Vaal River. That Vaal River scheme is too big, and the people on its banks do not want to allow it. The only effective scheme is the one dealt with in the Bill, and the select committee was assured that it would be adequate for the growth of Pretoria for the next fifteen years. That is why Pretoria abandoned the Pienaars River scheme. Now we have an hon. member looking for political motives behind the matter, although a select committee unanimously thought we should assist Pretoria. The select committee only intended assisting the Pretoria people in connection with the immediate need for more water, and the best scheme is the one which we use everywhere. The people who are affected have received proper compensation. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) spoke about graft this afternoon. We know that he favours the Skurweberg scheme and advocates it, but we also know that that scheme has been found entirely impossible. Pretoria needs this water, and especially in view of its industrial development there is need for a larger water supply. I think no one will deny that it is necessary, and this scheme is the most effective, the best and the cheapest. There are only a few people who oppose it, possibly because they have political benefit in view or something else. The time of the House is unnecessarily wasted in that way.

I think this House should have far more time to consider this matter.

Time is very short.

That is not our fault. If you are going to rush legislation through the House like this, where is it going to end? I am not taking into consideration very much the statements made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), but I do take into consideration the statements made by others, particularly the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius).

My constituents are all satisfied.

Well, I shall move—

so that we shall have ample time to consider the matter. It is our duty, as members of this House, to give further consideration to some of the statements made, and particularly to the statements made by the hon. member for Witwatersberg.

seconded.

The result will be the same.

called for a division, but withdrew.

I am astounded that so much heat should have arisen from such a cold subject as a water measure. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I am afraid, has been stampeded by the statements of the member for Pretoria (West). He must know that this matter was thrashed out very closely by a non-party committee. Every point raised in the course of the debate was enquired into, and the committee was satisfied by information from witnesses who appeared before it, that all the riparian owners were given due notice, and no single objection was made to the scheme on this ground. I urge the House not to be rattled by such a speech as that made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). Though he and I had three or four cursory conversations about the matter, he did not extend the courtesy to me of intimating that he wished to oppose the measure. This afternoon, as we walked into the House, we had a few words about the matter. I was asked if I expected any opposition, and I told him quite frankly that I expected none. Yet the hon. member gets up this afternoon and attacks the Bill. I do not for one moment resent that attack, but I do resent his discourtesy in not approaching me beforehand and telling me that he was going to attack the Bill. On what grounds does he go? Has the hon. gentleman not been influenced against the Bill by the promoters of a rival scheme? I heard about that scheme. I do not know why he could not tell me he represented those people. Then he went on to say that one should be very suspicious of these private Bills. I do not know whether it is good advice to give to anybody, to tell them to be suspicious. I have never gone behind the door to enquire what the motives of the members of the town council were. I have always taken it that they at all times acted to the best of their ability in the interests of Pretoria. Pretoria took the advice of three distinguished engineers, and it was after a very careful examination of the whole position that those engineers came to the conclusion that this was the best scheme that Pretoria could adopt at the present moment. There are bigger schemes. If they went in for the Vaal River scheme, that is a much bigger scheme, but the disadvantage is that Pretoria is not big enough to carry a scheme of that size. It is big enough to carry a scheme where the price of the water will be in the neighbourhood of 1s. per 1,000 gallons, but it cannot carry a scheme of the size of the Vaal River scheme.

You don’t know what you are buying.

I am buying nothing. I have been advised by the municipality that this is the best scheme, and they have been advised by their experts that this is the best scheme. Does the hon. member impute anything to these three professional gentlemen who have advised the municipality on this matter? In this curiously unpleasant speech of the hon. member he raised the question that the water is on a dolomite area, and he raised the question of the sinking of shafts. Now one does not sink shafts on a dolomite area; one is not so foolish. The present supply of Pretoria is dolomite water, and everybody knows the danger of tampering with dolomite water. The hon. member’s argument there is as weak as all his other arguments. Then he mentioned Mr. Kanthack’s name, and he challenged me to say that Mr. Kanthack agreed with this scheme. These schemes were put before Mr. Kanthack, and Mr. Kanthack did claim that this was the best scheme. The only scheme of any great value that was not put before Mr. Kanthack was the Vaal River scheme. The Vaal River scheme is a scheme of about £1,500,000. Sooner or later Pretoria will go to the Vaal River, if the town grows, as it is expected to grow, but it could not possibly bear the heavy capital cost of a scheme of that nature to-day. No expert gives any other opinion than this—that this scheme is expected to see Pretoria through for the next 15 years. I am a resident of Pretoria. With the exception of this last year, during the last four years we have been hampered in our use of water because of shortage. We had excellent rains this year, and Pretoria has been on a meter system, and yet the municipality has been extremely careful in order that the 5,000,000 gallons of water might be made to meet all our requirements. Quite apart from the steel industry, which will not require water for another three years, we are very definitely in urgent need of this water. My hon. friend talked of graft. I do not know what can have influenced him when attacking the scheme along that line. I do not know why hon. members will occasionally grub for unpleasant things, and come forward in this House and cast a smoke screen over what would otherwise be a pleasant proceeding. The municipality approached me asking me to take this measure in hand, and the Minister of Agriculture also approached me with a similar request. I have done so with the utmost pleasure, and everything I have done in this regard has been a pleasure, until the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) opened his mouth this afternoon and commenced his very unpleasant attack. It is difficult for me to conceive why hon. members will make these attacks. As far as graft is concerned, let me say this: I have taken no part in the financial side of this measure, as I have taken no interest except in the expert side of it. The financial side concerns the municipality, but whether the scheme is a sound one is a question for the experts. I have listened to the evidence, and I know what the views of the experts are with regard to the engineering side of the question. I also know what the views of the municipality are with regard to the financial side of the scheme, and the views of both parties commended themselves to me, and I commend their views to the House. Also the select committee had not the slightest difficulty. It listened very carefully to the evidence brought forward, and the whole of the committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the measure was one which should commend itself to the House. I ask my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and I ask the House, not to hold up this Bill. I do not suppose my appeal to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) will fall on sympathetic ears, but I ask him to allow the measure to go through.

When the House adjourned yesterday, I was dealing in general terms with the alignment of parties in this country being based at the present time on matters which are not always relevant to the interests with which we are supposed to deal in this assembly. I expressed the opinion that there are men on either side of the House opposed to one another, who could more properly sit together and try to put through legislation of a nature on which they are in agreement. If I might put it more plainly, I would express the opinion that this country has gone through a rather critical history for the last quarter of a century, that we have now reached the completion of that era, and that we have arrived at the stage when those things which divided us 25 years ago have been adequately and finally dealt with, and that we could much more profitably and usefully get down to bread and butter politics which are absolutely necessary if we are going to establish a sound European population—a population healthy, sound in finance, sound in policy, and sound in physique; a population which will fitly carry on the heritage left to us by the European pioneers of South Africa. That, unfortunately, is not being done at the present time, because of digressions on many subjects of much lesser importance, with the result that things that are absolutely vital to this and succeeding generations are being neglected. I take the annual report of the Public Health Department, and from it I find that the Carnegie Corporation of America is financing an investigation into the causes of “poor whiteism” in the Union. Why that corporation should undertake that duty I do not know. I should have fancied there are corporations in this country, including this Government, to whom such a duty would appeal. However, it is a good job that it is being done by somebody. Dr. A. W. Murray, the chief research officer of the Public Health Department, dealing with the causes of poor whiteism, says that—

And this in a country where every European is worth far more to the State than he is in any other country. That is in no sense exaggerated. It is a startling disclosure, and I want hon. members to note it and realize its seriousness, and the threat it contains for the future. So long as we allow to continue those standards which are being at present allocated to our working class white population so long will these conditions obtain. There is in all countries what can be termed a “bread-line.” Above that line may be bare existence with pretentions to decency; below it is starvation and misery more or less decent, mostly less. In other countries where there is not a colour question, the unfortunates who fall below the line may eventually be retrieved by improved conditions in their lives; they may starve without loss of self-respect. But there is a loss of caste immediately consequent upon sinking below the European economic level in this country, and when once caste is lost it is irretrievable. Your human material is debased. We of the Labour party regard it as a special charge upon us to secure such conditions of life for these citizens that they shall be an asset, not a menace as they are now. Apparently in some quarters it is something which should be criticized that we of the Labour party should make this our special charge, but the time is not very far distant when the poor whites in this country, all the lower-paid elements amongst Europeans, will look to the Labour party, very naturally, to see if they cannot rectify these conditions. We of the Labour party have been accused of being extremists. I have been round the Rustenburg district, the constituency of the Minister of Lands, and I have seen the people there sinking in one generation. Why? Through malnutrition and malaria. I have seen school teachers in the malaria areas giving their lives to what can only be described as rescue work. Teaching is only one of the services these devoted men and women render to their charges. They feed and sometimes even clothe these unfortunate children. Year after year they do this work unobtrusively. No provision is made by which they can be relieved by teachers from the healthier areas so that they may recover their own impoverished health. They work until they break down, trying to save a white generation from extinction. I say the Government is neglecting its obvious duty to these teachers when it allows that. I know it is a provincial matter, but the Government could bring pressure to bear. You will never raise a virile people on a diet of stem vrugte and prickly pear, where mealie pap is a luxury. There is no realization in the populous areas of this country, and apparently none among those charged with the care of these people, of the conditions under which they are living. Why has the Labour party differed internally to the extent of splitting into two sections? I will tell you in a few words. I will give it not from anything that has been manufactured, but from the actual record of facts. In 1927, at the end of the year, prior to the Labour party conference of New Year, 1928, when there were only two more parliamentary sessions to go, we were anxious to know from the Prime Minister, in the most courteous way, as to what legislation was likely to be put on the statute book during the remaining two sessions, and we asked the then parliamentary leader of the party to act as our ambassador to the Prime Minister, to ascertain in how far our programme was likely to be carried out. Most unwillingly be complied. The matters on which we asked him to enquire were these. This is a minute of the National Council meeting held in Bloemfontein on the 30th December, 1927. These were the subjects—

I will give you the reply we got. It gave certain promises and withheld others. These matters were all discussed, and it was moved by J. Allen, seconded by A. G. Barlow—

This resolution was carried. To-day we find a newspaper purporting to express the views of certain Cabinet Ministers saying we are acting in a manner hostile to the Government and disloyal to those with whom we allied ourselves. There is nothing contained in those questions or in that resolution which goes back in the slightest on the original agreement upon which we entered into an alliance with the Nationalists. But, because the gentleman who was then the parliamentary leader was compelled to do that, we know what happened in Bloemfontein the next day. The first step was taken by him to wreck his party and end its influence. It was necessary to find a pretext and the country was sacrificed upon a cry of so-called “dud branches.” Apropos of “dud branches,” I have here a little book called “Falsehood in Wartime,” by Arthur Ponsonby, M.P. He tells how it was necessary to inflame people’s minds when universal slaughter suited the world’s big financial interests, and so various stories were circulated. Some are tragic, some are ludicrous. This is a story as related by its author himself—it is called “The Baby of Courbeck Loo”—

That is very much apropos of the “dud branches story.” They had to find a baby, so they found the “dud branch” baby. They could not bury it, but it has buried itself—in oblivion. As for the baby clothes, there they are, worn by one-time Labour men in the National party crêche. [Time limit.]

I would not have intervened in this debate were it not for the attack the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) made on the Government in connection with the Mozambique agreement. Let me say at once that the Government has not the least objection to the hon. member on behalf of the mining industry, criticizing the action of the Government in concluding that agreement. We recognized all along that it would not be possible to satisfy the mining industry in all respects, and when the hon. member, therefore, feels that he should, on behalf of that industry, attack the Government for concluding that agreement, naturally he is only acting within his rights. But I do claim that when the hon. member attacks the Government he should make sure of his facts and that he should not make statements in this House with regard to the agreement and the negotiations which are not correct. The hon. member has evidently overlooked two main matters in regard to this agreement. The first is that he overlooks entirely the position in which this Government found the whole position in regard to native recruiting from Mozambique. He overlooks the fact that a decree had been issued by the Portuguese Government in which they gave notice that the agreement, that is, the 1909 agreement, would come to an end, and they stipulated amongst other things, that the actual period of service of natives in the Transvaal should be reduced to 12 months in all, and subsequently to 9 months. With regard to the question of residence of natives in Portuguese East Africa, it was stipulated that in future, after their return to the territory, there should be residence of at least 12 months. As a matter of fact, one of the first things I did when I arrived in Lisbon was to ask the Portuguese authorities to extend the period of the agreement before they brought this into operation. The hon. member overlooks the fact that we had to deal with the position which existed, and was most serious to the mining industry at that particular time. There was another factor which the hon. member did not mention, and which the House should bear in mind—the position in which the Government found the whole matter. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had attempted to make an agreement in South Africa and had failed; he went to London and attempted to make an agreement there and failed, but not only that, but by his action he so roused the Portuguese authorities, and there was such a feeling of distrust and suspicion on their part that the decree was the result. These facts were well known to the mining industry, and should be known to hon. members opposite. It was well known that that feeling did exist by statements made by the responsible Portuguese authorities and officials. It was well known to the House and the country that the leader of the Opposition had attempted on two occasions to conclude an agreement, and had not succeeded. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) ought to know that the mining industry was very much alarmed, and made representations to the Government that the whole position had to be dealt with. He attacks the Government for the policy of not consulting the mining industry, and says that they were not personally represented when the basis of the agreement was arrived at Lisbon. Let me say that there is no reason why there should have been a misunderstanding between representatives of the mining industry and members of the Government. The attitude we took up from the very first was that we informed the mining industry through their leaders that we recognized their industry was of the very greatest importance, but at the same time we made it abundantly clear to these gentlemen that under no circumstances could we bind ourselves as regards the terms of the agreement by what they put forward. We would appreciate their advice, and welcome a memorandum dealing with the whole matter. Let me at once say that the memorandum submitted by the mining industry proved most valuable, but let me add that for a very good reason, which the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) will appreciate, the Government could not bind itself to accept unconditionally the advice of the mining industry on this question, which affects all sections of the people. Let me give an instance of the necessity of scrutinizing with the very greatest care the representations made by the mining industry. Let me remind the hon. member and the House of the action of the mines with regard to the question of deferred pay. In 1912, the mines tentatively entered into an agreement with the Portuguese authorities by which they agreed to a greater portion of deferred pay. Again in the memorandum to which the hon. member refers, the deferred pay suggested is one-third of the wages. The mining industry were quite prepared to concede that one-third should be paid outside the Transvaal, as they were only considering their own particular interests. As long as they could be sure of a certain number of natives, what did they care? That made it so very necessary for the Government in all these matters not to be guided by the mines, but to look at all the facts surrounding the position. The hon. member also complained that we did not ask one of the mining delegates to go with the Minister to this conference. We had good reasons for not doing so. If we had one of their delegates, we would have had to invite a commercial and a farmers’ representative.

The Mine Workers’ Union.

A representative of the Mine Workers’ Union and others. The Government must take responsibility with regard to important matters of this sort. The decision we ultimately took with regard to deferred pay was one which was more favourable to the traders of the Witwatersrand. For the first nine months there is no deduction, and for the remaining three months the pay is to be half deferred. As hon. members know, under the agreement the native may now, after the first 12 months, renew his contract for a further six months, and in that case his pay is also deferred by half on the remaining period of the contract. So ultimately we made a very much better bargain than the mines suggested. The hon. member also said that commercial men desired to make representations in regard to deferred pay, but that we did not give them the opportunity. Let me say that the manner in which the Associated Chamber of Commerce of South Africa dealt with the whole matter makes one despair of any joint policy ever being advocated by the chambers. Let me give the House the facts. I have batches of correspondence, inter alia, from the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce, and the northern section of the Associated Chamber, and they all say that Delagoa Bay is the natural port of the Transvaal and should receive the traffic due to it. Then again the chambers at Durban, East London and Port Elizabeth attacked the Government because we had conceded a portion of the traffic to Delagoa Bay.

What has that to do with deferred pay?

It has got to do with the position as a whole. These chambers of commerce— they blow both hot and cold. On these matters we concluded the most favourable agreements possible. The chambers of commerce failed to come forward with some definite policy. The section in the north advocated one line of policy and in the south they advocated another, so that they made it quite hopeless for the Government to pay any attention to what the commercial man had to say about the matter. What becomes of the argument of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) that we should have taken a commercial representative to Lisbon? I put this to show the absurdity of the whole position. I want to say further, and the hon. member for Kimberley knows it, that by arrangement with the Gold Producers’ Committee, Mr. Wirth, who stands very well with the mines and also in Portugal, accompanied me there.

At your request?

Yes, but I do not know who paid his expenses. Mr. Wirth gave us very valuable service, and I willingly pay tribute to his knowledge of the conditions there. Does the hon. member for Kimberley know—as he ought to know—that the mining industry were kept in touch with the negotiations from day to day? Does he deny it?

Yes.

Then I say he is not fully informed. I saw the cables which came from the mining industry and I make the deliberate statement that the Gold Producers’ Committee were kept informed from hour to hour as to what was happening. I say further that the hon. member—if he does not know it, he should know it—that the conditions under which these negotiations were conducted were most difficult. This is not the place to deal with this matter, but the conditions were such that it was absolutely essential that those responsible should take the very greatest care, and use the very greatest circumspection. I say again that the Gold Producers’ Committee were kept fully informed. Do not let me be misunderstood— they could not have stopped the negotiations. We made it clear that the Government shouldered the responsibility for this agreement, and I say that they never indicated, at any time, that they wanted the negotiations to be broken off. The hon. member for Kimberley goes further and says that a most vital mistake was made in reducing the period of contract from 18 months to 12 months. There again he does not appreciate the peculiar conditions surrounding the whole subject. The Portuguese Government had said, with great emphasis, that it was most undesirable to have 100,000 native males absent from their territory for such a long period as two years. Their Ministers pointed out that that was a most unsatisfactory feature, and one which led to all sorts of abuses. The hon. member knows that that was a breaking point with the Portuguese authorities, who said that unless the Union was prepared to accept a shorter period of contract they were not prepared to negotiate further. Did the Chamber of Mines desire to break off negotiations on this point? Of course they did not, and yet the hon. member comes here and attacks the Government for conceding what they had to concede under the very greatest pressure. If the hon. member contemplates, he will recognize that when you conduct negotiations you must be honest with those you negotiate with. The position now is that a 12 months’ contract is definitely entered into, but there is provision to extend the period for a further six months. It is considered that the average period for which a native will remain is probably 15 months. Then again the hon. member has made a great point in regard to the number of natives, but he forgets that it was the definite policy of the previous Government—and it is the policy of this Government—that we are not prepared to open the flood gates of the Union to Portuguese natives. It is the definite policy of the Government that we should make provision for our own natives first. We are not prepared to let natives come in from other parts of South Africa until such time as we have provided for our own natives. I know, of course, that the mines do not like this. The mines would probably like the natives to come in freely so that they could get as many as possible. That, however, is not the policy of the Government, but we have allowed a limited number, so that the mines may adjust their position in the Union gradually.

Why have you got more natives than the Portuguese wish to let you have?

This is not a matter with which I deal; it is one with which the Minister of Mines deals. All I can say is that the reduction is to take place over a period of years.

You will close the mines if you are not careful.

Is the hon. member in favour of opening the flood gates?

Is there the slightest danger of their being opened?

It depends upon the policy of the Government from time to time; the mines are not under-supplied. Does the hon. member suggest that we have a right to dictate to the Portuguese authorities what number of natives should be admitted to the Union? My policy was to get the largest number possible as a maximum.

What is the good of talking about the flood gates then?

When I deal with a maximum number, I mean, of course, bearing in mind the number the mines lose at the present time. The Portuguese authorities took up the attitude that the number had to be reduced. It seems to me manifestly unfair on the part of hon. members to attack the agreement in this regard. The Governor of Mozambique has clearly defined the Portuguese attitude. They say that they are going in for a definite policy of internal development.

What is the use of talking about the flood gates?

The hon. member must not have the flood gates on the brain. The Portuguese are now developing their territory, and are proceeding with large irrigation schemes. They require a far larger number of their own natives.

You just said flood gates.

Yes, that is the policy of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). Of course, when these hon. members appear on the election platform, they are very much concerned about the opening of the flood gates, but when the Government limits the influx of natives in the interests of the Union, then they vary their attitude. I want to say to the hon. member for Kimberley that when the negotiations were conducted in Pretoria, the Chamber of Mines were fully consulted. We gave them the opportunity of rejecting the basis of the agreement. The agreement was formally signed at Pretoria, and the Chamber of Mines had every opportunity of objecting to the preliminary basis of that agreement. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth is not concerned with the mines, but with the traffic through Port Elizabeth. We cannot satisfy him but because we also study the interests of the mines and assist them, we are told that we have not considered other interests. The whole attack is typical of the South African party. I will give hon. members one or two facts. In the Transvaal prominent members of the South African party attacked the Government on every platform and in the press for their policy of not letting the traffic come in through Delagoa Bay. That is the Transvaal South African party policy. In Port Elizabeth they have attacked the Government because we gave Delagoa Bay a portion of the traffic. They endeavour to get votes in the Transvaal because Delagoa Bay, the natural port, is not served, and in the Cape they complain that the Union ports are being penalized. There are other questions on which they are blowing hot and cold in the north and in the south. The hon. member for Kimberley attacks the Government for not looking after the interests of the mines. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) says we have neglected the interests of the farmers. When you make an agreement dealing with matters affecting the divergent interests of the farmers, the railways and the mines, you are bound to come to a compromise. If we had not come to an agreement based on a compromise, what would have been the position? Would we not have had the position which occurred in Cape Town and in London when the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) attempted to conclude an agreement? Was it in the interests of South Africa, or in the interests of the mines, that the position of uncertainty created by the failure of the leader of the Opposition should be continued? Of course not. Of course hon. members have had to admit that it was necessary for us to enter into an agreement, and if we had asked for the whole pound of flesh which the Chamber of Mines asked for, the agreement could not have been concluded, and the whole country would have suffered in consequence. I do not claim that the Lisbon agreement is perfect, but I do claim this—bearing in mind the peculiar conditions under which the negotiations were carried on in Lisbon and the feeling of suspicion and mistrust which had arisen—I do say that the agreement was the best that could be made under the circumstances, and that South Africa has every reason to be satisfied.

It is very easy for the Minister of Railways to say that South Africa is satisfied. I am not speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Mines, but I ask the Minister if he knows anybody who is satisfied.

Yes, the Portuguese.

Apart from the Portuguese.

Are they satisfied?

Of course they are.

What do you know about it— do you read their press? You know nothing about it.

It is easy for the Minister to say that I know nothing about it. He has made a very lame reply. The farmers are not satisfied, and I have a letter from the Trade Union Congress, which represent the workers, and they are very much dissatisfied. They point out that every article taken away from the Rand by the Portuguese natives will be subject to very heavy import duties on reaching the Portuguese border. The inevitable result, they state, will be that the Portuguese natives will cease buying goods on the Reef. The letter further states that it is estimated that from 700 to 1,000 workers engaged as shop assistants and in clothing factories will lose their jobs. So, by concluding this agreement, in which the Portuguese did get the better of him, the Minister is going to put 1,000 of the working classes of Johannesburg out of employment. The farmers are not at all satisfied with the embargo on the importation of natives from outside the Union for work on the mines, as the farmers are already experiencing a difficulty in obtaining a sufficient supply of native labour. If the Government has got the Minister of Defence to swallow his last principle that he is against the importation of natives altogether, so far as to agree to the importation of another 110,000 natives, why did not the Minister say to the Portuguese: “The Minister of Defence, who is ruling the Cabinet, has now given up his last principle, and if you don’t want to give us the natives, we will get them from British territory.” The Ministry has told us in a manifesto that the whole of the north of Africa is one black area. Then the Minister would have been able to argue with the Portuguese. The Government sends to negotiate with the Portuguese a Minister who is a kindly, courteous man, but who is no ambassador and no diplomat. How could he be expected to negotiate with the Portuguese? He is not a business man, and has been living in a small part of South Africa, and suddenly he goes into Parliament, but these astute people on the other side have made mince-meat of him. I now want to have a few words with my friend the Minister of Finance. There is nobody more pleased than I am at the great success he has made of finance, but I want to join issue with him over his assertion that various reductions in duties have been brought about mainly with a view to reducing the cost of living to the ordinary consumer. How does he arrive at such a conclusion that the non-income taxpayer who is the poorest of the white people had benefit ted through the alterations in the customs. The Government is trying to get away with the assertion that they have taken the duties off articles used by the poorer class of the community. The distinguishing feature of the present customs tariff is, that it is, to a very large extent, a revenue tariff. When the present Government took office the duties on foodstuffs amounted to £1,000,000 per annum—they are now £1,500,000 per year. This means that this Government has placed on the shoulders of the workers the burden of paying £500,000 more in customs dues alone on foodstuffs every year. I am not talking about alcohol or hairdressers’ requisites, but foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, such as tea, which is used by all the poorer people, and wheat which we cannot grow satisfactorily in South Africa, the result of the duties being that bread is dearer here than in nearly every other part of the world. [Dissent.] Hon. members need not interrupt me—I don’t interrupt them when they speak. If the tax were taken off wheat, bread could be sold at half the price. Then £60,000 a year is being paid in duties on condensed milk. There are also duties on cocoa, coffee and even on sugar. One of the greatest scandals in Africa is the question of sugar, which is costing us 90 per cent. more than it would if we had no duty on it and no high railway tariff. Then there is a duty on rice, but, worst of all, the Minister has put a tax on babies’ food. This democratic Government—this Government of the people, by the people for the people, which is supposed to support the working classes, is actually taxing the food of the children. Then there are import duties on cotton shawls and blankets and second-hand overcoats, which means that the unfortunate native, who is worse off to-day than he has ever been in his life, economically cannot now buy a second-hand overcoat because they are no longer imported. I am talking of things which cannot be produced in South Africa. Then there are socks and stockings— they will not interest hon. members—and millinery, haberdashery, bicycles. Now why should there be a tax on bicycles? The bicycle is the poor man’s motor-car, but no, there must be a big duty on bicycles. Then there are baby perambulators and baby carts. It is all very well for members to laugh, but the point is that these are all things the poor people use, and if you take that off the poor people, it is far more than saying: “I have £600,000 out of diamonds,” or “I am going to take it off the income tax.” These people do not pay income tax. I am talking of the under-dog, who is mostly in this country a Dutch-speaking man, let me tell my hon. friends opposite. Then there are stoves, illuminating oils, lubricating oils and wrapping paper. These are all things used by the poor folk, and the Minister has taxed these things through the customs and taxed them heavily. It is no use a popular Government going to the people and saying they have £3,000,000 surplus, when they have taken £500,000 out of the allowance of the woman who has to look after her home. Now I come to the cost of living. So far as wholesale prices are concerned, it has gone down 6 per cent. In the United Kingdom it has dropped 14.7 per cent., Sweden 8 per cent., Switzerland 13 per cent., Denmark 13.3 per cent, and New Zealand 10.2 per cent. The cost of living in South Africa is 30 per cent, higher than it was in 1914, but hon. members must not forget that the cost of living in South Africa in 1914 was one of the highest in the world, because during those days we had to import nearly all our food. Since the Minister has been in power he has increased the cost of living, the cost of food to the poorer people, and, as far as taxation is concerned, the central Government have increased their taxation from £18,365,707 to £21,676,199, or 18 per cent. That is what the Minister has to answer. This cry of big surpluses—a good finance Minister does not have a big surplus, what he has is a very small deficiency. I know hon. member opposite who are such grave and profound students of political economy will laugh, but I think if a man came forward in the British House of Commons with a surplus of £1,500.000, he would probably be hanged by the English people. They would be asking: “Where are you getting your surplus from?” They would say: “You are taxing the people too much.” It is an easy thing to keep on piling up these unnecessary taxes on food, and then come forward with a large surplus. The Minister of Labour, when he first entered the Cabinet said he was enjoying every minute of it. That was the time when he tamed the lion. I wonder if he is still enjoying every minute of it, because he has made a pretty bad mess of things. I am surprised that a Minister who sat on a commission to stop profiteering on food has sat there quietly for five years and has never used his influence, if he had any, which I doubt, to ask the Minister of Finance to take these duties off the people’s food. He has sat there and looked on.

You said he was the best chap in the world last session.

I have nothing personal against the Minister. I still think he is the best chap in the world, but what I say is that the Minister has sat there for five years, and he has never said a single word about these taxes on the people’s food. Let us take his record. He became Minister of Labour. He went in for a tenant-farmers’ scheme, Pagterskema—a hopeless failure. I challenge any hon. member opposite who is a farmer to say that scheme was not a hopeless failure, and cost the Labour Department and the country thousands of pounds. Then he had Doornkop—£250,000 it cost us. Then he has the Hartebeestpoort settlements. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to tell me whether he is satisfied with those settlements, whether he does not say to his friends, and his friends say to him: “Why on earth did this man come and put his finger into this pie? He knows nothing about it, and he has made a hopeless failure of it.” I ask my Nationalist friends that question. They are sick and tired of the Minister of Labour. I go further with the Minister. I say he has not played the game by the farmers and the country over the Wage Act. When we passed this Act through the House, it was deliberately stated it would not be applied to the countryside. The Minister has applied it to the countryside.

Where?

In Bloemfontein. I am a farmer and it is applied to me. Some of my friends in the Free State will hear about it when the election comes on. Eighteen miles from the Bloemfontein post office it is applied. Seven hundred to eight hundred farmers are to-day under the Wages Act in the Free State.

The town council asked for it, the chamber of commerce asked for it, the whole of Bloemfontein asked for it.

I do not care if the twelve apostles asked for it. I told my constituents you would not apply the Wage Act to them, and you have applied it to them. To-day they have to pay the same wages in certain lines as are payable in the towns.

Are you against that?

I am against that because I am not going to break my word to my constituents on that point. The Minister put the other hon. members and myself in a very difficult position. The Government has not been as busy as it should have been with regard to food. This is a people’s Government; we have a sugar ring, a butter ring, a meat ring and a coal ring.

A fish ring.

That does not interest me. Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us why we are getting such low prices for cattle in the Free State. Why is our industry in the Free State at a lower ebb than it has ever been? Why is our dairy industry so low? Why is it that the income of the farmers of South Africa, for income tax purposes, has dropped during the past few years from six to three millions? Drought? We have not had such a great drought as all that. I want to say something to the Minister of Justice. This Government has made the cost of living so great to the working people and the poorer people of the country, that there has been an enormous increase in crime. In 1927 there were 155,553 people convicted in South Africa of crime; 10 per cent, of those were under the age of 21. In 1906, in England and Wales, with a population of 40,000,000, 180,000 people were convicted of crime, and in 1926 only 55,000. I want the country and the House to remember that for 18,419 people sitting in our gaols daily to-day there are only 10,000 in England. Let me tell you that 95 per cent, of these people are our people. I am basing this on the population of South Africa. I have given hon. members something to think of, and I hope they will answer it. Before I sit down I want to have a few words with my friend the Prime Minister. He knows I wish him well; he also knows I have stood by him on many occasions. On the native question I am prepared to stand by him to the bitter end if he is right. On the colour bar I was against the Prime Minister and my party—the only member of it who was. I want to say this to the Prime Minister, if I may—he has declared war on the section of the Labour party that sits here. I deeply regret that the Prime Minister has done it in the way he has, because what he published yesterday was not true. I know for an absolute fact that the Prime Minister would not publish anything that he knows was not true, but the statement he gave to the world yesterday is absolutely untrue; and if he does not believe it, let him ask most of the Ministers behind him. I say it is untrue. If anybody outside this hon. House says it is true I will call him a liar publicly. [Interruption.] I have endeavoured to make peace in the Labour party, and I have crawled to make peace. I am prepared to crawl again to make peace.

You could not get a backing.

I have not been able to get the backing I wanted to—quite true—on either side—but let me tell the Prime Minister that when he says we refused the conditions, it is untrue. The Minister of Lands knows he asked us to come and see them. He threw these conditions at us like a man throws a bone to a dog—and it has arsenic on it. He said: “You have to take this or leave it; if you do not take it you leave it.” I said he does not mean peace. When we got outside I said: “We will force these men to make peace whether they want it or not.” We wrote a letter accepting their conditions, and then they turned upon us and they wrote one of the most disgraceful letters ever written to people in this country saying: “We are making further conditions.” Perhaps the Prime Minister does not know that. Those are hard facts, and there is the tone of the letter the hon. gentleman wrote back. That was not playing cricket. The tone was such that no decent man would write it to a native, and it made it as difficult and as hard as possible. I was anxious to have peace with the National party, because in many respects I go with them. It was impossible to do so, because there are two men sitting there who do not want peace. There is one man who wants the leadership of the Transvaal and is taking advantage of a sick man.

Order.

If that was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it. I am here to defend a man who is away. Don’t I know the game that is going on? Do not I know that the game all along has been to get rid of Tielman Roos and of the combination that has been made. There was a certain section which did not want peace. Let me tell this to the Prime Minister—he has broken with his best friends. There has always been a time in South Africa, right from the time of Rhodes, when there has been an Englishman who has humbugged the Dutch. You have had men who have been friends with the Dutch and who sat on the shoulders of the Dutch people just like Sinbad the sailor. You have one to-day sitting on your shoulders; that is Col. Creswell, the Minister of Defence. This man has been trusted. Let me say of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that no one is more averse to hurting the feelings or the English-speaking people. They would do anything to prevent it. These men were against the German treaty, and they were against the flag controversy, but it was forced upon them. They said: “But there are two Englishmen in the Cabinet, and they will represent the English-speaking people.” Instead of that, they let the English-speaking people down. If the German treaty and the flag question had been left to the Dutch people, they would never have hurt the feelings of the English-speaking people.

But you voted for the German treaty.

Yes, I voted for the German treaty, but I am not an Englishman; I did not come into the Union under the Union Jack. I went out of my way to advise on the flag question, and said that we wanted two flags. That was adopted by the Government after many months, but when we asked the Minister of Defence to help us, he sneered at us and voted against it. He wanted a flag without the Union Jack.

That is what you proposed in the caucus.

I am prepared to propose it to-morrow. I am talking about the Minister of Defence, and how he let the English people down. I went out of my way and worked and travelled about the country saying that we would have two flags, but the Minister of Defence fought us through thick and thin. When Mr. Roos was endeavouring to solve the flag question by pouring oil upon it, the Minister of Defence was pouring in sand on the other side.

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense, no man in South Africa knows more about the flag question than I do, so much so that Mr. Roos has asked me to write a history about the flag question.

It will be some history.

Let me tell the country that when Col. Creswell was made Minister of Defence, the whole country said: “We have a man who will protect the English-speaking interests,” but he has let the country down time after time. When we were trying to get the flag question righted, he went to Australia, where he wagged two Union Jacks. I still say regarding the German treaty that it would never have been brought before the country if the Labour members of the Cabinet had said; they were against it.

That suits the South African party.

The hon. member must never forget that if it were not for the South African party he would never have come into Parliament. It was the hon. member for Brakpan who, during the election, drove about with a notice on one side of his car: “Vote for Waterston,” while on the other side there was a notice: “Vote for Smuts.”

That is absolutely untrue.

The hon. member for Brakpan has ceased to be a Labour man; he is a Nationalist. Some time ago he and other members approached the Nationalist party and wanted to become members of that party.

That is an absolute untruth.

Well, we will have to say it outside. If they are not Nationalists, then they are nothing. It would have paid the Prime Minister better if he had shed both wings of the Labour party, and had gone to the country on his own. I believe the country is prepared to give him a chance to rule again, and I believe it will be a good thing if the Nationalists come back with their own majority. I tell them they could have done it. To-day they are going there with the old man of the sea, who is of no use to them, and who has rightly been described as being neither fish, flesh or good red herring. He is an incubus. The people do not want the Creswells, the Boydells and the Sampsons. The Dutch people of South Africa do not want them at any price, and will not have them at any price. These three will perish at the poll, because they have foregone all their principles. My friend said they were men who had sold their principles; they may have sold their principles, but as far as the Nationalists are concerned, the Minister of Defence is a dictator. I never thought I should live to see the day when the Minister of Defence would dictate to the Prime Minister who should stand for a seat in the Free State as a member of Parliament, and as it has been also in the Transvaal. There are members on the other side who made this agreement that they will give up Brakpan and Germiston to two men for whom they have not the slightest regard. Personally, I am rather fond of the member for Brakpan. [Time limit extended.] It is quite impossible for me to tell what my time is when the clock is where I cannot see it.

The hon. member may move his amendment.

I move, as an amendment:—

1. (a) unemployment insurance,
2. (b) more adequate pensions for ex-soldiers,
3. (c) the application of the Graham Report to the Civil Service, and more particularly the lower paid sections,
4. {d) better wages and conditions for miners,
5. (e) a national housing scheme,
6. (f) a national minimum wage of 10s. a day in industry (excluding agriculture), and
7. (g) national cold storages, irrigation and land settlement.”

I second the amendment. I do not know why there was such a burst of merriment on the other side of the House when the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) moved this amendment.

We knew you were electioneering

Supposing it is electioneering, is the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) going to oppose it? When the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) goes into the constituency now represented by the hon. member for Brakpan, is the hon. member for Brakpan going to oppose it? It is sheer hypocrisy. But I do not propose to dwell on that aspect of it. I want to deal with matters of serious importance to the country. When the Minister of Railways and Harbours was dealing with the Mozambique treaty I ventured to interject that I honed he would deal with the customs duties affecting natives, and he told me that the Minister of Finance would deal with that point. It is of serious importance to the commercial community on the Witwatersrand. You may jeer at it as much as you like, but it does not detract from the seriousness of the position one iota. The very fact that hon. members bring a charge of electioneering against the amendment proves that there is something in our contention that the amendment ought to come before the notice of Parliament. The commercial community on the Witwatersrand is being hit both ways by this Mozambique treaty. Ill the first place it is hit by the tremendous customs duties which have to be paid by the natives who purchase goods in the area where they earn their money. I have always understood that it is to the advantage of the country that pays the wages to have those wages spent therein. Where you have a specialized trade built up on the Witwatersrand, built up on the capacity of the native who is brought there from other parts of the country, and sent back to where he was brought from when his job is done, it is to the interests of the whole of the country that the wages earned in the short time those men are engaged in mining, should be spent, as far as possible, where they are earned. Here I am informed that even the natives themselves are being hit. They find when they get to their ports of disintegration—I cannot call them anything else—Ressano Garcia and one other place in the Mozambique territory, that they have to pay such heavy duties they cannot find the money. They do not see why they should pay twice over, and they leave their goods, and there is rankling in the minds of those simple-minded natives, the feeling that they have been done down. I am informed that there is a tremendous accumulation of goods at Ressano Garcia that these natives have abandoned. The Minister must look into that matter for the sake of the honour of the Union as well as in the interests of the natives. The commercial community is hit two ways by this agreement. It is hit in that the native has deferred pay deducted, and, as a consequence, that money is held out of distribution and circulation, and by that amount the earning capacity of the business community is consequently reduced. Then there is the moral effect upon the natives themselves through their goods being unduly taxed when they get to the border. It has been suggested that the Portuguese authorities might be approached to have the customs duties deducted from the natives’ deferred pay. The person who suggests that is an optimist. From what we have experienced we are not likely to get such a concession from the Portuguese authorities who regard that deferred pay as their little nest-egg, which they are going to have whether the native gets a quid pro quo or not. I remember being on the Native Affairs Committee which considered an agreement entered into by the W.N.L.A. and the Portuguese authorities, and we discovered that the deferred pay was so arranged that the bulk, if not the whole, of it, melted before the Portuguese natives got home. That is in evidence. The little that was left to them after reaching Ressano Garcia was dissipated in wine shops and on other things of a nebulous character.

That reacts on the mines.

Of course, and on the whole community. When the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) was discussing the wheat duties, an hon. member on the Government side interjected: “Are you against the wheat duty?” the insinuation being that if he were, he must also be against the wheat farmer. I want to tell the hon. member who made that interjection that when the question of placing a duty on imported wheat came up. I opposed it on the ground that whilst I desired to assist the wheat farmer, the imposition of a duty on his product was not likely to help him. That is proved to-day by the fact that the wheat farmers are asking for an increase in the duty. They realize that they are not obtaining the price for their wheat that they ought to. I sympathize with them, but increasing the duty will not accomplish what they desire. The trouble is that South Africa does not grow enough wheat for its own requirements. The wheat farmers should be in a favoured position in regard to being able to dictate the price he is willing to sell his wheat at. Some time ago, at Caledon, I used the argument that the millers dictated the price to the farmers, and I stated that there was a millers’ ring. I accept the denial that there is a millers’ ring, but what makes it a ring in practice is the fact that the whole of the milling companies in South Africa operate through one buyer, who goes round to all the wheat farmers and buys up the whole crop, and as there is no competition the farmers have to accept the price he offers them. Increasing the duty will merely raise the ultimate cost of her bread to the housewife. So the wheat farmers do not participate one iota in the difference of price that the millers charge to the consumers. I am awfully sorry to find that the majority of the Creswellites have left. The most important one is there, around whom the controversy rages, but I had hoped that the Minister of Defence would have been here. He knew, because it was published broadcast, that we on these benches, the Labour party, were going to reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, and it is a very singular thing that he has been absent the whole time.

He is attending a conference of the trade unions of the Witwatersrand.

A lot he cares about the trade unions of the Witwatersrand. No, it is an excellent excuse, and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) knows the only interest the Minister of Defence has in the trade unions is whether there are enough following the lead of one or two decoy ducks.

It took you a long time to find that out.

I knew of it for a long time, but I deliberately shut my eyes to it.

You did not find it out till you got the sack.

Oh, I see. I will tell you what I did find out, that the hon. member, many years ago, was engaged in instilling poison into my constituency even when he was a partner of mine.

Nothing of the sort. You poisoned your own constituency.

Play the game.

For the Minister of Labour to talk about playing the game is the essence of hypocrisy.

The hon. member should moderate his language.

Well, it is very difficult.

The hon. member could say all he wishes to say without using language of that kind.

Well, sir, whatever it may be that is it. The Prime Minister has published that statement and members from this side have characterized that statement as being untrue, and the fact of its being untrue was questioned by the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps it would be as well to read the correspondence, and then hon. members will be able to see whether the Prime Minister was perfectly correct when he stated that every effort had been made to bring peace into the camp and that the National Councillites were the people who refused to agree. After we had the interview with the deputation consisting of the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Ben Pienaar and Dr. Visser on the one hand, a statement was handed to us—no equivocation, no amendment and in the most churlish manner possible. If I had consulted my own feelings, I would have consigned them to Hades before I left that room, but in the efforts for peace I restrained myself. As we were leaving, we were handed this document, and I want hon. members who are not completely overridden with a desire to misunderstand to give this their careful consideration—

It is very cleverly done: “two sections of the Labour party ….”

That is not so bad, is it? But what do we get in the third proviso? It says—

Well, we simple fellows thought that what was good for the goose was also sauce for the gander, and we replied in practically identical terms, but much more pithy. The followingletter was sent to the Minister of Lands—

We simple-minded fellows thought that we had every right, for what it was worth, to come to the conclusion that we had an equal right. You say we were not prepared to make peace. We were prepared to sacrifice the seat at Pretoria West.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) did not say that.

I am talking about the correspondence which took place. It was pre-eminently brought to our minds that they did not want peace all the time. We proposed that the correspondence should not be published until after the council had met. But I was confronted before then with the official reports in the newspapers as to what had happened here, and Mr. Christie, the leader of the party, had seen fit to deny these because he had not been informed of what had been done here. We had kept our part of the bargain, but publication had taken place from the other side.

It did not come from us.

Well, it certainly did not come from us. What do you mean by saying it did not come from you? Who are you? To show you how hurt we were by the cavalier way they treated us, we found it necessary in another filter to say—

The hon. member for Brakpan, when my friend was speaking, interjected: “Because you knew you had no backing.” Well, there is nothing like putting a thing to the test.

What I said was that you could not find any backers.

That has been the cry of the Creswell side all the time—that they, and not us, represent the supporters of the party in the industrial areas. You had an S.O.S. sent out by the Nationalist party in connection with the provincial bye-election at Langlaagte. They made a test case of it, and the man who was the candidate there had the solid backing of the Nationalist party. What was the result.? You had a tremendous diminution in the voting strength of the Labour party. I do not wish to misinterpret or misrepresent any statements made by the other side. Am I correct in saying that I have heard that in Benoni I have only about 150 supporters.

They hope so.

I fear that is one of the methods by which the Prime Minister was induced to believe that they are the milk in the cocoanut, I am going to throw out a challenge to the hon. gentleman. Whether there are 150 or 250 supporters of mine in Benoni, the fact remains, and I challenge the Minister, that he believes—or at least it was said by one of his confreres—that I am not so strong in Benoni, from the point of view of support, as he is. Oh, you have not said that. That is a becoming modesty. Let me say this. Let us make a proper test case of your support and mine right through the country. Come to my constituency. The hon. member is used to being an itinerant, so that it will be no hardship to him, and he knows he cannot win Denver. His friends admit that. Let him come to Benoni.

Pure swank!

Are you afraid to take it up?

Pure swank!

Will the hon. member for Brakpan come and fight it. I will challenge him to come to Benoni. He will have a solid block of Nationalist votes which I have not got. They are bitterly opposed to me personally, largely because, forsooth, I did not give them enough jobs when I was in office. That is on the minute book of a Pact committee meeting. I will show it to the hon. gentleman. His first lieutenant lives in the constituency; he has been there for five years as an active participant against me.

That is absolutely un-true, and you know it.

Order.

I am prepared to contrast my record against the record of the Minister of Defence in that constituency. I am prepared to advocate my principles against his, and I am prepared to confront his anti-semitism with my universality. I can hold up my use of Government motor cars against his, and I have never used them in order to wangle the Labour party. I will reveal my banking account for the last five years to show how hard-hit I was when I sacrificed my job for principles, and I will reveal all my financial transactions for the last ten years if he will do the same.

Won’t you make it nineteen?

Yes, nineteen or any number of years you like.

What do you insinuate?

I insinuate nothing, but my point is that under the circumstances I am in a very bad financial position when I throw up my job, and a worse position than he would be in if he chucked his job for principles. I invite comparison of my use of motor cars with his, because his supporters have been spreading in my constituency the story that I used State motor cars for private purposes. Now, sir, with regard to the criticism to which the Minister of Finance has been subjected, I am not like other hon. members who accuse the hon. gentleman of overtaxing the people, but I do think that the £3,000,000 surplus should be utilized for the purpose of improving the lot of the poor people of this country.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not suggest for one moment that there is anything dishonourable in the financial arrangements of the Minister of Defence. All I wished to say was that he was in better financial shape to fight for his principles than I was. He did not, but I did. We are arguing in our amendment that the Government should use a portion of its surplus in reducing unemployment. The Minister of Labour would say that he was taking measures to do this, but we maintain that the matter has not been tackled seriously. I want to advance the practice of continually shortening hours until all the unemployed are absorbed, but I do not advance that as a panacea. We are socialists, but under the system we find ourselves in, we urge that as a practical measure, not only for reducing but completely wiping out unemployment. The business of the Government is not merely to run the finances of the country or to coalesce private interests; we view the duties of a Government from a very different angle. Our view is that the Government is elected by the people in order to run the country in the best possible way in the interest of all the people. What appeals to one more than the elimination of unemployment? I understand that in my absence the Minister of Labour—and he is backed up by the Minister of Defence—claimed that he introduced the 8s. a day minimum. Well, I appeal to the Minister of Defence. I appeal to all Ministers whether that is true. I never heard of a more—you will not allow me to say hypocritical—a more untrue statement. We know the desire of the Minister of Labour for self-advertisement. I think that is common cause with friend and foe alike. We all realize he is the finest self-advertiser in South Africa. Can you imagine him sitting quiet all these years until this point and not taking credit for it? When I was bearing the brunt of the attack from this side for having introduced the 8s. a day—and we almost had a Cabinet crisis then—I do not remember the Minister got up and was prepared to face that attack on the ground that he had introduced the 8s. a day. He did another dishonest thing.

The hon. member must not ascribe dishonesty to the Minister.

Of course you quite understand I am using it in a figurative sense.

The hon. member must not use it at all.

It is very difficult to adequately describe the actions of the Minister, but I bow to your ruling. I will say something equally non-understandable, in that he accused me on the same occasion that when he left the post office so many white labourers were employed and when I left so many fewer were employed. He knows that when he was there, the rural telephone programme was at its peak, and he knows that when I wanted it still further extended, he himself joined in the chorus that prevented my getting the necessary money. To come now and accuse me in effect of having deliberately discharged men when I was doing my utmost to increase the employment is particularly mean. Then he laid claim to having increased the wages of these postal labourers to 6s. a day. That in itself is a refutation of his former claim of having introduced the 8s. minimum. The fact is that I personally, before I entered the Cabinet, found a lot of men on the tramline towards Camps Bay working for the post office at 5s. a day. I immediately asked him if he thought that was consonant with the protestations of a Labour Minister. He said: “I have already made arrangements to increase it to 5s. 6d.” Shortly after it was increased to 6s. I would like to have a word to say to the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not propose to say anything of a spicy character with regard to him, but I want to reinforce the claim that was made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). My hon. friend here made a definite attack upon him. In a very heroic manner the Minister jumped up and challenged a repetition outside the House. Let me here say that is a practice that is becoming very common in this House. The privileges of members of Parliament were definitely introduced in order that members who knew things and felt and thought things should have the right to say them without having the law of libel over their heads. It is becoming common, when a man makes an attack in the House—I have never done it— to be challenged to say it outside. That is not the way to deal with such matters. But my hon. friend was challenged and he took the most public method conceivable to draw attention to it outside the House. He wrote to the Prime Minister and sent a cony to the Minister. When is the action going to take place! There is a grave position at the moment. Mention has been made in British publications of this very company with which the Minister was associated; charges have been made in the British press about it and there is a tremendous amount of public unrest in England about this position. Is the Prime Minister going to take any action! The honour of the Government of this country is involved. I am not responsible except in a very indirect way for the presence of the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the Government. I think the business of the Prime Minister is to go into the matter. In case in all this welter of elocution the headings of our amendment have been forgotten, let me repeat them, for the benefit of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) particularly. We are out, whether for electioneering purposes or not—and we have been very consistent; it is only the hon. member for Brakpan and his friends who have broken any—we are out to endeavour to persuade the people of this country to realize their responsibilities towards the unemployed. We are out to endeavour to impress upon the minds of business representatives in this House and business men outside that it is bad business to have unemployed men in the country, because you are withholding them from production on the one hand, and you are withholding the wages of these men from circulation on the other. It is the business of the Government to understand that and try and put it into practice. We are in favour most definitely, and have been most consistently, of the increase of the benefits for returned soldiers and their dependents. We are deeply interested in the welfare of these. Patriotism has died down to-day. All the flurry and excitement and exhilaration and exaltation has died down. You have forgotten about your returned soldiers, and it is time the Government was reminded of the fact, and may I gently but firmly remind the Opposition of the fact too? Even at the cost of getting jeers from the hon. member for Brakpan of associating with the South African party, I do not care with whom I associate in the object. In my efforts to obtain redress and the amelioration of the conditions of these unfortunate men who fought, I am prepared to co-operate even with the South African party. I have never done it for electioneering purposes, and I have never had on my placards “a vote for Waterston is a vote for Smuts.” I appeal to my late colleagues in the Cabinet, whether I have not consistently advocated this, and that is the application of the Graham report scales in the public service. I do think, in view of the circumstances under which the cut was made, owing to the parlous financial condition of the country at the time, in the public service and on the railways, when the country became prosperous, a restoration would be made. We are out for better conditions and wages of the miners. Go along the Witwatersrand and you will find the conditions of the miners worse than under the South African party. They are complaining. You claim that the methods of the present Government have prevented industrial trouble—nothing of the sort. It is the loyalty of the workers to a Government they thought was in their favour that has prevented industrial trouble. There has been tremendous restraint on their part, and if there is industrial trouble in future, the blame lies with the Government, and more particularly with the Minister of Defence. Then we are out for a minimum wage of 10s. That reminds me. The Minister’s conference passed this definite resolution. Window-dressing, you say! Oh, no? The Minister of Defence was perfectly determined that this should be carried into effect, and he was perfectly honest in his intentions! White people are still, I understand, I will not say getting 1s. 9d., but I am not too sure about the 3s. 6d., and the Agricultural Department is still employing men at a princely wage. What are you going to do about the 10s. minimum! We are going to press it in this House and we are pressing it now, even though we may be electioneering. We are in favour of better housing, and we have advocated that right throughout the piece. The Minister of Finance has not told us that the three millions is going to be devoted to a national housing scheme. I agree with my hon. friend near me who said that nothing is more needed than a comprehensive housing scheme which will drag people out of the slums into the sunshine. We are in favour of the institution of State cold storages. One has a right to ask what does the farmer get from this budget and this surplus when you leave him at the mercy of organized middlemen in the form of cold storage controllers, who not only reduce the price to the producer, but raise it to the consumer. I must once again, even at the risk of repetition and boring this honourable House, draw attention to the fact that a commission has already been appointed by the Minister of Agriculture which reported unanimously in favour of the institution of State cold storages. Nothing has been done. You have £3,000,000 with which to help the farmer on the one hand and the consumer of South Africa on the other hand, by instituting State cold storages and taking out of the hands of private enterprise the food supplies of the people. I am talking about the poor farmer —not the farmer who under the guise of farming exploits the white labourer. I am talking about the ordinary man who can just make a living to-day. Then what have you done for irrigation? Years ago, and since then, I have preached in this House that irrigation should be a national undertaking. Irrigation schemes are so costly that when you saddle those below the water with the costs, you kill the farmer right away, and you have given him no opportunity of making his way—he is absolutely helpless and hopeless when you have placed upon him the burden of his share of repaying the capital cost. It is as much for the town dweller to pay for irrigation as it is for the farmer, because they equally benefit. If you remove the cost of irrigation from the farmer, as I have indicated, you are making it possible to produce goods and to keep men on the land who otherwise would be driven off. Finally, we have land settlement, although this does not exhaust the whole of our domestic programme. The Minister of Lands will say we have the most liberal land settlement laws in the world. I do not think we beat Canada, but, granted that is so, because one thing is not so bad as another, it does not make it good in itself. You start a man with practically no capital, or no capital at all, on the bare veld, and expect him to make his way. What farmer does not realize that you cannot start producing the next year from virgin soil? Then the cost of buildings, and the restrictions, as far as these buildings are concerned, are very irksome indeed, and it therefore makes the position of the man hopeless from the start. What you have to do is to free the applicant for land settlement from these difficulties. In view of the points I have outlined, I think I have a right to ask this House to vote for the amendment moved by my hon. friend.

I was very profitably engaged yesterday afternoon and this afternoon in attending to a deputation of trade unionists, and I only rise now merely to request my friends not to respond to the invitation issued by hon. members over there to indulge in a mud slinging match. I know of course it is not necessary to make such a request as their own taste would guide them to the same end. I also rise to offer a few remarks on the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, and, having concluded my remarks, I propose to resume my more profitable occupation. As I listened, what struck me as extraordinary was how the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) had for three long years been content to remain a member of the Government and he associated with colleagues every one of whom had apparently reached the deepest depths of ineptitude. I should have thought that holding that opinion of the Government to which he belonged, he would have resigned in disgust, instead of waiting to be asked to leave.

I nearly did so.

I will not follow him in regard to Cabinet discussions, because those are things on which we have lather different views. I never reveal Cabinet discussions.

Except when you write letters.

What about window-dressing?

That referred to no Cabinet discussion. I can assure the hon. member for Benoni that I would gladly give him leave to study my bankbook and let him explore the whole of my banking account, but I should not care to, in the circumstances, because I fear that some of his friends might go round circulating stories based upon that examination. Not that I do not trust him—

Do you not accept what I said?

Oh, yes. I thoroughly accept it, but I am sure my hon. friend would find my bankbook deplorably’ un-interesting. Now, as to this amendment. On the very excellent and ancient principle of “no supply until grievances redressed,” hon. members over there, including one hon. member who was a member of the Government up to a few months ago, now ask us to do all these things. Why?

You had five years to do them in.

The House will understand, of course, that these hon. members want to pose as the only genuine Labour men. But I ask myself why this amendment at this stage when they have held these views for years? They are rocks of consistency. These things have been burning in their minds for four or five long years, but they have never moved to hold up supplies before.

We have had it in caucus every year, and you stopped it.

They had the chance two weeks ago when the Additional Appropriation Bill was under discussion-

It was not in order then.

Of course it was in order. What has happened is that the Nationalists have signified that they will not support them at the coming elections; so we have this position, that as long as they were going to get the support of the Nationalists, they were willing to grant supplies without any of these things being dealt with.

That is like your other statements; it is not true.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) said yesterday, “How can we sacrifice our gallant and noble friend, the hon. member for Pretoria (West)?” and now we see in the paper that these hon. members were perfectly satisfied to sacrifice him, so that all these beautiful and high-faluting heroics of the member for Umbilo is exposed for what it is worth.

I have no complaints about the reception of the financial statement I made last week, either in this House, or in the country. Of course there was criticism. We expect that from the Opposition, but I think it is certain that all good South Africans in the country, as well as in the House, are pleased to learn how sound the finances of the country are. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) expressed the views of the Opposition on the financial statement made, and let me say at once that in my opinion he made fair and constructive criticism as he promised to do. In this debate there has practically been only one large point raised in connection with the financial position shown by the statement of the financial policy followed during the past five years. It is the accumulating of surpluses at the end of every financial year. The point is raised that the public are thereby unnecessarily taxed. Let me say at once that I do not in the least repent of the policy I followed in this respect. If I had to choose between a reduction of taxation and annual surpluses, or on the other hand a systematic increase of taxation, and deficits then I have not the least doubt as to what I, and the country, would choose. What was the position five years ago; be the reason what it may? My hon. friends opposite say that it was the war and the state of depression. Whatever it was the fact remains that we had deficits for three successive years. During that period our provision for redemption of debt diminished, and this went so far that the position was dangerous. We know that our position abroad was undoubtedly affected by it. I felt that it was necessary to follow a careful policy to remedy that position. We tried to get back to the old sound practice of a balancing budget, instead of the annual deficits. Owing to the fact that we have surpluses we were able to make provision for redemption of debt to strengthen the redemption fund and the pension fund, to improve the credit of the country, and to strengthen our loan funds. For the first time in our history we shall be able to undertake considerable capital expenditure without borrowing money. We are a young country, in need of development. From time to time requests are made to the Treasury for funds for development. When I assumed duty at the Treasury five years ago we found that the previous Government was spending about £11,000,000 for the necessary capital expenditure. Large obligations were entered into and we had to continue the work. We found that we were obliged to have an annual loan programme of £11,000,000 to £12,000,000 approved by Parliament in the interests of the country because the country asked for funds for development. I, and my friends interested in the matter, felt that we could not go on spending that amount every year, for the most part from borrowed money, and if we wanted to continue spending that money for development we must find the funds for it from revenue, as England and other old countries do. I have no regrets about the intentional and careful policy which I tried to carry through during the past five years owing to which the surpluses have arisen. Hon. friends opposite have admitted that the surpluses have been wisely spent and not wasted, but have been used in the interests of the country. My hon. friend opposite made the point that this policy had led to extravagance. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that the Minister of Finance was in a weak position if his colleagues during the year found that there would be a surplus because they would then apply for money for all kinds of nice schemes. The hon. member for Yeoville has been a Minister himself and will agree with me that the chance of spending money, possibly getting services approved which would otherwise not be approved, is much better at the beginning of the year when the Minister of Finance can say that there will be a large surplus. What is a complete proof in my view is that every year additional supplementary estimates are introduced here which are passed through the House with hardly any criticism from the Opposition. That is the test whether money is being spent on a sound basis or whether there is extravagance. The supplementary estimates provided for various services and the House did not criticize them. The supplementary estimates for this year were before the House a few weeks ago and the decision to go into committee which is usually taken after a debate was come to without one member of the Opposition rising to show that there had been extravagance or that wrong expenditure had taken place. That was the time to criticize. The surpluses at the end of the year which can be dealt with as Parliament thinks fit are the result of the sound policy followed by the Government. Another criticism was that the surpluses were obtained by underestimating revenue. Let me say at once that I have never yet made a secret of the fact that I usually make conservative, careful estimates with the object I have already stated. What is remarkable in this connection is that the Opposition, whose duty it is to guard over these things, never referred on the introduction of the budget to the fact that we had underestimated the budget.

That is done every year.

No, my hon. friends say that they will be sitting here after the election and will be responsible for the Government of the country. They say so, but then they ought also to be able to say now, as they have done every year, that the economic position is such that the revenue for the subsequent year is underestimated. They did not however do so. What did they do? Last year the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said: “Oh, yes, it is very easy for the Minister of Finance to come here now and grant an exemption from taxation, but next year the burden of old age pensions will have to be borne and then he will get into trouble.” What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) say? He said: “It is an election budget. The Minister of Finance wants to make out that the condition of the country is so prosperous, and he is already engaged in making all kinds of presents. It is an election budget.’ In replying to the debate I said that he and his friends were welcome to draw any benefit out of the statement that I had introduced an election budget, but what did he say during the recess? He said that the Minister of Finance was engaged in persuading the people that he was again going to give a rebate of 20 per cent, on the income tax, but that the burden of old age pensions would be so high that it would not be possible.

I did not yet know then what the budget was going to be.

We never heard that the revenue was being underestimated. On the contrary we constantly heard that the country was not so prosperous, and that the Minister of Finance would get into difficulties the next year.

We do not get an opportunity to go into your budget.

It is not necessary to go into the budget, but my hon. friend is quite able, when I introduce the budget and propose reduction in taxation, to say that the revenue estimated by me is too high or too low. The hon. member for Yeoville said “What a lucky Government it is; the fairy godmothers threw diamonds into their lap, the Minister has had the fabulous wealth of Namaqualand at his disposal.” I think that is one of the prettiest illustrations of what can be done for the country by following a sound and sensible policy, and what a mess can be made by the opposite policy. If the fairy godmothers had come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the party opposite, the State would only have got a small portion of the £6½ millions.

Very little.

We said the wealth was there, and that it was the duty of the Government to retain the whole of it for the taxpayer, and for the country in general. The Opposition opposed that scheme and said that we should only lease the fields. The State would then have got a small portion of it, and the rest would have gone to a few rich capitalists. That would have happened if the fairy godmother had come when my hon. friends opposite were in power. Hon. members reproached me for referring to what the State got out of gold mining leases, and that I had not acknowledged that that was a policy introduced by the South African party Government. I think that that is well known, but here we are once more concerned with the policy which we supported at the time, and the only difference is that very probably the share of the State would have been made larger by us.

Think of the splendid negotiations with the Portuguese.

How far have they run now?

Then mention was made of the growing expenditure of the country, of the fact that during the five years it had increased by about £5,000. I do not intend to repeat everything that I said last year when I explained all the details of the increases. I pointed out then how, as a young country, we were not engaged in development, and how applications were constantly made for additional services involving expenditure, how we had to make further provisions for education, higher and technical education, how we had to build up pension funds, and had to make provision for hospitals, for feeble-minded, etc. Many of these social services were only started under the previous Government and we had to extend them. In that way the expenditure rose. I also pointed out last year that every time estimates of expenditure were introduced, no criticism came from the other side, nor a motion saying: “Here the expenditure is unnecessary.” No, on the contrary more demands for increased expenditure came from all sides. What assistance does any Minister of Finance or any Government get from this House in any effort he makes to curtail the expenditure of the country? We know that a member can say outside the House for election purposes: “Look how the expenditure of the country is mounting up”, but every one of the members has at some time or another already made an attack on the Treasury because he could not get the money required for some service or other which he wanted done. The protection policy of the Government has been referred to again in this debate, how the cost of living has been raised in that way, and how the mines have thereby got into an unsatisfactory position. The point was made that the proposal submitted to the House did nothing for the poor man. Well, I want to point out that it is impossible to do anything to reduce taxation for the man who pays no taxes as it is. During the last five years taxation has been taken off certain classes of people whereby nearly all persons working for wages are exempted from direct taxation. The position before we introduced these proposals in connection with further exemptions for children was that married people with children paid no income tax if their income did not exceed £600 a year. With the further exemptions it is not yet possible to concede any more to these people.

What about customs duties?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) said in that connection that there was no ground for my statement that during the five years we had removed the burden from the poor on to the rich man. Let me give instances of customs reductions to show that there were reductions which not only benefited the rich class, but also the poor man. The duty on cotton and woollen goods which are used by the poor man, and which are imported to the value of £5,000,000 a year, has been almost completely removed. Such articles which come from the British Empire are not taxed and on those which come from other countries the tax has been reduced to 5 per cent. Then I may also mention such articles as table linen, sewing machines, porcelain ware, thread, and tea. During the last two years the customs duty on quite a number of articles has been reduced by an amount of £750,000. Even in 1925, when our customs system was altered the duty in the case of a whole series of articles was reduced, and increased on luxury articles. This is what I referred to in my opening speech.

Why do you not make a reduction on cotton blankets?

My hon. friend, of course, is a free trader, and against the protection policy of the Government. He mentions an industry which we are trying to create, and I have already announced with what success.

Who makes cotton blankets?

The position is that, even if I were able to make further concessions on the customs duties, it would be impossible to do so without damaging an industry which is already established. I can quite understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) predicting, but I cannot understand hon. members who support the protection policy insisting on a reduction in customs duty. There is another difficulty. Although we have tried to assist the consumers in certain cases and hoped that the competition between traders would lead to the reduced customs duty being followed by lower prices, I fear that the consumers have got very little of the reductions of £2.000,000. Take for instance the case of tea. Last year the duty was reduced by 2d. per lb. Can anyone tell me that tea is cheaper to-day? An hon. member just said that it is still the same price. Take for instance, cotton. The duty showed ¾d. per lb. If we abolish it altogether and sacrifice £80,000 of revenue then I do not think it will make much difference to the consumers. That is the case with all the articles. It need not be exactly that the shopkeepers want to put everything into their own pockets, but from the nature of things it is impossible to give the consumers the benefit of reductions.

Yet the dealers do put it in their pockets.

Let me here say that I agree with what has been said on all sides in connection with the fact that in the next Parliament we shall not again have the privilege of seeing the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) in his usual place. Although he has often severely criticised us and me. as Minister of Finance, we have always listened to him with pleasure and we shall miss him. My hon. friend, however, astonished me by his criticism on my financial statement. He told us that I have now made the discovery that it is in the interests of the country to abolish taxation. That is not a fresh discovery I have made. Since the first year I introduced the Budget I announced large reductions of taxation every year, because I realized that it is in the interests of the country to reduce the burden on the people. My hon. friend said that the exemptions from taxation only amounted to £1,900,000 and he said that he saw that in the Treasury memorandum. I should like him to read the memorandum again. In opening I pointed out that the sacrifice of revenue which we allowed to remain in the pockets of the taxpayers was as much as £6,000,000 during the five years we have been in office. The figure of £1,900.000 quoted by the hon. member is only the reduction of taxation for one year, but over the period of five years, if you calculate the provincial taxes which have been exempted by the provision we have made for increased grants, the surrenders amounted to at least £6,000,000. In my calculation I include the number of years in which the surrenders applied, and then the calculation is as follows for the period 1924’25 to 1928-’29: Patent medicines, £75,000 x 5, £375,000; pipe and smoking tobacco, £220,000 x 4, £880,000: postage stamps, £130,000 x 4, and £300,000 x 3, £1,420,000; interest on guardians’ fund, £15,000 x 3, £45,000. Income tax reductions: £30,000 x 4, £120,000: £205,000 x 3.£615,000: £90,000 x 2, £180,000; and £770,000; total £1,685,000 reduced by £200,000 x 4, £800,000. Customs £40,000 x 5, £200,000; £125,000 x 2, £250,000: and £500,000; £950,000. Against this there was an increase of £400,000 x 4, £1,600,000. The calculation of the amounts mentioned so far bring the nett surrender to £2,955,000. To this must still be added: Transvaal employers’ tax, £225,000 x 4, £1,000,000; turnover tax in all the provinces, £215,000 x 4, £860,000; and the Cape company tax, £30,000 x 4, £120,000; total £1,980,000.

You mentioned provincial taxes.

Yes, those which had to be taken off in consequence of the Durban agreement because a larger Union grant was made.

Will you also take into account the provincial increases?

I have only to do with the taxes which became impossible immediately because we had made provision to cover them directly from Union funds. We enabled the provinces by the Durban agreement to balance their budgets without levying extra taxes. I do not believe that in the case of the Transvaal further taxes were imposed, but even if it were so then it was as a result of the development which took place there. For that year there was adequate provision made for the Transvaal, and also for the other provinces.

What about the increasing of the liquor licence? The provinces get that now. You must deduct it.

If the provinces require more revenue, get more money out of it, what have I to do with it? I am now dealing with the exemptions from taxation which were directly brought about by this Parliament.

But that does not prevent the expenditure increasing.

Of course not, unfortunately it must increase, but it is not correct to say that during the five years the people have only been relieved of £1,900,000, and I have not only this year made the discovery how good a thing it is to reduce taxation. I did so during the five years, but I have now laid more emphasis on it in my statement. Then my hon. friend said that he did not notice in the Budget that there are signs of provision for times of depression. I said on a former occasion, and the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to it, how dependent we are to a great extent on revenue from the diamond and gold mines. I do not know that at the moment we ought to be particularly concerned at the position of the gold mines. I know that a few years ago there were pessimists in the country, but I think the view at present is generally more optimistic. I frankly admitted on previous occasions, however, that I do not like our being dependent on diamonds for so great a part of our revenue. We know that in the past revenue from diamonds has fluctuated very much, and it is possible that another time of depression may come, and that our finances will then be seriously affected. I hope the time will come when we shall be able, not to place the proceeds from diamonds as revenue on the Budget, but to pay it in to the loan fund so that we shall no longer be dependent on the sound or unsound state of the diamond market. That, however, was always the case in the past, and although we have rectified matters very much in the five years we have not yet got to that stage, but I hope the time will soon come when we can do it. I see the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) is in his place. I do not know whether he actually experts me to reply to his inexplicable statement that, according to the reports of the commissioner for inland revenue it appears that the taxable income of the country has become, less especially as far as the farmers are concerned. I was astonished to hear the hon. member’s speech. Cannot he see that the explanation is very simple, that his conclusions are entirely wrong? He does not understand the figures at all. What he quoted does not prove that the country is less prosperous. The reduction in the taxable income is simply due to the fact that we have so much reduced taxation during the five years that we have exempted so many people who formerly were taxable. The raising of the exemption from £500 to £400 resulted in thousands of farmers and other people no longer having taxable incomes.

Have you exempted to such an extent that the incomes of the farmers that are taxable are now only half of what they were before?

My point is that as the result of the various exemptions and all sorts of concessions from time to time large groups of taxpayers are completely cut out and that my hon. friend was not dealing with globular incomes but with taxable incomes, and that explains the great difference. Farmers especially are cut out owing to the exemptions. I have already said that as a result of the reductions no less than 25,000 persons who formerly paid direct taxes no longer pay taxes, and that more than 60,000—the press gave the wrong figure of 16,000—obtained a reduction in their income tax through the exemptions. Now a few words more about what the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) said in connection with the alterations in the law with regard to sinking-funds, by which surpluses in the revenue do not automatically go into those funds. I do not intend to discuss this matter now, but just want to point out that the Act was passed after the Select Committee of this House had made careful enquiry. The Act was almost unanimously approved by this House and had the approval of hon. members who know something about finance, like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and others. The hon. member for Kimberley did not then give us his valuable advice. He did not then say that we were taking an unsound financial step, but now he comes with the wisdom of a professor saying that an unsound step was taken. We know that for quite a number of years under the previous Government we did not contribute a penny to the sinking fund because there were no surpluses. That pointed out the unsound position to us, and we said that we ought to provide for the payment of a minimum amount into the sinking fund. This does not prevent the House deciding to make further provision for payments into the sinking fund when the financial position permits it. What is the result of the new policy? During the period it has been in operation more has been paid into the sinking fund than ever before.

Simply because there were surpluses.

Precisely. When there are surpluses it can be done, but otherwise Parliament cannot compel the Minister to pay further moneys into the sinking fund.

Last year it was £500,000 but this year only £350,000. Under the old Act the whole surplus would have gone into the fund.

Then there would probably have been no surplus and not a penny would have been paid into the fund. The fact has been referred to that no provision is made in the Budget for the increase of public servants’ salaries. I have already clearly stated on former occasions that the large majority of our population are certainly not prepared to further increase the administrative costs of the country, and that will be necessary if we are to comply with the requests. I mentioned clearly at the time the reductions were made that the officials were very clearly told that it would not be a temporary reduction, but a fixed one, that the Graham report was based on the expectation that, if the scales were applied, the public service would have to become smaller and more efficient. This has appeared to be impossible all these years, and to-day we are in the position that the majority of the taxpayers are not prepared to give effect to measures which would mean paying £750,000 more for governing the country. I therefore do not feel justified in reintroducing the scales which were proposed by the commission as circumstances are very different to-day from what they were then.

They are asking for a new commission.

What use will that be? If a new commission proposed scales which would result in increased expenditure I do not think the country would be prepared to adopt such a report. A few words more about the Mozambique Convention, especially about the statement in connection with customs payments which natives going back from the Union to Mozambique have to make. I want first of all to refer to the debate which took place in this House about a week ago about the ratification of the convention. On that occasion the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that the Government was in this case laying down a very unsound constitutional policy, and the press outside made a great fuss about the statement. The hon. member for Standerton added that in 1909 the Mozambique convention was submitted to the Transvaal House of Assembly for approval. What are the facts in connection with the matter? The policy of this Government was simply to lay the convention on the Table, and not to submit it for formal ratification by this House. The same thing happened in 1909 and the matter was brought up by the then member for Jeppe who objected to the Mozambique treaty not being submitted for approval. On that occasion he said that the Government ought to submit the treaty for approval and asked whether the Government had the right of entering into the treaty without having it ratified. To that the then colonial secretary, the present member for Standerton replied that the Government had the power of entering into such a treaty, that it was a matter for the Crown, and that the exercise of such duties was a matter for the Government. Only if there was anything in the treaty in conflict with the laws of the land would it be necessary, he said, to come to the Legislative Assembly and ask for ratification. The then colonial secretary further pointed out that the treaty contained nothing which only needed legislation, and that therefore the further ratification thereof by Parliament was not necessary. That is precisely what I said, and what applied to the 1909 convention applies just the same to the new convention. Two matters requiring legislation were submitted by us to Parliament for approval. What becomes now of the argument about the unconstitutional action of the Government when we see what happened in 1909?

Did it come before the House?

It did not come before the House. There was a fairly full debate in connection with this convention because I introduced a Bill in the House to get approval for certain stipulations, but in the case of that convention the colonial secretary of the day said that it was the prerogative of the Government and of the Crown to make conventions, that no legislation was required, and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to get the approval of Parliament, nor was the approval obtained, because it was only laid on the Table. I think the convention was mentioned in the loyal province of Natal as one of the grievous sins of the Government, and Natal even wants to secede on the ground that we are undermining the constitution.

It is the worst blow the Opposition have yet received.

With regard to the question of the payment of customs duties by the natives on their return to Mozambique, provision is made in the old convention for the payment of 7s. 6d. to the Portuguese Government for every native who goes back in consideration of the articles that the natives take back with them, and which are liable to customs duty. It. was added, however, that the Portuguese Government retained the right to inspect the natives’ property, and if it were found that they took over more than a definite quantity the Portuguese Government could claim extra duty. That was the old convention. When the question of negotiating a new convention came up the Portuguese Government asked that the amount of 7s. 6d. should be increased to 15s. for each native. The position I then took up was that I would be prepared—in order to come to an agreement—to increase the amount, but then we should in turn be conceded the exemption of the natives from examination on the border, and that nothing more should be demanded from them. During the existence of the old convention the Portuguese interpreted the old clause in such a way that in the large majority of cases—70 per cent.—they had an examination made, and made the natives pay duty. My department pointed out, and I saw the fairness of it, that nothing would be gained for the local dealers inasmuch as there was an inspection, anyhow, and the natives had to pay. I was, therefore, prepared to pay a larger amount to get out of the inspection. In this case also we had to do with the sensitiveness of our Portuguese neighbours about questions which they thought concerned their sovereignty. Hon. members know that the Portuguese in the matter of recruiting of natives, and in connection with innocent proposals, took up that attitude, and in this case they absolutely refused to enter into any agreement by which they on the return of their own natives had to give up the right of examination on the border. Although, for the sake of a settlement, I was prepared to increase the amount considerably, they were not prepared to surrender the right of examination, and in the circumstances I was not prepared to make any payment, but I left it in their own hands to make the natives pay customs duties according to their laws.

Now they are trying to stop the natives from taking anything out

The hon. member will see that it is impossible for the Union to say what law the Portuguese Government must make for its own subjects. Certain interests on the Rand made representations to me asking if it would not be possible to come to a settlement obviating the natives having to pay at the border, but that an amount should be deducted from their wages. I considered this a fair suggestion, and if we can facilitate commerce between the two countries by arranging something of the sort, then it is in the interests of both. I, therefore, took steps and negotiations are in progress to come to such a compromise. I hope that our Portuguese friends will see that it is not in their, nor our interests to make the position of the natives on the border impossible. The hon. member will not expect me to pay an amount of £40,000 to £50,000 in the interests of the trading community without our giving them the least benefit. That would have been foolish. I think I have now dealt with the chief points in the debate. Quite a number of things have been raised on the cross-benches which they think the Government ought to do before the House votes us the amount asked for, but I think the Minister of Defence has already sufficiently shown how inconsistent my hon. friends were in connection with the demands they are now making. Much has been done during the past five years to improve the position of the people for whom they are now pleading, but I think my hon. friends are unreasonable in making such demands before the House votes the money asked for. I am certain that on this occasion they will not get the support they expect.

I want to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs what is the position in regard to the wireless contract? Before I left office, I was engaged in arbitration proceedings with the Wireless Company of South Africa. There had been some misapprehension as to what was meant by the terminal rates for telegrams, and as a result of that, the wireless company was, according to the law I advisers, paying between £25,000 and £30,000 1 a year less than it ought to the Union Government. I demanded payment of the amount due.

The hon. member may only discuss the matter of appropriation at this stage. He can raise his question at the third reading.

May I ask if any of the £11,000,000 we are now voting is to be expended on the arbitration proceedings which were in being when I left? Are the negotiations going on, is the Minister insisting on a refund, and is he putting into operation the full terminal rates?

Is the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs prepared to recommend to the Treasury that the letter rate of postage to England be reduced to one penny? I should also like to know when we are going to get back to the half-penny postcard rate. The Minister of Finance has a surplus of three millions, I think—

You cannot take it out of the surplus.

The Minister can do anything—he can even make the South African party vote with him.

The hon. member cannot go into that matter now, but I am prepared to allow him to ask a question.

Perhaps the Minister can take the money out of some other fund.

The question of the surplus cannot be discussed now.

Of course it cannot, and I am not discussing it. I am asking the Minister whether he is going to use any of this money to bring about a reduction in the postcard rate. The whole country is asking that question. I must ask somebody the question.

The hon. member could have brought it up at the second reading stage, or he may do so on the third reading.

Do you rule me out of order? If so, I will ask for the Speaker’s ruling.

The hon. member is out of order. 1’he hon. member cannot discuss policy now.

I would like to know what your ruling is, because it is a matter of the privileges of members. Am I out of order in asking the Minister whether any of this money is being spent on the postal department?

The hon. member may ask a question.

That is what I am doing. I am asking the Minister whether he is going to give us the penny postage to England out of this money, and the halfpenny postcard postage.

The hon. member cannot go into that now. I will tell the hon. member what the practice is. On the question as to whether a general discussion can take place on a part appropriation Bill, I think that the view that members are entitled to vent grievances before a part appropriation Bill is passed is correct, and full opportunity for that purpose is given on the second and third readings of such a Bill. In committee, however, the ordinary view of relevancy applies and hon. members must confine themselves to the contents of the Bill. Questions of policy should not be discussed, otherwise all the ground capable of being covered on the second and third reading debates could be gone over in committee and that is not contemplated by the rules of the House.

I quite agree with that, but I am not discussing policy, and I am not discussing grievances. Here we have £11,000,000 to be spent by this country and I want to ask the Minister before this is passed whether he will do certain things. Otherwise I will have to move for a reduction.

I will satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friend. This vote on account is for existing services on the estimates, and for continuing loan services. I do not think the hon. member expects me now to say what could possibly be done with regard to requests of the nature he has mentioned. That will have to stand over until proposals are brought forward, and will have to have legislative authority in due course. The new Parliament will have to deal with that, and I do not think I am called upon at this stage to reply to that question.

In reply to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) it is quite true one of the legacies he left me was an arbitration case between the Wireless Telegraph Company and this Government, and that matter was placed in the hands of the law department to deal with. Just recently after the Government attorney had come down here and gone into the matter and cross-examined his witnesses, he gave his opinion to me in writing that we had not a leg to stand on in the case and obviously I could go no further with that matter.

I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on a certain point. Is it not the position that on the part appropriation Bill we are really discussing in detail part of what appears in the general estimates, and, therefore, we should be entitled to ask any question or discuss in detail expenditure proportionate to what appears in the estimates? It seems to me a rather important matter.

I do not think it is necessary to repeat what I have already said. Questions of policy may be discussed at the second and third reading stages.

I am not suggesting we should discuss policy in any way. We have a detailed statement in the estimates, and this part appropriation is a portion of the whole amount set on in the estimates, and I therefore want to know if we cannot discuss the details as set out in the estimates.

No, the hon. member is not permitted to do that on a “part appropriation Bill.” The discussion on the details of the appropriation took place in Committee of Supply last session.

I must draw attention to the extraordinary reply given by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The whole of the matter was carefully gone into by the law adviser, and he came to the considered opinion, and we had counsel’s advice—Mr. Pirow, K.C., gave his opinion—and it was all in favour of the Government. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that merely after a little further cross-examination the matter is dropped. We ought to know what witnesses were called, and have the opinion of the law advisers laid on the Table. The opinion was so explicit and so strongly expressed that the Government was losing what it was legally entitled to, roughly £30,000 a year, that the arbitration proceedings went on and the Government arbitrator was appointed. I think, if I had not left, the whole business would have been settled, and the State would have had £30,000 in its pocket, which it was quite entitled to. Is it a change of policy? It cannot be a change of fact. Is it a deliberate surrender on the part of the present Minister of £30,000 of public money per annum?

I would like to ask the Minister of Defence a question. Oh. I see, the Minister is not here.

You know he is having a deputation.

I am not one of his followers. I know nothing about it. Well, I beg to move—

I do it because Ministers are not in their places when hon. members want to ask questions.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—16.

Alln, J.

Barlow. A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, O. W.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Madeley, W. B.

Miller, A. M.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Tellers: Leslie Blackwell; G. A. Hay.

Noes—53.

Alexander, M.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliets, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Naude, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Post, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stale, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: D. Hugo; B. J. Pienaar.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I would like to ask what is the position of the Governor-General, and the continuance of his position.

The hon. member cannot raise that question. It has nothing to do with the clause.

It is on the Estimates.

The Estimates were agreed to last session. The hon. member may object to the amount now to be voted but I cannot allow any discussion on the position of the Governor-General.

I am asking only for information.

The hon. member may avail himself of the opportunity to discuss the matter at the third reading stage.

Out of the sum of fourteen millions that he is asking us to vote, is the Minister going to apply anything towards a bounty to exporters of meat from this country?

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I thought I indicated very clearly when I moved the second reading and again to-night, in reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), that it is only for the existing services on the main Estimates and as there is no provision on the main Estimates for the payment of a bounty none of this money is intended for that purpose.

I was going to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Industries, but I do not see him in his place; perhaps the Prime Minister can answer; it is a very important question. I would like to know, with regard to this money which is to be provided, is it really on the votes which would come before us, when we would have an opportunity of asking any questions; therefore I submit we are entitled to ask for information we would have got on these votes. What is being expended out of this amount in regard to the diamond cutting industry? We understand an agreement was entered into which has already resulted in very great difficulty. When I was on the other side of the water I was told that in Amsterdam there was a great difficulty about this contract being carried out successfully, and that was because the Government is not carrying out the regulations of the trade unions of diamond cutters in reference to apprenticeships. I think the Minister of Labour might know something about this. It was said in London and Amsterdam that he had stated he wished to transfer the whole diamond cutting industry from Amsterdam to this country.

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member; he cannot discuss that matter.

I am not dealing with policy. The concessionaires are under an agreement with Government under certain circumstances to be paid £15,000 which will have to be put up before the next assemblage of Parliament. I want to put the question to the Minister of Labour whether these concessionaires are drawing this £15,000.

I have already indicated to the hon. member that he cannot discuss that question. If he continues, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

I have no wish to get into conflict with the Chair, but surely when the Government asks for money, as they do now, I am entitled to ask what is going to be paid to the diamond cutters under contract. If you rule me out of order, what becomes of the privileges of members? Estimates have been given to us, and as long as I am seeking information which would have been procurable on the Estimates in committee I take it I am in order.

I have already pointed out to the committee that the Estimates upon which this Bill is based were agreed to last session. They cannot be discussed now.

I am not doing so. I merely want the Minister to understand what the question really is.

The hon. member must resume his seat.

May I ask a question in regard to the salaries of senators? Does the amount cover a normal period in regard to salaries, or is it the intention of the Government to dissolve the Senate? If that is the intention, then for a certain period their salaries will not be carried upon this vote. I think the country will like to know what the position is, and perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what is his intention in regard to the Senate at the next general election.

I want to ask the Minister of the Interior whether, in connection with public health, it is intended to make some provision to supply hospitals with radium, or whether it is the intention of the Government to allow a matter of such importance to be dependent upon charity.

Order, order. That is quite irrelevant to the clause.

May I know whether we had better not go home? Surely we are entitled to some information on these matters, or is the idea of going into committee simply a matter of closing down? Are we not entitled to ask for some information as to how this money is to be applied? I would like a ruling on that.

The hon. member is going into a question of policy.

I am asking a simple question as to whether some of this money is to provide hospitals with radium, or if this important requirement is to he left to charity?

The hon. member will see what is provided in the first part of the Bill, so what is the good of asking these questions. The Bill definitely says that no expenditure shall be incurred unless expenditure of the same nature has occurred in the previous year.

May I put the position. We do not know every detail of expenditure unon hospitals. How am I to know that the Minister has not followed the stingy policy of the past, and is not making provision for a matter of such importance?

I think the hon. member is merely obstructing.

On a point of order, is it right for an hon. member to accuse another hon. member of obstruction?

The hon. Minister did not accuse anyone of deliberate obstruction.

On a point of order, the privileges of hon. members are very much concerned here. The Minister said the hon. member on my right was obstructing. I ask to have a ruling on that point.

The Minister is not out of order in stating that the hon. member is obstructing.

The hon. member should know that on two occasions an hon. member asked me this question, and that I gave a reply to him. He must know that no such provision exists, and that it is a matter of policy, because he asks whether it is a matter of policy.

I should like to ask the Minister of the Interior for a reply to this question—whether they are going to spend the same amount of money on plague this year as they did last year?

No reply.

On a point of order, I am asking a very polite question.

That is not a point of order.

It is a matter of courtesy.

I should like a reply to my question. I asked what was the position in regard to the salaries of senators? I think this is a matter the country would like a little information about; the Senate would also like to know something about it.

If Ministers are not going to answer our questions then I move—

I cannot accept that motion under section 36.

I move—

in order to call attention to the fact that Ministers refuse to answer legitimate questions by members of Parliament, thereby refusing us the control of expenditure we, as representatives of the people have a right to exercise.

I am not rising to continue this sort of thing, but I want to make an appeal to the Treasury benches. After all, there is not very much to be gained by a determined silence on the part of Ministers. Ministers should remember that there is no other opportunity of seeking information which hon. members are desirous of getting. A little courtesy would make for better feeling in the House generally.

I proceed to put the amendment—

We have not moved this in any spirit of hostility to the Government.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member does not represent the Free State. In the Free State there is pneumonic plague, and in my constituency 14 people have died from pneumonic plague. I want the public to know from the Minister of Public Health whether he will answer questions with regard to plague put to him by Free State members. The Minister can adopt his sphinx like attitude, but he is not going to get his Bill through that way. I appeal to the hon. the Minister as one who used to lead a party of two. Now he does not lead a party at all. What did he do when there was a refusal to answer a question put by him? He used to say “no, we are not going any further! We must have this information.” The country wants this information. The Free State wants this information. I ask the Minister again whether he is spending more money this year on plague in the Free State than he did last year, and whether he has a report from his field officers in the Free State, and whether plague is spreading. Has the Minister got plague? Mr. Chairman, do you think you can make the Minister speak? Do you think anybody can make him speak? What is the matter with the Minister? The Minister is as good a poker player—

The hon. member cannot go on repeating himself.

I won’t repeat it. Here is a most serious position in the Free State, and the Minister of Public Health will not give us an answer as to what he will do in regard to the plague in the Free State. Is it because I voted against the Government this afternoon? If so, what a Government!

I respectfully submit that this vote that we are asked to pass is really a vote on account of the Estimates, and in the ordinary course we should have been able to ask any question on the Estimates. I am raising the question as a matter of privilege. We are entitled to ask for the information that we would have asked for when estimates are before us. Otherwise any Government could take an amount on appropriation and defy Parliament and give no information whatever. Ministers remain absolutely silent. Surely they are not also becoming the dumb degenerates of a once great party with which we were all associated. Surely they can give the information we are asking for. I want information from the Minister of Mines and Industries with regard to mines. I am sorry the Minister is not here, because he is the man who has the information, I find diamond digging expenditure is set down; at £31,163. That £31,000 covers the whole of the year, but here is an appropriation Bill which allows for a third of that amount, and surely as that appropriation Bill—

The hon. member cannot discuss the Estimates now.

Do you rule that I cannot raise the question and ask that question on a vote which would have been before us on the estimates? I am not allowed to discuss these estimates, and I am not allowed to refer to an item in the estimates. Where are we getting to? I ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to sit quiet and see members of this House have no privileges left whatever, to see them ruled out of order, when asking a question on expenditure. I cannot understand why he too remains a dumb degenerate.

The hon. member is not allowed to use such an expression. I ask him to withdraw it.

What is the word I am expected to withdraw?

The hon. member used the expression “a dumb degenerate.”

I withdraw the word “degenerate” but not the word “dumb.” I was only using the word in a political sense.

The hon. member must withdraw it and apologize.

Yes I withdraw it and apologize. I used the word in a political, but in no other sense. In the absence of the Minister of Mines and Industries I respectfully ask the Government what they propose to do in regard to the Namaqualand diggers—whether they propose to go on paying them insufficiently and continue to produce what has proved such an unfortunate thing—the temptation to handle diamonds.

The hon. member cannot go into that question now. It is a question of policy.

The expenditure we are being asked to make is a portion of what will be paid out in the next four months. I would like to know whether of this amount a proportion will still be paid to these Namaqualand diggers. What opportunity shall we have of obtaining the information these diggers have asked us to get? I ask Ministers present whether they are going to pursue any particular action in regard to this expenditure, and if they are going to take part of this money for that particular purpose, and what proportion are they going to pay out to these men from time to time. I put the question most respectfully.

It seems to me we on these benches have dropped into a very pretty family quarrel, and we may be called in as witnesses in a divorce action when the elections come on. I hope the Minister is not going to penalize us, because he has fallen out with his friends. I am sorry the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not here, because I promised to bring up the subject of the unestablished postmasters.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

The Chairman does not even know what I am going to say, and yet he rules me out of order. Does the Minister intend to take steps to better the position of the unestablished postmaster?

That is a question of policy which may be discussed on the third reading of the Bill.

Very bad policy, so far as these men are concerned.

Am I to understand Ministers are not going to give replies, because there are several questions I should like to ask. It is no use asking questions if Ministers are not going to reply. I would like to ask questions of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Lands, also the Minister of Defence. Where is he? I want to ask the Minister of Defence a question with regard to recruits—it is not a question of policy—whether he is spending the same amount of money on recruiting this year as last year. The Minister is not here. What am I to do?

Sit down.

I won’t sit down. There are no Ministers in the House. Can the Minister of Labour tell me? I do not like to disturb the Prime Minister. He has a lot of trouble at present. Can the Minister of Agriculture help us?

I move—

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—50.

Alexander, M.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux. J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Hugo, D.

Noes—16.

Allen, J.

Barlow. A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Madeley, W. B.

Nieuwenhuize J.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Tellers: Hay, G. A.; Marwick, J. S.

May I ask the Minister when this second Appropriation Act is coming into force, and can he give us any idea of the date. It is intended that there should be another session of this Parliament this year? If so, what is the date? I should like to get some information about the whole position, but I am prohibited from doing so by the Rules of the House.

The hon. member has put this question three times already.

I do not know whether we are dealing with an Appropriation Bill or a deaf and dumb Ministers’ Bill. I move—

as a protest against the way in which Ministers are brow-beating members and treating them with contempt. I am surprised that the Minister of Defence who used to be such a great fighter for constitutional practice, has swallowed this with his principles. Surely this House is entitled to protest against such Mussolini-like methods being adopted by Ministers.

I think it would be in keeping with the dignity of this House that we should report progress, and that the country should know that those who were sent here to get information are unable to obtain it, and that we have a Government who simply sit and say, “We are not going to answer any questions,” and describe our action as obstruction. There are privileges to which we are entitled, but which are being over-ridden in the most arbitrary way by Ministers who in previous times fought for what we are fighting for now. Is it fair to treat Parliament in this way, and to ignore those who have the right to be heard as the representatives of important constituencies. We should report progress, and Ministers might come back to-morrow and say in all fairnes to us, “Whatever questions you wish legitimately to put to get information, you can have it in the same way as if the Estimates were here.” For a Minister to say, “We are not going to put the Estimates before you; we have put them on the Table, and we will force the Part Appropriation Bill through by a majority.” To use the gag upon those who put these questions on behalf of their constituents is not the way to deal with the matter. If we report progress and Ministers think over the responsibility they owe to the country, and their claim to represent all sections of the community, they may come to-morrow to answer us. To-night they are deliberately denying the community the opportunity of knowing what they purpose doing. It is important before a general election that Ministers should answer legitimate questions because we shall be asked on the platforms what is being done. Unless Ministers reply to us we shall have to say “we have now a government so imperious, so autocratic, so despotic that they imagine they are there for ever, and need not give the public any information.” They remain dumb, and we, representing the people as we do, and not misrepresenting them like some of those who come into this Parliament, that we are entitled to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again. We are supporting the rights of the people. We have not raised any racial questions, or anything indeed to which exception could be taken. We have merely put questions we were sent here to raise.

I do not quite understand what we are discussing. Do I understand that you have accepted a motion to report progress? Well, I want to discuss that. Not many years ago when the Prime Minister was a private member of Parliament, kicked out of his party, he found himself where we are to-day—in the wilderness. There was no milk and no honey, but lots of locusts. I am appealing to the Prime Minister, because the same thing has happened to us which happened to him.

Order. I must interrupt business now. I shall now have to report progress and ask leave to sit again. Under Standing Order No. 26 (1). The motion by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will, therefore, lapse.