I intend in the main to confine my remarks to the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, but I think it is right that I should briefly controvert some of the many statements made by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Munnik). I have the honour of being a vice president of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, and I hope in the years to come that body will do me the honour of electing me its president. I am also largely interested in the diamond trade, both as producer and merchant, and in spite of these terrible attributes I am not ashamed to address this honourable House. My presence here shows that I put country before business, and that I have only one desire, and that is to be able to render useful service to South Africa. With regard to diamonds the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) and the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Munnik), have told us exactly how this business should be run. It appears to me that the best bowlers are always outside the field. They don’t play, they don’t intend to play, they don’t risk their money. It is rather curious that the self-same people who now grow indignant at the very idea of a diamond producer being also a diamond merchant, actually want to force the producer to become diamond cutter also. I can imagine the outcry: Not alone do they produce diamonds; they deal in rough diamonds and even in polished diamonds too. This is not the moment to go into the details of the diamond trade, but is it not natural that a diamond merchant is more likely to invest his savings in a diamond mine than for instance a farmer would be? So that the fact that diamond merchants are also interested in diamond producing companies is not such an anomaly after all. The hon. member says that we should go a step further than we are doing, and in addition to producing and selling the article we should go a step further and finish it I suppose he will be next asking us to open shops and retail our diamonds. Now as to the statements of the hon. member for Vrededorp. He stated that the gold producers, the so-called slaves, were economic slaves and pessimists.

I did not say that.

He will see in Hansard that he did. He has made, so many statements that he does not know what he has said. He told us that people who put their money in gold mines were pessimists. Now that is the last thing a man should be who puts his money in gold mines. Clearly a man who invests his money in mining must be an optimist. Who but an optimist would find money to sink shafts 4,000 or 5,000 feet down to a reef which may or may not prove payable? The gold production of the Witwatersrand is one thousand millions according to the hon. member; actually he is £200,000,000 wrong, and the diamond production is £700,000,000, so that in that respect the hon. member is £500,000,000 wrong. The hon. member has also told us that the Government should on no account give out mining leases oh the terms on which it has done. Well, I do not think the Government could do so again, for it could not do so on such favourable terms. It was while the Rt. Hon. Mr. Malan was Minister of Mines and Industries, ably assisted by Sir Robert Kotze as Government Mining Engineer that terms were secured for •opening up Government leases on such favourable terms which will never be secured again. And then the hon. member for Vrededorp asks what have we got for all this extraction of wealth and he answers: just holes in the ground. In reality, in consequence of mining development we have harbours, railways and industries; as a matter of fact, the whole of our economic development is due to the opening up of the mines. The hon. member for Vrededorp has made some references to Mr. Solly Joel. He says the Chamber of Mines are the puppets of Mr. Solly Joel. Now I must say in all fairness to Mr. Joel that he resides in England and has at no time interfered with the deliberations or business of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines. The hon. member made further disparaging remarks about Mr. Joel. We are all in the habit of attacking our successful men in this House, and then we are surprised that they feel uncomfortable in South Africa and live in England. The hon. member also described the Chamber of Mines as ogres and then went on to say that they should have their wings clipped. The latter remark suggests that they are angels. Well, we are neither ogres nor angels, but just ordinary business men who object to being made pawns either inside this House or outside of it. The hon. member also said that the gold taxation was originally 5 per cent. of the gold produced which was increased to 10 per cent., but this is not correct, and if he consulted an hon. member sitting on the front Opposition benches who has had a long experience of South Africa, he would easily have found out that the 5 per cent. was on profits, and was subsequently changed to a 10 per cent. profit and dividends tax. But if the hon. member does not take the trouble to verify his facts it is not surprising that the conclusion he arrived at was also wrong. I am only a new member of Parliament but a very old member of the South African party and I am very pleased that the Estimates of the late Government have proved acceptable to the new Minister of Finance, because by accepting them he has really borne testimony to the fact that we on this side of the House have seen the country through the post-war depression. I venture to express the opinion, new to Parliament though I am, that the thanks of the country are due to the late Minister of Finance, the Right Hon. Mr. Burton, who had the pluck to grasp the nettle of unpopularity in order to re-establish sound public finance. In due course, I am sure, this House, and later on the country, will admit that he was one of our great Ministers of Finance. He has been accused in many quarters of assuming a manner that is a little ferocious, but M. Thiers, one of the greatest Ministers of Finance that the old world has produced, laid down that some ferocity was essential in a good Minister of Finance and I only hope that the present Minister of Finance will show some of that ferocity when the various spending departments come along and want to induce him to find money on his Estimates. The only real tangible accusation which has been levelled against Mr. Burton is that he took money from Loan Account and applied it to Revenue purposes. The prevailing idea, an erroneous one, is that he borrowed money to square expenditure. As a matter of fact all that he did was to divert some of the money which accrued from Mining Leases from Loan Account to Revenue; in other words partially suspended the Sinking Fund. But I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Finance was right in criticising this action because he has introduced a so-called improvement in another direction which does not mark him down as a financial purist. He is allowing the Provincial Councils to square their Budgets by heavy over drafts. That is a solution totally inadequate to the occasion for it is perfectly certain that he will have to pay in the long run. Mr. Speaker, I may know very little about public finance, but I do know that it is bad finance to guarantee an overdraft for impecunious relatives. In the end you invariably have to give them the money. And I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Councils cannot impose sufficient taxation during the next year to wipe out this overdraft and square expenditure with revenue, so that the Minister of Finance can make up his mind that he will have to make provision in Loan Account next year to wipe out this overdraft. In commercial life this particular method of finance is sometimes indulged in in order to present a good balance sheet at the end of the year. It is known as “window dressing.” But I am quite sure that it is not sound public finance. Passing on to the Currency question as outlined by the hon. Minister I would like to say that I subscribe to every word he said on that question and I think the Government’s policy is admirably stated by him. In outlining the policy of the Government regarding the currency question and the restoration of the gold standard, a question which he admitted affected the gold-mining industry more directly than any other industry in the Union, the Minister of Finance said: We are satisfied that the restoration of the gold standard, not only in this country but in the world at large, is essential to our well-being as a gold-producing country, and that of the gold industry of South Africa, but we recognise the difficulties firstly of bringing about readjustment to a substantially lower level of prices and secondly of the Union acting independently of the United Kingdim, in view of the intimate commercial and financial relations between the two countries.” And later on in the course of his speech the Minister said: “What developments may take place in England in the near future it is, of course, impossible to forecast, but while a few months ago an early return to the gold standard there seemed almost impossible, it now seems possible within the next year. If this should be brought about Union currency would automatically return to gold parity in company with, if not in advance of sterling, without independent action on our part. I want honourable members to bear in mind that we are watching the position in the United Kingdom, and there is this possibility that we may be obliged to take independent action to protect our own interests.” I would like to suggest to the Minister that he take full advantage of this policy and that when he issues his next Loan he will make the capital repayable in gold. There can he no possible risk in this if the Government really intend following the policy as outlined by the Minister. It would be a huge attraction to the investing public if the Loan were repayable in gold, not alone contributing to the success of the Loan, but the Minister will probably be able to raise money more cheaply than the Local Loan now issued. It would be an actual demonstration that we are serious in our intention to return to the gold standard at a very early date and an actual demonstration of this kind may even prevent labour troubles by making disputes between employers and employees as regards wages more easy of settlement. May I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the currency problem should be remembered and provided for in any lengthy contract which any Minister may enter into. If, for instance, the proper price for any commodity or service is 20s. in our present currency it clearly should be a smaller sum as expressed in gold. I would like to congratulate the Minister upon his Budget speech as he has done more to restore confidence in this country by making no radical changes than he perhaps now realises. On the other hand the hon. member for Troyeville rendered a great disservice by his uncalled-for attack upon capital just at the moment when the Minister had announced that he must raise money in South Africa in the first instance and subsequently in England.

I did not attack capital, but the capitalists.

That is the same thing. His references to a State Bank are also ill-judged, apart from the fact that whether a State Bank is advisable or not he could certainly not have been correct in advising inflation just at the moment when the Minister had announced his definite intention of returning to the gold standard. The kind of State Bank the hon. member for Troyeville has in mind is certainly not advisable, because his State Bank has to make advances without security and without any interest; it has to print paper money and generally indulge in inflation. I do not for one moment believe he is really serious, but am convinced that his speech was really a compromise between the Conservative sentiments of the National Party and the Communistic sentiments cherished by the member for Troyeville. Anyhow, his policy is diametrically opposed to the policy which the Government has laid down as the policy of the country. We hear a great deal about establishing industries and that unemployment is to be solved by fostering industries. I quite agree with this, though from the tenour of the various speeches of members it appears that some of them have forgotten that the mining and farming industries are really the most important industries in the country. They supply the market and are the consumers for all the other industries either established or to be established, and only when these two industries are prosperous can other industries be prosperous. I would like to see still closer cooperation between the mining and farming industries than exists at the present moment. I know that this is the policy of the controllers of the gold mining industry, and is one which they have already illustrated in the case of mealies which are largely bought from the cooperative farming societies. It may even be possible to further extend this co-operation. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture may think it wise to arrange a meeting under his presidency between leading farmers and the chief people interested in mining, to ascertain in how far this co-operation could be extended to mutual advantage. One of the companies in which I am largely interested has supported industries for many years, not always or very rarely with good results from our point of view. My experience of many industries is this: that many of them started in the boom times during and after the war got into difficulties in the great depression which followed, and the only solution that seemed to present itself was higher and higher protective tariffs. The real difficulty which the industries have had to face is that we have not within our boundaries a sufficiently large consuming public. We do not realise sufficiently that the whole world is one commercial community, and that trade is not coterminous with the boundaries of the State. If we are to establish industries successfully, we must learn to look upon the whole Africa and even some oversea countries as a field for the sale of our manufactures, and it should be our aim to establish the friendliest relations with all of our neighbours so that they will welcome our agents. We have a trade commissioner in Rotterdam to develop our trade with the Continent, and we should have agents in every State in Africa so as to familiarise ourselves with their products and their requirements. It is not enough to have Trade Commissioners because one man canot possibly know all trades; we should encourage individual trades to send out special representatives from time to time to enquire into the special needs of that trade and the Government should contribute to their expenses. Now the Minister has announced his intention of appointing a Commission to advise the Government as to the currency question. In this respect in my opinion we should also assist neighbouring States to solve their acute currency problems and the Commission which he is about to appoint may be able to advise him on this point also; it may be possible to arrange a currency convention with the neighbouring States and thus by widening our consuming public we should do a great deal to assist trade and industry perhaps more than by any of the protective measures which to-day operate. In passing I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Weenen. He suggested that the mines are not sympathetic to industries and particularly complained that we are not assisting the rubber industry at Howick in Natal. I would like to mention for the information of the House and especially the hon. member for Weenen that the total value of the rubber business as far as the Mines are concerned has decreased owing to the big improvement in quality of the imported article. The Mines have done all they could and will do, all they can in the future to help genuine industries in South Africa. As an example I might quote the wire rope industry which without protection is now supplying 60 per cent. of the total requirements of the Mines. All candles are manufactured and supplied locally, the Union Steel Corporation and the Witwatersrand Co-operative Society supply shoes and dies to their fullest extent for milling operations, and the Dun swart Company has been encouraged to supply bar iron. All these industries have received our assistance, and the very company I spoke of a little time ago has recently assisted the Harrismith Woollen Factory to keep going. This is an industry in the Free State in which something like 7,000 farmers are interested, and the company was in such low water that it was faced with liquidation, and it is due to the assistance given by Johannesburg that sufficient working capital has now been supplied, which we hope will establish a flourishing industry in the Free State. But whilst the mines are sympathetic to the establishment of industries, and will purchase locally if the quality is satisfactory, and even pay somewhat more than the imported price, yet the mining industry must be run on business lines. We cannot buy inferior articles simply because they are manufactured in South Africa. We cannot, like the Minister of Railways, say it does not matter if it costs £19,000 more, because, after all, the directors are the custodians of other people’s money. Now the Minister of Labour has outlined a policy which, if I understood him correctly, means that he and the Government are satisfied that native labour can be replaced by European labour, and that it can be done on an economic basis, and that the solution of the unemployment problem or the poor white problem is to be found in that direction. But should he not also have explained that this must of necessity lead to lower European wages all round, and to a lower standard of living? As a matter of fact the development that has taken place in this country whether it be in mining, in farming or in industries, has been made possible by the existence of the cheap labour. Something like 7,000 factories have been established in South Africa, producing manufactured goods to the value of £80,000,000 annually. These factories are working on the basis of about 60,000 Europeans and 110,000 non-Europeans. In the agricultural industry 464,000 non-Europeans are employed, and this labour force has made it possible to employ 168,000 Europeans. Now I submit that the employment of these Europeans at high wages would never have been possible if it had not been that the cheap labour was available. The same argument applies to the mining industry. If the hon. Minister besides giving a homily to employers had also mentioned on Tuesday that he believes that efficiency is essential for all enterprises, whether they are railways, farms, factories or mines, that managerial authority must be maintained, that he will see that the machinery as laid down in the Conciliation Bill will be carried out and that no lightning strikes will be countenanced by him, then I believe we shall see real progress in the near future and unemployment will solve itself. In conclusion, I am convinced that the country cannot afford to go on spending as we are doing now. It is only by public and private economy and by the remission of taxation that new prosperity will come to this country and that the unemployment problem will be solved.

I have not risen to reply to the mining questions mentioned by the previous speaker, but I would like to say that it takes a great deal more of courage for a man to go down a mine than it does for a man to sit in comfort on the surface and invest his money in mining enterprises. It is my purpose to deliver a message from Natal to eight of the ten members of the new Ministry, and I am pleased to see that at least five of them are in their places to hear it. Perhaps one of the outstanding features of this year’s Budget debate has been the number of young Dutch-speaking members who have elected to make their contributions in fluent English, especially when we were warned to expect something different. We were told in Natal that if the Nationalists came into power we should hear nothing but Dutch. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Railways say that he had no intention to press for the use of the Dutch language in those parts of South Africa where that language is least used. I was, therefore, surprised to learn that a questionnaire has been circulated throughout the service in Natal. This questionnaire reads: “Can you speak Dutch? Can you read Dutch? Can you write Dutch? How long have you been in the country?” it will be interesting to learn the reason for sending this questionnaire to the people of Natal of all people? Does the late Minister of Railways know anything about it? (Mr. Jagger shook his head). In order to view the changed conditions at short range, I am glad to have weathered the recent political storm. I have seen in my dreams the S.A.P. sitting on the opposition benches and the Nationalists on the Government benches, and it is pleasant to know that there are occasions “where dreams come true.” We have got rid of the party whose policy was “might is right,” and the people are no longer to be ruled by violence. But I would like to see the members of the late Government take the verdict of the people in a little more sportsmanlike manner. An endeavour has been made to make political capital out of the release of a man who, shall I put it, misbehaved himself in the rebellion of 1914, I refuse to believe that the attitude of the hon. members for East London (Brig.-Gen. Byron and the Rev. Mr. Rider) and their words regarding the release of Gen. Manie Maritz are really genuine. A largely-signed requisition was the other day presented to the Mayor of Dundee asking him to call a meeting to protest against the untimely release of Gen. Maritz. The night the meeting was to be held, however, only the Mayor and one citizen turned up. In common with other members I too am delighted that the Government intend to tackle seriously the problem of unemployment, and so far as I am concerned I welcome the intention to replace natives with white men. Whether hon. members like it or not, I say frankly I would rather see a native looking for a job than a man of my own colour. I would rather have the natives obliged to go back to their proper sphere on the land and leave the work in the towns to the white men. But I hope the Government will not only replace the natives by white men, I trust they will also replace the Indians by white men. At the present time there are over 2,000 Indians employed on the railways in Natal, many of them at wages which a white man would be glad to earn. I do not advocate that men of the white race should be reduced to the level of Indians in the matter of pay, but I would rather see white men doing that work and getting those wages than walking about the streets looking for a job. There are over 1,000 Indians employed by the Durban Corporation. When considering the problem of unemployment, I hope the Cabinet will give the Asiatic encroachment in Natal their very serious consideration. In a recent report it was stated that most of the unemployment in Natal has been caused by inroads made in all trades and occupations by Indians. This matter has now come to be a question of race preservation so far as the Europeans in Natal are concerned.

Quite right.

I hope the Government will not be influenced in any way by the member, for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) when he says that a large number of men are going about hoping they will not find employment. I do not believe him. I have never found such men. Recently a man came to me and said he could not get work. I do not like to suggest relief work to anybody, but I ultimately asked him: “Are you willing to go on the relief works?,” Then I got the biggest surprise I have ever had in my life. I found this man could not be taken on as they had a waiting list of some 60 men who were trying to get on to the relief works. Fancy a waiting list to get on to the relief works! I want members of the new Ministry to come and get into personal contact with the people of Natal. I would like to see the Minister who was to be Minister of Defence come along and let the people of Natal see what a good-looking fellow he is, and I would also like the Minister of the Interior to come into the interior. The S.A.P. politicians and press in Natal have so misrepresented the Nationalists that many of the people in Natal have the impression that the average member of the National party has horns growing out of his head and a tail growing somewhere else. It is impossible for any Government to legislate properly for the people unless they know the needs and understand the aspirations of the people they have to legislate for. There is not one member sitting on the Government side of the House representing a constituency in Natal; you, Mr. Speaker, being the only Nationalist member having that honour. The ex-Prime Minister is not in his place, but I would like to say this: he came along to Durban, where they refused to hear him; he also came to Maritzburg, where he confined a speech of an hour and twenty minutes’ duration to doing nothing but abusing and misrepresenting the present hon. Prime Minister. For this and other reasons I want Ministers and members of the National party to come and get into close, personal touch with the people of Natal. This is what the late Prime Minister told the people at Maritzburg. In reply to an interjection, he said: “I tell you what will happen. You will vote against me now in order to put Gen. Hertzog into power, and it will not be many years before you come to me on your bended knees…”

Hear, hear.

“… and ask me to help you.” Mind you, a man telling the British people of Natal that they would have to come on their bended knees to one Dutchman to save them from another Dutchman. Well, we want to have done with all this Dutchman and Englishman business. We want one South African people. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Dr. Steyn) say the other day that the Nationalist party was going to stick to the spirit and the letter of the agreement of the Pact and that no Nationalist either by voice or vote was to interfere in any way with the constitutional arrangement between South Africa and the British Crown. I believe that promise to be true and will be kept. I hope it will be the endeavour of the new Government to bring about such a state of affairs in this country as will ensure to the humblest among us a place in the glorious rays of South Africa’s sun.

Several members of the Opposition have criticized the Budgets, but I would like to congratulate the Ministers. Criticism is good, but it should be reasonable, sound and constructive. Some members of the Opposition offered reasonable criticism, but most of it was of a different type. That was the case with the hon. member for Port Elizábeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). He went so far as to question the mentality of the Prime Minister in connection with the cotton fields in Zululand. That was most unfair, especially in view of the fact that the Government is trying to place the poor people on the land in Zululand. The Minister of Lands did not act inadvisedly in this matter but consulted his colleagues in the Cabinet and also other members of Parliament. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) accused the Prime Minister of giving the land in Zululand to people without brains and capital. That is a sneer at our rural population. The people may not have capital, but I am sure they have quite as good brains as the hon. member. The Government intends to place these cotton plantations under strict supervision, as experience has shown that this is necessary. I deprecate the destructive criticism that has been levelled at this Government. The people of South Africa placed this Government at the head of affairs in order to try to improve things. During the last 14 years things have gone from bad to worse, and the people felt that a change was needed. They had found out that the bogeys of the S.A.P. are quite harmless. They had especially discovered that the secession bogey was a mere election cry; consequently the Nationalists were returned to power. More sympathy and encouragement for agriculture and industries are needed from the Government. In this respect the previous Government had failed—hence the change. The new Government has shown that it has sympathy with the people in the country. The railway rates ought to be reduced for they are too high, especially for agricultural products. The prices on the markets are very low and the farmers cannot afford to pay high freights. The farmers are being driven from their own markets by oversea competition, and the Government ought to take steps to remedy this as soon as possible. It, is also desirable that the land banks should have more funds. The lands of many farmers are highly taxed, so that they have to pay huge sums of interest. They would like to have assistance from the Land Bank in order to pay off their bonds, and to get other bonds at a lower interest. The Land Settlement Act ought to be amended immediately, and I am glad the Minister of Lands is already giving his attention to the matter. I would like to ask the Minister to amend it in such a way that if a farmer possesses one-tenth of the purchase price of the farm the State should advance him the rest of the money, even if the term of repayment is reduced from 20 to 10 years. The poor white problem is a big question, and I welcome the assurance of the Minister that he is doing his utmost to deal with it. Everything possible should be done to develop the resources of this country. In Heidelberg there are miles of gold reefs which await development. Some of those have a greater yield than the Rand mines, as they yield from 3 to 5 ozs. per ton. By the cablegram which he sent to London the previous Minister of Mines prevented a million pounds being invested in those goldfields.

I deny that.

These are facts, and I can prove them. It seems as if there is something behind that cable. A certain Lyon, who seems to be closely connected with the Chamber of Mines, stated in an article in the “London Magazine” that the Chamber was going to keep the gold bearing lands in Heidelberg until the S.A.P. was returned to power again. I hope the new Minister of Mines will have a searching enquiry made concerning this matter. The country wants economy, and I am sure the Government will know where these economies can be effected. The many election agents who are still in the service of the State ought to be dismissed. It seems absurd that officials in Johannesburg, which borders on Heidelberg, should get about three times the amount of local allowance which civil servants in the latter place get. The minister should give his attention to this matter. Many people are hard hit by the estate duty, especially widows and orphans, and the sooner this is done away with the better.

One naturally approaches this Budget with a feeling of some restraint, because one feels that the Government took office practically during the financial year and have virtually dealt with the estimates presented by their predecessors. If we reflect upon the very severe criticism which has been flung upon this side of the House in the past and upon the manifold promises which have been made by the Government party themselves, I think the country did expect some indication of a policy on matters of vital public importance. Instead of that, the country has had to be appeased by a silence broken by a kind of piteous appeal on the part of ministers asking the country not to expect too much from this Government. At the same time the Government declares almost simultaneously that they intend to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors. Before I proceed further I wish to say a few words in defence of the right hon. Mr. Burton, the previous Minister of Finance. During the recent election great blame was cast on the hon. minister, and he was blamed in that he presented this country a bogus Budget. It was said that there was no surplus, and it was further alleged that the revenue returns did not justify the allegations of the ex-hon. minister. The present hon. Minister of Finance, in his first public utterance at one of the many receptions accorded to the new ministers, declared he had failed to find the surplus which was promised by Mr. Burton, yet when he appeared before this House and made his Budget statement, instead of showing a surplus of £200,000, he had to admit that there was a surplus of £225,000. Mr. Burton was accused of concealing from the country that the surplus which he mentioned had accrued from taking into revenue funds money from the Loan Accounts, but if we were to refer to the speech made on April 8th in this House by Mr. Burton, we will find that he fully disclosed to this House and to the country the amount of loan money he had taken into revenue account. Mr. Burton said: “When the Budget was introduced a year ago I estimated that after bringing into revenue £525,000 of loan receipts there would be a deficit of £200,000 which I hope would be met by savings on expenditure. Last month when the additional estimates were placed before the House I found that with the additional heavy expenditure on locusts which had been incurred, it looked as if the saving of £365,000 which we were able to make last year would disappear. I am glad to say that although the returns for March are not yet Complete they are sufficiently advanced to indicate an increase of revenue of £350,000… so we found ourselves in a position of having a surplus of revenue of approximately £100,000, to which we shall have to add any surrenders from expenditure votes, so that the surplus available for the redemption of debt is in the neighbourhood of £200,000.” Here the minister made it perfectly clear that the estimated surplus of £200,000 was only attained after taking into account the loan funds which he had taken into revenue. Then the further charge was made against the ex-hon. minister, Mr. Burton, that he had to bring into account the accumulated deficits. Well, this is a highly technical and constitutional point, but my knowledge of the practice leads me to believe that Mr. Burton was perfectly right in treating the £200,000 as a surplus available for the redemption of debt. I am reliably informed that the Public Debt Commissioners, fortified by the legal advisers of the Government, took the very same view, so that there is no question of the bonafides of the ex-Minister of Finance on this question.

Who questioned his bonafides?

Does the hon. Minister wish to deny that a lack of bona fides of the late Minister of Finance was not imputed? On almost every platform he was assailed and accused of having made a misleading statement. That the hon. Minister of Finance has followed the policy of his predecessor is also proved by this. On one point he mentioned in his Budget statement that he thinks it necessary to make greater provision for the redemption of debt, which is of course a most laudable idea, and the hon. the Minister should be rightly applauded by hon. members from áll sides of this House, but these are points which the Minister studiously took from his predecessor in office, for the latter said on April the 8th: “When we bear in mind all our total debt, of which probably 32 per cent. is unproductive … we do not make sufficient provision for the redemption of the public debt in the sinking fund. I think that the means taken to relieve that situation would be very rightly taken in the interests of the country.” But what the country did expect the hon. Minister to do was to carry out the definite promise that every hon. Minister sitting on these benches and every hon. member opposite made: that the tobacco tax would be repealed. The small primary producer was promised a definite loaf of bread. They got the votes of the primary producer, and what do hon. members opposite give them now? No, they are getting a stone and nothing else.

The stone which you prepared.

A great deal can be said for the principle of an excise on tobacco, and in the original scheme of the late Government roll tobacco was not included, but it was found, and it was represented by tobacco farmers themselves, that the whole industry would be thrown out of gear if roll tobacco were excepted from the excise, and it was due to hon. members sitting on this side of this House that for one whole year the hon. Minister suspended the duty on roll tobacco; and then, instead of imposing it at the rate of 1s. a pound, it was eventually imposed at 3 1/2d. a pound, owing to the influence of hon. members sitting behind the Government. The hon. Minister has now assumed responsibility and has found out that he dare not remit the excise on all classes of tobacco, and finds it extremely difficult even to repeal the excise on roll tobacco which they definitely promised, but the party opposite is gravely compromised on that point, and I can assure them that chickens will come home to roost with a vengeance on this point. The hon. Minister of Mines and Industries went through my constituency and the Strandveld, where roll tobacco farmers reside, and promised that the tax would be repealed; but they were very sceptical about this promise and did not lightly vote for him; they were justified in not trusting him under the circumstances, as now disclosed. A great deal has been said about the South African Party having done nothing for the development of industry. Has the present Government any industrial policy?

Wait and see.

So far it has been nothing but vague statements and platitudes. Is there any definite scheme outlined in the Governor-General’s speech? On the other hand the S.A.P. has laid sound and sure foundations for the development of the industrial life of this country. The S.A.P. took office in 1910, and in its very first year it instituted the Portfolio of Industries. The first years of Union were most difficult years, and a few years after Union the Great War broke out and upset the whole economic fabric. In 1916 the Government appointed the Industries Advisory Board and the Scientific and Technical Committee. In 1919 a technical officer was appointed, and for many years a most valuable “Journal of Industries” was published. In 1921 the Government appointed the Board of Trades and Industries, which, with the co-operation of scientific men, has done a great deal for the development of our industrial life. Then there is the electrification of railways and the consequent enormous development of electrical power which will be available for industrial purposes. Since 1918 the South African Party has passed the following Acts of Parliament dealing with industrial development:—1918: Factory Act and Wages Board Act. 1919:—Diamond Cutting Act, the Juvenile Affairs Committee Act, the Coal Trade Act, the Apprenticeship Act, the Co-operative Societies Act, the Electricity Act, the Iron and Steel Industries Bounty Act, Adulterated Leather Act, the Board of Trade and Industries Act, The Radio Telegraph Station Act, Industrial Conciliation Act, and the Apprenticeship Amendment Act. These are all measures directly connected with the industrial development and welfare of the people engaged in industrial work. What has been the industrial development in this country since 1911? In that year the gross value of goods manufactured in the Union was £17,000,000; in 1921 it was £98,000,000. The number of factories increased from 3,900 in 1915 to 7,000 in 1922, while the number of employees grew from 100,000 in 1916 to 180,000 in 1921. The wages paid to factory employees in 1916 totalled £9,000,000; in 1921 the pay roll was £22,000,000. The South African Party has indeed laid the foundations of a sound structure for the industrial development and progress of this country. Is this progress to continue under the Pact? We have heard a great deal of talk, but will they ever do anything? In their industrial policy they will be very seriously hampered by their supporters in the right wing. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) laid it down yesterday that he was a firm protectionist, but he is only a subordinate atom of his party, and his masters are the Minister of Defence and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). During the election these gentlemen favoured protection for industries on two conditions—that the price to the consumer must be fixed and there must be a standard wage. If that is the Pact policy in regard to industrial development, then we can say goodbye to all industrial progress. Would any person invest his capital in industries in South Africa under such conditions? The Minister of Railways holds genuine views in regard to protection and industrial development, but if he is desirous of strengthening the industrial life of this country he will have to come for support to this side of the House. Eighteen months ago, when the South African Party introduced in its customs tariff a small increase of 1s. 9d. a bag of 203 lbs. of flour for the benefit of the wheat farmer, where were the allies of the Nationalists? Like one man they voted against the increase. I wish to refer to another industry of considerable importance which has not in the past received that attention from this House which it ought to have received—that is the fishing industry. During the last two or three years that industry has made great strides, mainly due to assistance in having a more detailed survey of the fishing grounds, and I am very glad to see that the present Government intends to continue that survey. But apart from survey work, no assistance has been given to this industry by the State. The fishing industry is of paramount importance to the people. South Africa possesses the most fertile fishing ground in the world, and apart from the fact that we would be able to supply our people with fairly cheap food, we should also be able to provide more employment by the extension of that industry, and we would be able to do an enormous export to Australia and South America. Strange to say, those two countries are rather deficient in the supply of fish. It is a fact that our coastal districts are severely hampered through not having safe anchorage for that industry. Take a place like Hermanus which borders on the fertile fishing ground on the Agulhas bank. There we cannot reach the wealthy fishing ground for the reason that our boats are unsuitable and you cannot employ a better class of boat, such as a steam launch, unless you have safe anchorage. I trust the Minister of Railways and Harbours will make a special point in his policy to see that harbours like Hermanus get safe anchorage for the development of this most important industry. There is one point I specially want to draw the Minister’s attention to. At present a great conflict is going on between the Union Government and the provincial authorities. It appears that fisheries are in the control of the provinces. The sooner they are entrusted to the Union Government the better it will be for the industry. If you appeal to the provincial authorities for assistance they coolly say they have no means at their disposal. If you go to the Union authorities they tell you the responsible people are the provincial authorities. I hope this unsatisfactory state of affairs will be remedied as soon as possible With regard to the economic and industrial development of this country, I sincerely trust the Government will not follow the political heresy preached the other day by one of their most important allies, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). when he advised the Government to disregard the principles of security and safety. If the Government follow this advice they will very soon land this country into insecurity and financial difficulties. Before I sit down I wish to compliment the Prime Minister—I am sorry he is not in his place—on following so very closely in the footsteps of his predecessors. It is wonderful what a marked effect this election has had on the Prime Minister.

And on the S.A.P.

In the past the main charge of the Prime Minister and his party against hon. members sitting here was that they were guilty of imperialism and especially imperialism in regard to their trade relationship with England. It was said that we were always trying to subordinate the interests of this country to the interests of England. We were told that England was economically bankrupt. I heard this statement from session to session. We were told that trade with England was not worth cultivating because England was bankrupt. We were told that we should cultivate new markets in America and on the Continent and leave England alone. We on our side knew better, and our opinion has been fully justified because to-day England is the only country in Europe which is discharging her financial obligations. The policy of the Prime Minister and his followers was not only a policy of constitutional secession, but also a policy of trade and commercial secession in regard to England. Immediately after he assumed office the Prime Minister made a speech in Pretoria of which I have an extract. I wish to submit this to the House as coming from the Prime Minister and if the House would listen to it would almost fall on incredulous ears. “Great Britain, said Gen. Hertzog, should be and always would be as far as he and his Government were concerned their first and chief friend. It would always be their aim to co-operate with Great Britain and the rest of the Dominions.”

There is something wrong about that.

Nothing wrong about it. I congratulate the Prime Minister on that. Moreover the Prime Minister was not satisfied with the speech he made in Pretoria. The very same day he despatched a telegram to the English Government: “Having assumed office, I wish at the very outset to express the hope that the cordial relationship which has existed between His Majesty’s Government and the Union Government may continue on the same cordial footing in the future. For my part every effort will be made to promote our mutual welfare and extend our common interests. The aim and desire of my Government is to develop prosperity and contentment and thus make South Africa worthy of the important position it holds in the British Commonwealth of Nations.” This is a very remarkable declaration of policy and I am rather surprised that it is not greeted with a single cheer of confirmation from members opposite. England is to be the chief friend. Is this merely an expression of sentiment on the part of the Prime Minister? No, if the Prime Minister was sincere, as I take it he was, it means that he is prepared to do everything in his power to develop the trade and commercial relationship between South Africa and England. If you tell me that is mere sentiment then I say there can be no sincerity in this declaration of policy. This declaration is of constitutional and commercial importance. I wonder how can you, on one hand, make propaganda for the ideal secession and, on the other hand, declare that South Africa is going to be a star within the firmament of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Are you trying to improve upon the language?

Yes, the Minister of Mines is a great authority on the secession policy. If I was discussing his conduct three years ago and the attitude he takes up now on this question of secession, then I think I should be able to show that there is not to be found in this House a more inconsistent politician.

You cannot understand a simple position.

Yes, the hon. minister is an exceptionally keen constitutional lawyer. I hope this declaration of policy has the full approval of the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. Minister of Lands, and also of supporters of the Government in the country. The Prime Minister has succeeded in donning the attire of the S.A.P. in this connection. I hope he will be as successful in getting his supporters in the country to follow his example.

He has been successful—we have the seats.

Otherwise his declaration of policy is of very little use.

Everybody knows that the Estimates were drawn up by the previous Government and that the present Government is not responsible for them. Therefore I am not going to whip a dead horse; neither is it my intention to trouble the Government with local complaints. It is my duty, however, to tell the Minister of Finance that I do not approve of the Estimates. There are still too many traces from beginning to end of reckless squandering of public money. When the Minister introduces his own Budget I hope it will be different. The late Prime Minister once said that there is a tendency in these days to live extravagantly, and I agree with him. The Budget of the late Government is a good example of that. I hope the Government will do right and justice fearlessly, and that it will follow in the footsteps of the old Free State. It ought to keep an eye continuously on the interests of the people and the country. In the past the land paid dearly as a result of Ministers allowing themselves to be terrorized. One day 4,000 people gathered round this House and threatened the Cabinet, with the consequence that it cost this poor country £300,000 the next morning. I hope the new Minister of Finance will do his duty fearlessly, and that he will not follow the example of his predecessors in trying to keep this House in the dark. I hope the present Minister will not continue the wasteful policy of the late Government. If he accedes to this request I will support him to the bitter end. But if he does not, I shall fight his policy. But I know that this will not be necessary, as the Minister knows the country and how much poverty there is.

I trust a message will be delivered to some of the Ministers who are not present here that during Budget debates subjects are touched upon which are of interest to all members and to the country, and which should also be of interest to Ministers. I remember during the late Parliament how the Minister of Defence regularly moved the adjournment of the debate when he saw a Minister leave the House, and that Minister is now conspicuous by his absence. I compliment the hon. the Minister of Railways and also the hon. the Minister of Finance as being the only two Ministers who are here regularly. I do not think the Minister of Defence has been here for two hours during the whole of this debate, and it is rather awkward for members of the House to have their remarks transmitted to him on second-hand information. I wish to compliment the hon. member for Durban Point (Maj. Miller) on bringing forward the matter of the Marine Board. For years past this matter has been pressed, and, in 1920 a Bill was actually drafted but nothing has been done. We have absolutely no machinery in that direction. I understand all we have got is a method for the registration of seamen. Ships leave Table Bay with incompetent men in charge, insufficiently provisioned and in but poor condition, forming a great danger to both passengers and crew. Under the old Cape Government an act was passed for the registration of seamen, but there was nothing in the way of examination, and very often men took ships to sea who had no certificates at all. In fact a little while ago a ship put into Mossel Bay and the captain was surprised to find it was not Table Bay. By next year the Minister should be able to tell us whether he is prepared to have a Merchant Shipping Act and have a Marine Board appointed. We are gradually developing our fleet, but if we need any ruling on marine affairs we have got to go to New Zealand. The serious part of it all is this—that there are to-day young men who are out of work, young engineers, who, after they have served their apprenticeships, are walking the streets; foreigners are brought in under contract and get all the good positions. From the only available statistics I can obtain, those for 1916, I see that in that year 500 of our young men applied to go to sea and only 20 could be accommodated. In Natal they have a local Act for local craft which does not affect shipping generally. What we want to see is that no ship leaves harbour without being properly provisioned, without being under the command of a qualified man. Further, I want the Minister to take into consideration the question of men who have been in the services for many years and who are still regarded as “daily paid” men. It is time this question was gone into. I have even heard the Minister himself hold forth on this question. I know men who have been in the harbour services for 22 years who are still employed on the “daily paid” staff. I want to ask the Minister of the Interior what he is doing in regard to research work. The year before last we brought up the question of research work in connection with the valuable properties, medicinal properties, of our plants. But that is a question I can raise later. I want to remind the Minister of Finance that he should give his attention to an important question, the advantages of the development of the saving under our Union loan certificates scheme. If he made enquiries he will find a good scheme has been put forward and is being developed by the gentleman who is doing good work in charge of the loan certificate scheme. He would find that he could recommend provincial councils, when they are making applications for loans, to urge upon their people to subscribe to these certificates and that loans would be made to the local authorities out of their local deposits. I want to deal with the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). He has said everything bad he could to members on this side in the way of criticism, and if in any criticism we have had to bring in in some way a Dutch name he instantly and consistently accused us of racialism. He questions this. Well, I will not say, as the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) said, “I do not believe you,” but it appears to me that he is guilty of deliberate racialism when he says whenever a man leaves the railway service it can be taken that his name is “Van der Westhuizen.” There can be only one meaning to that, and that is that every man who leaves the railway service and is retrenched is a man with a Dutch name, therefore the past Minister of Railways and Harbours is guilty of racialism. Again he questions this. Again, I say I do not wish to go as far as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and say, “I do not believe you,” but I want to tell the hon. member that he is speaking of something about which he knows absolutely nothing, and if he takes the trouble to look up the “South African Railways and Harbours Magazine” he will find all the information at once. Let me give him a few examples. The retirements in June, 1924, are five, and one has a Dutch name. Termination of services: four Dutch names out of 10. Services terminated in terms of contract: three out of nine, therefore six are English. Surely that is simple, but I know the simplest thing is difficult for the hon. member to appreciate. What I do want to say is that there is a suggestion of racialism which hon. members on the other side of the House are fond of hurling at this side. When we on this side of the House severely criticized Col. Mentz as Minister of Defence because we did not always agree with his administration, we were called by the other side “racialists.” I am not certain whether the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) was not amongst them, but this is certain, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. J. S. Marwick) was called a racialist because he dared to criticize the administration of the Minister of Defence. But we have never questioned the late Minister’s honour, nor made a suggestion against his honour. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) made many suggestions against Col. Mentz with regard to certain farm transactions, but the strange thing is when you look up the record of the transactions with regard to these farms the names of Hendrik Mentz and Jozua Francois Naudé, trading as “Mentz and. Naudé,” appear as having purchased at least one of these farms.

Long before that time.

It was not long; it was three years before the same farms were sold to Col. Mentz by the firm of Mentz and Naudé, and when the hon. member gets up and criticizes his former partner and does not mention he was his partner in at least one of the transactions criticized, we need not worry further about him. When the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) says that about £77,000 was paid ex gratia he was interrupted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who said: “Long ago,” but the hon. member (Dr. Visser) said: “No, it is this year or last year.’ I do not think the hon. member can be under a misapprehension because he is on the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and was present on Monday last when we discussed this very point. May I remind him that if he will turn to page 67 of the Auditor-General’s report he will find that he could very easily have given the correct information and that what he said in the House is not correct because it is clear that this transaction took place before 1920. I say that the hon. member knew when he was speaking of this that he was misleading the House.

What was the date in the Auditor-General’s report?

The date of the Auditor-General’s report has nothing to do with it. We are speaking of the date of payment. Payment was made in 1920.

I said Railway Department.

I will not pursue it further; the hon. member does not know what he said. He gets up in great excitement and by the next day forgets what he has said on the previous night. I think that it is right that some of the several questions put by members on this side of the House should now be answered, more especially those about which the Government has been criticizing and making promises for years past. They have been criticizing and making promises for years past, and in many instances they have won their seats by promises made during the election. Let me take segregation. The hon. the Prime Minister has been asked on several occasions to explain his policy on segregation, for we know it has been his favourite newer text. He has invited the previous Government and asked what its policy was about segregation and what it was going to do about it, and, I am certain he had received thousands of votes on the promises he has made; so the time has arrived when those intimately concerned with segregation will demand to know the policy of the Government. I want to know what exactly the hon. the Prime Minister means when he says that segregation must be social and industrial. If he was correctly reported, and it is always as well to ask if he was correctly reported, I want to know how he proposes to carry out that suggestion. Does his policy agree with that of the hon. Minister of Justice when he says that “shutting the native away from the mines in particular and barring them from other fields of industrial employment” is what he means by segregation. Does he mean that, or what the hon. Minister of Justice said on another occasion at Johannesburg, that “the native is not an asset to the white man in this country—but he is a curse. The native should not be allowed to do any skilled or semi skilled labour among the white people.” Is that the policy of the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours, and does he subscribe to that? I am entitled to know after all these years.

After one month?

Yes, one month you have been sitting here, but you have been promising this for years. If you go to the country and say you will segregate, you must tell us how you are going to do it. Once again the hon. Minister of Justice spoke on this subject, and said in 1924 what he was going to do. He said that “once the native was segregated he could only come back into the white regions to carry on absolutely unskilled work.” Does he agree with an hon. member who is no longer here, and who was a very silent member in this House, but very voluble when he got into the country, that “no more names of black men would be placed on the voters’ roll, as the present native voters died”?

Who said that?

A gentleman called Enslin.

Where

In his constituency during the last election. He is reported as saying so.

Do you vouch for the truth of that?

It appeared in a newspaper, and has never been denied. The time has arrived when the natives are entitled to know what their position is.

They will know it.

At your convenience, yes, but they are entitled to know it at their convenience. Is the policy of the Government on the Asiatic question the same as that of the hon. Minister of Justice when he says that “Asiatics would be kicked out of the country, but those born here would be placed in bazaars, and no one will enter those bazaars or do business with them”? There are a large number of Asiatics here who have full citizenship and have been loyal and law-abiding subjects all their lives. Is the hon. the Minister of Justice going to lay down the policy of the Government, or is the Government to lay down some other policy?

Ask Natal!

I prefer to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, who is not, however, always in his seat. Then I want to know what the Government means by “civilized labour.” We have asked several times exactly what is meant by this, and we have never been able to find out. I am forced to go into the speeches made by some hon. members now in the Government, and they are generally made in some place where “civilized labour” is a popular cry. Even the hon. the Prime Minister occasionally forgets himself, and we find that at Upington he once said that “native labour should be replaced by white labour”; but that is the nearest he has ever got to telling us what he meant by civilized labour. But the hon. Minister of Justice once more comes to—shall I say—his aid, and says: “They did hope and trust that under the Nationalist Government the white section of the population—what they might term civilized labour—would come into their own in every business.” I ask the Minister of Railways, is “civilized labour” white labour? I am sorry I cannot ask the hon. the Prime Minister, for he is not present. It seems to me that we should know. It is important that we should know, because a large section of the community is very much perturbed as to what is meant by “civilized labour.” We have been told to “wait and see.” That phrase has become a mere parrot cry of which people are becoming very tired. There is another point on which we want a clear declaration of policy, and that is as regards the Civil Service. The Minister of Justice—I do not know whether he is the leader of the party; he is the one from whom you get all the information as to policy—predicted a complete reform in the whole of the administration. He said “we are going to save money on the Service, but the men who are good are going to be paid better than they are to-day.” The Minister is going to save money, and yet to pay some of the men more! Does he mean that many civil servants are to be retrenched? Has the questionnaire mentioned by the hon. member of Maritzburg (North) something to do with this? The hon. member for Barkly (West) Mr. W. B. de Villiers) stated a day or two ago that he was surprised that the Unionists and the South African Party combined, as they had such very different views on land taxation. The combination need surprise no one, for taking the opinion of an opponent, the member for Bloemfontein (North), did he not say in 1920: “The Unionists have entered the S.A.P. fold without either stipulations or mental reservations”? Can anyone say the same of the new combination? What is the policy of the new Government in regard to land taxation? Is it the policy of the Minister of Defence or of the Minister of Justice? The Minister of Defence says his party holds to the taxation of unimproved land values, and this policy was supported at Johannesburg by the Minister of Justice. Is that the policy of the Government? We should know. We are entitled to know. I now wish to refer to the Pact. The first overtures were made in 1914.

Who by?

The present Prime Minister.

That is not correct.

Then what did the Minister of Defence mean by writing a letter purporting to be a reply to those overtures? In 1920, after the negotiations were on foot for more than six years, the Hon. the Prime Minister in an interview with his own paper “Ons Vaderland,” said: “The Labour Party so far was nothing but a class or sectional party, the bulk of which was thoroughly Imperialistic, caring no more for the National interests of South Africa than its fellow jingoes in the Unionist Party. Labour has no future in this country as a political factor.” The Minister of the Interior was editing a paper at that time, and he told his readers that “the principles of the Nationalist party forbade that it should lend its countenance to the Labour party with its purely Socialistic programme or to any kind of subversive agitation.” Then the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) stated: “The Labour party, as it has been comprised hitherto in its disregard to the interests of the rest of the nation, must come to disaster,” and he added that “the two parties cherish principles opposed to each other.” In 1923 the paper edited by the Minister of the Interior said: “We refuse any coalition with Labour. The two platforms differ too greatly for that.” I will now read a letter which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) who occupies a high position in the Labour party and who has been honoured by the Pact by his appointment to an important position in the House, wrote in 1921. This was during the election, when the hon. member was very anxious to get into the House and he wrote to someone in Cape Town: I have been selected to carry the constitutional flag in this constituency, and have the unanimous support of the enlarged S.A.P. and the Labour party.” This is the same hon. member who immediately after the election said: “There never was any question of secession or republicanism.” Then he goes on and says: “The fight is going to be a very strenuous one, as the roll is two years old, and numbers of our voters have gone to other parts of South Africa. Can you manage to come back and vote? I hope you can, as we must have every vote to win. You are registered in the division. My opponent is Mr. Jan Steyn who represents the Republican party, so that it is a straight fight between a ‘Loyalist’ and a ‘Secessionist’ … Here is being fought out the question whether republicanism is growing or not. A single defeat to the secessionists in this Province will do much to squash their movement.” The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs stated in 1921 that the Nationalists were out for independence only for themselves; they were not out for economic freedom—the only freedom they recognised was the freedom to starve. Thus we see how widely these sections of the Pact party differ in almost every view. For the time being they have been successful, but the whole of the country is going to decide their fate in a very few years’ time.

More prophecies?

Well, the hon. the Prime Minister even had the Communists with him, and he advised his followers to vote and work for all against the S.A.P. even if they were Communists. What did they say? I quote from their paper, “The International”: “The defeat of an avowedly capitalistic Government and the substitution of a Government with working class sympathisers is a step in the advance towards Communism. The workers will find that it is only by the displacement of the factory owners and landlords and the taking over of the land and the means of production by the workers that an end will be put to the poverty, destitution and unemployment which are an inevitable result of the capitalist system.” Is that the policy of the Government? is that their solution of the unemployment problem?

We have heard this sort of thing ad nauseam.

Let me quote from the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: “Mr. Thomas Boydell, M.L.A., organiser of the South African Labour party—.”

Yes, he organised it very well, didn’t he?

Well, either he is going to organise the whole of the Pact party or we must be told by the Minister that he was wrong. Let me tell you what he said in 1921. “The Capitalist Trinity—the friends of Haggenheimer—Smuts, Hertzog and Smartt, once more put their arms round each other s necks and voted solidly together against the Labour party. The Nationalist leaders are now, as in the case of the State bank, shouting in favour of the Government embarking on a State iron and steel industry. Why did they not vote for it when they had the chance? Judge them by what they do in Parliament, not by what they say on public platforms.” I hope the country is going to judge them by what they do in Parliament.

The country has judged you by what you did in Parliament.

“However much the Nationalist party and the S.A.P. fight each other on constitutional and racial questions they always combine solidly in Parliament to defend the profiteers and other vested interests against the Labour party. … At the Bloemfontein Congress the Nationalist and South African Party attempted to unite. The only point of difference which prevented reunion was the Republican or secession issue.” That has since been denied I think. I do not appreciate the denial. “The strongest argument used on both sides in favour of the two parties amalgamating was that they should combine in order to combat the growing forces of Labour.” Then I want to know from the present Government what the position is in regard to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Defence in regard to the balance of power. As late as May, 1924, he said at Durban that they hoped the Labour party would hold the balance of power. On election day, in returning thanks to the electors, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs stated that the Labour party would hold the balance of power. Is that correct?

Yes, of course.

Then as you admit that, I want to know why all the previous protestations by the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs were thrown aside and ignored when the Prime Minister brought forward a motion to circumscribe the rights of private members in this House? If you go back you will find that whenever a motion of that kind was brought up in this House the present Minister of Defence would lose his temper, his eyes would blaze, and he would shout: “Are we going to allow the rights of private members to be taken aw ay?

Give us some commonsense.

If he is holding the balance of power why did he not see that the rights of private members were maintained in this House. I want to know what brought about the change?

He wants to know.

Or might I suggest that in his own words his party was so “emasculated, brow-beaten and humiliated” that they had no further power. Those were the words he used four years ago when he refused to come into another combination because he said his party would be “emasculated, brow-beaten and humiliated.” Has he changed? Has the Minister of Post and Telegraphs changed? He used to claim that all should be prepared to sit all the year round. These two political purists, guardians of the gates of the palace of purity, Gog and Magog, have failed in their promises and protestations—they have sold themselves.

What ridiculous rubbish.

Talk sense.

We want to know from these gentlemen also whether they consented to the embargo on flour and butter? When an embargo was placed on wheat some years ago these two hon. members could not say enough against it. They thundered forth their condemnation of such a policy. I have not heard a word form them now. What is the cause of the change? I think the country is entitled to know from them why they have changed their policy.

The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down is the sort of talk we have to listen to in this House. Is it a sample of what young members have to expect? It seems to me that the members of the South African Party have been telling themselves so often that they are such splendid fellows and that theirs was such a wonderful Government that they are actually getting to believe that they are the only people who can govern this country. We have listened to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) telling us all the advances that have taken place since the South African Party Government came into power, but there is one weakness in the position of that Government to-day—we have been progressing backwards. If he referred to the monthly bulletin issued by the statistical department he would find that during the last three years more skilled mechanics than ever are leaving the country. He would also find that certain industries started during the war and under promising conditions have, owing to the unsympathetic treatment of the South African Party Government, died out. And that can be said of many industries to-day. I wish to emphasize the importance of the unemployment question, that blight, that dark cloud hanging over South Africa. The problem is becoming a menace to this country. Men who were in employment a few years ago are to-day out of employment and starving. In 1921-’22 we approached the Government on this matter and the reply was the inevitable “the country has turned the corner.” We got tired of that and so did the country, and when we did arrive at a corner we turned the South African Party around. This problem must be tackled in a sympathetic and proper way, and anything which can aid or be suggested as a remedy should be considered. There is only one cure for unemployment and that is employment. Every assistance should be given to the Government in this matter. They have given an ernest of what they intend to do. Large sums have been put on the Estimates for temporarily dealing with the problem, but we have got to find a permanent solution. I would suggest that the Minister of Mines and Industries, whose intention I believe it is to reform the Board of Trade and Industries, should introduce legislation to that purpose, and I would impress upon him not to brook delay. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has referred to oil shale in his district, but the Minister said he would not encourage that industry by the granting of bounties and that he intended to refer it to the Board of Trade and Industries. There should be no delay in forming this board so that they can enquire into the matter, so that we can have the oil industry in this country developed. In addition there are large tracts of mineral land being held up, a matter which needs enquiring into. We want men of ability on that board, we want enthusiasts, men who will not sit down quietly but men who will go out and ascertain things for themselves and who will bring before the Minister anything and everything that can be regarded as a remedy for unemployment. We have listened to the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) who is very optimistic and who has said that we may expect in the next five years tremendous advancement in the fruit industry. He drew attention to this, and said that apparently the Government were making no provision to deal with the transportation of fruit. I want to say that in this respect there is another way in which employment can be extended. I also saw an item where 1,003 grain wagons were to be imported from over-sea. These could be built in this country. It has been stated that to build the rolling stock in this country would cost more. But I want to suggest this, and I am speaking as a practical mechanic, that our workshops to-day are equipped, as repair shops only and not for new work. The time has arrived when you can reduce the cost of building new rolling stock by building new workshops and organizing them to deal with new work. The late Prime Minister. Gen. Smuts, found that out just prior to the day of the election and, in an election manifesto issued from Pretoria, he said that if the South African Party Government got back to power they would build new shops and would also build our own rolling stock in this country. This raises the question of raw material, and that is one other point that I would like to mention, and I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours is not here. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) very ably yesterday afternoon dealt with this question of raw material for the iron industry and the manufacture of pig-iron in this country. I want to draw the attention of the Government to the concession granted to the Pretoria Iron Works in 1920. A Select Committee sat on that point (upon which committee I was) and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) was in the chair. The committee reported that while recognizing and approving of the desire to encourage the establishment of an iron industry in this country, the better means would be to follow what has been done in India by intimating publicly that the administration is prepared to purchase articles manufactured in South Africa, without binding itself to any one manufacturer; and proposed that the agreement should not be confirmed. The hon. member was then acting Minister of Railways and Harbours, but when he came to this hon. House, to the surprise of the committee and the present hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours, he rose in his place and advocated that the Select Committee’s report be not accepted by this hon. House. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) got up and insisted upon the acceptance of this report. If the hon. Minister wants to see an iron industry established in this country, I say that one of the first things he has to do is to cancel that agreement with the Pretoria Iron Works’ people, because the moment that agreement was made it closed the door to the establishment of any other iron industry in this country. As the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) showed, Mr. Eaton put all his savings into the establishment of an iron industry in Newcastle; he asked only for a fair field, but said “do not give a concession to these other people or I must close down”; and so it happened. The hope of establishing an iron and steel industry in this country does not lie with the big joint stock company with the usual market rigging, but lies with the small man. The hope of the iron industry is not in Pretoria but in Newcastle, where a man is prepared to start in a small way and to expand the more his industry grows and trade grows in South Africa. I hope the hon. Minister will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and do something to assist that iron industry in Newcastle being restarted. I would like to ask the hon. Minister to go into the question of the raising of railway rents that took place during the last administration, and I would ask the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries to go into the question of idle mines that have been closed down for some reason or other before they are worked out. It has meant the dispersal of a large number of men. Some mines in the Boksburg district were closed—they were suddenly closed—and instead of much money being spent and keeping commercial men in a comfortable position, these people and others were ruined. I ask the hon. Minister to go into this question during the recess. Perhaps it is another matter for the Board of Trade and Industries to go into and to see whether these mines cannot he brought into operation again, and do something to deal with this blight of unemployment which hangs over us.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. Van Zyl) quoted certain things to this House, and I would like to tell him that politics in South Africa are like a wheel which revolves continually. For instance, I remember that the late Gen. Botha said of the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) “May heaven preserve South Africa if such men get at the head of affairs.” During the few years that I was not in this House there have been great changes. One of them is that the Nationalist party, which was hid away in a little corner of this House, has grown to be a great party of the people—the governing party in South Africa. Another change is that the big Government party of that time has disappeared, and only here and there I see some of them remaining amongst the Opposition of those days, the Unionists. Yes, the great majority of them are Unionists, the same old Unionists; the same men, the same principles, and doing the same work. In years gone by they tried to divide the Dutch-speaking people, and now they do their utmost to divide the Dutch and English-speaking people. Napoleon said that if Egypt had a good government the Nile would extend to the desert, but if the reverse was the case the desert would extend to the Nil. Under the S.A.P. regime the desert came to the Nile. The number of unemployed and poor whites has increased to 150,000 because the late Government did nothing for the poor whites. One congress after another was held to discuss the question, but the Government took hardly any notice of them. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said very nice things about industrial development and quoted figures concerning the increase of factories under the administration of the S.A.P. Those figures do not signify much, because every little tailor’s shop in Long Street is a factory as defined by the Act. The Opposition did not criticize the Budget but only raised suspicion and alleged that the Government followed slavishly in the footsteps of its predecessor. It stated that the Nationalist party had promised to reduce the income tax.

What about the income tax?

What! Abolishing the income tax? Absurd! I have before me the estimates of revenue issued by the late Minister of Finance shortly before the Wakkerstroom incident. There I still find the medicine tax and the tobacco tax. It is obvious, therefore, that it was nothing but an election dodge of the S.A.P. Government when it announced that these taxes would be abolished. The Opposition referred to the promises of the Nationalist party, but I can tell hon. members opposite that I had my hands full in controverting the promises and allegations of the S.A.P. Amongst other things they promised to extend the line from Calitzdorp to Ladismith, but recently, when I saw the previous Minister of Railways on the matter, he replied that the Government could not build this line before the new Cape Central line had been taken over, as otherwise it would mean competition with a private company. Another accusation of the Opposition is that the new Government failed in a fortnight to do what the old Government could not accomplish in fourteen years. In the interests of education, the Cape Provincial Council wanted to levy a sales tax, but the Chamber of Commerce prevented it. The Provincial Council was then compelled to curtail expenditure on education, resulting in hundreds of children being kept away from school. Whilst taxation on the rural population had trebled since Union, that on the mines remained practically the same. When the Transvaal Provincial Council taxed the mines to an amount of £300,000, the previous Government went out of its way to stop them. Members of the Opposition know as well as I do that the great object of the previous Government was to protect the interests of the Chambers of Mines and Commerce and the big capitalists, and not those of the country in general. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister certain long-felt wants in my constituency, and I would like to say how the reduction of the tobacco tax is appreciated by the farmers. Also the wine farmers are worthy of the Government’s consideration. In the Western Province a small number of farmers paid £750,000 excise duty. Since 1886 this duty has been altered thirteen times, and it is noteworthy that the price of the product falls as soon as the duty is increased. The import duty on whisky should be increased to the same amount as that imposed in the country of origin. Our present duty on whisky is 37s. 6d., whereas in England it is 72s. 6d., and 73s. on our brandy. Agricultural congresses have passed resolutions in favour of the increase, and it is high time that something is done. The farmers in Ladismith on the irrigation scheme are in great trouble. Ladismith was one of the first districts which started to build dams, but unfortunately the exact quantity of surplus water was not known. The Government ought to attend to this matter, because some of these dams are without water, and yet the people have to pay water rates. I would strongly urge the Minister of Lands to help these people and to appoint a commission to enquire as to what part of the capital can be written off. At Vanwyksdorp a big furrow was made, but owing to the negligence of the engineer it washed full of mud during a big shower of rain, and the furrow was closed. The Cape is still treated very unfairly in the matter of telephone extensions in the country. It is true that a little has been done, but much more should be done. In conclusion, I would urge the Government to give its attention to unemployment in the districts of Ladismith and Calitzdorp. I hope that a portion of the £300,000 for unemployment on the Estimates will be applied to those districts to relieve the state of unemployment there.

I was very glad that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. Van Zyl) dealt effectively with the insinuations made in regard to retrenchment on the railways by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). I did not mind those insinuations being levied against this party, but I did object because they were levied against a body of public servants who could not defend themselves. While I do not agree with those remarks of me hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) there are other remarks of his with which I do agree. Those are in regard to the splendid speech made last night by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). Speeches like that are very seldom made. I think the hon. member did a very great service to this House when he brought before it the great future of the fruit industry of this country. I think the Railway Department will be well advised now to consider the future requirements of the fruit trade. I wish to make a few remarks about the railways, but before doing so I should like to compliment the hon. Minister of Finance on the very clear and cautious statement he has put before this House. His Budget speech was a credit to himself and his party. I know it is not fair to expect too much, seeing the Government has only been in office five weeks. There are, however, one or two things which have not been dealt with, and about which I am very disappointed. Last session the hon. Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, brought forward a motion regarding unemployment, and I felt he was genuine and sincere, and I made certain it would be one of the first measures to be introduced and that he would have some concrete schemes to deal with this acute problem. Barring creating a new post the Ministry of Labour and placing extra money on the estimates, nothing has been done to solve this, which is the greatest of all our troubles. Last session I suggested the time had arrived for a national housing scheme. It is one direction in which the Minister might move; it would mean employment for thousands of Europeans, coloured and natives, it would relieve the appalling conditions under which thousands of families are housed to-day. It would improve the health of the entire Union, it would create confidence and, above all, would be a reproductive debt. I would also suggest that a more serious attempt be made to settle people on the land. With due deference to the rubber industry, the motor body industry, the wine industry, the pyjama industry so eloquently voiced by the hon. member for Beaufort West, and even the gold and diamond industry, if there is one industry which is going to make (south Africa, it is the farming industry. I know a little has been done in the past, but the present idea of assisting only those who can give security must be altered, and if we are going to make a success of land settlement the Government must be prepared to assist a settler on the strength of ability, reputation and character. There is no one in this House who has struggled harder to become a agricultural farmer than I have, and every day the old Dutch saying: “Eenige man kan een boer wees maar het vraag een goeie man om een boer te blij”, is brought home to me. Now I wish to say a few words in regard to railways, and I congratulate the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours on the clear, concise and interesting statement he has submitted. I was pleased he was generous enough to give his predecessor in office all the credit for the position which his department is in to-day. The whole country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who, through hard work and business acumen, brought the railways to their present fortunate position. I am also glad to see the staff received their just dues. If there is one department of the public service of which we can be proud it is the railway service. And in this connection I hope the present Minister will not take the bad advice that has been offered about not trusting his permanent officials, but will trust, consult and confide in his staff on every possible occasion, both those at the top and bottom of the ladder. If there is one way the recent Minister may have made a mistake it was not consulting his staff enough. But I know the new Minister does not intend to make this mistake. Did he not go down to Uitenhage and visit the workshops the day before the election and ask every man to vote for my opponent, because he, Mr. Malan, would be Minister of Railways, and would redress all their grievances? I hope, Sir, this deep interest the hon. Minister has begun to take in his staff, will grow, and should he find time to again visit the workshops at Uitenhage it will give me the greatest pleasure in the world to accompany him and introduce to him men and officials whose advice and information will be of the greatest use to himself and his department. I was also pleased to see the attitude taken up by the new Minister of Railways in regard to the importation of coaches. It appears on paper that they would cost more, but the difference is more apparent than real. If everything be taken into consideration, I am sure we can build coaches in this country quite as good and as cheap as we can import them, but to do that you must give our workshops fair play. The time has arrived when the different types of coaches should be standardized and a comprehensive building scheme extending over a period of years adopted. Every year thousands of pounds are lost through insufficient and out-of-date rolling stock. For the suburban traffic alone we require at least two hundred corridor coaches and two hundred saloons are required for main line traffic. This shortage of rolling stock prevents the department doing justice to the public. In some places we compel respectable coloured passengers to travel in congested compartments with raw natives. Journeys lasting all night are performed in coaches without proper conveniences. For years we have humbugged the coloured people by giving them very inferior accommodation. I have known a cushion placed in an ordinary third-class compartment marked second and reserved for coloured passengers. I have also known where a second-class compartment has been changed into a first by giving the upholstering a coat of paint, and needless to say, that was also marked reserved for the benefit of the coloured community.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

When business was suspended I was dealing with the question of coloured people on the railways, which is a very serious matter in my constituency, and I know that Europeans would not tolerate it for one moment. I do hope that the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours intends to give this matter his serious attention and that the coloured community in the Eastern Province will be given the same facilities as they are given in the Western Province, and abolish reserved compartments on all suburban lines. It is gratifying to me to know that the hon. Minister intends to employ more white and coloured youths in the workshops; it is only a continuation of the policy which the previous hon. Minister introduced a few months ago. This will tend to help considerably in regard to the unemployment question. Every day I get numerous letters, many from the sons of old railway men, asking me for employment in the workshops, and I hope the hon. Minister will give orders for some immediate steps to be taken in this direction In regard to the Service Amendment Bill, which was before this House last session, I do hope the hon. Minister will reintroduce this Bill as soon as possible. There is not the slightest doubt that it is a very good Bill in many respects, and I hope provision will be made therein for larger pensions by larger contributions. The trouble in regard to the superannuation fund is two-fold; firstly, when this fund was introduced the cost of living was not nearly so high as it is at the present time, and secondly, a large number of the employees did not take full advantage of that scheme, or pay their contributions from the day they joined the service, and so are not getting the full benefit of the superannuation fund. In regard to the piece-work system, although it is not a perfect one, I believe it is a good one, and I am certain of this, that if the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours is tempted to do away with that system, there would be a howl of indignation from practically all the employees of the railway. I do not consider that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) was altogether fair to the railway-men when he suggested that the recent accidents may have been the result of scamped work due to piece-work. Personally. I do not believe that there is a single employee who will scamp work which will lend to an accident, simply to get a little extra money at the end of the month. I would like to remind the hon. Minister that a large number of our railway employees are natives who have given us long years of faithful service at a low rate of wage, and I hope that the hon. Minister does not intend to do any injustice to these servants. Only this week I received a letter from the Cape Native Congress asking for more employment on the railway for natives, and I do hope the hon. Minister will also consider their views. What is really wanted is a bold progressive policy. We want to enlarge our workshops so that they can be put on the factory basis, and if we go in for a scheme for building our own rolling stock we shall require more Europeans and more natives as well.

Back benchers have an opportunity of saying very little and there are very few crumbs left for us on the table to take up after other hon. members have dealt with matters. I would like to say a few words about irrigation, and irrigation schemes have been very ably discussed by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron); and if I may say so, his was a contribution to the debate upon the irrigation question that was worthy of this House and worthy of the consideration of the Government. Unfortunately there are few irrigation schemes which have not cost double the amount of the original estimates. The United States have had exactly the same experience and the same difficulty in regard to the inability of the irrigators to pay their indebtedness to the Government. Two suggestions have been made to get over the difficulty—one is to reduce the capital and the other to extend the period of repayment. America is seeking to solve the difficulty this way: instead of forcing the people to liquidate the full amount they owed the Government they were being called upon to pay in proportion to what their land produced. An average return was taken and the payments were based on the average. The future of the fruit industry of South Africa is a vast one, for we have illimitable possibilities in this direction. Our fruit commands a very high price in Great Britain, and we should cultivate the overseas markets as much as possible. Gold and diamonds must eventually give out, and we must turn our attention to our agricultural resources. I hope the strongest representations will be made before any new shipping mail contract is entered into, so that the contractors will undertake to provide ample facilities for the conveyance of fruit and other produce from South Africa. A fruit expert tells me that the experiment of carrying fruit not in cool chambers but in the holds of steamers fitted with fans has not proved a success, as fruit carried under these conditions has tended to deteriorate in quality. The Government should try to meet the demand of the outside fruit growing districts. With reference to maize for export, that trade now goes through only two of our ports, but the proper way to handle agricultural produce is to export it through the nearest port to that in which it was raised. Last session I asked a question regarding the matriculation examination, and I called attention to the fact that there were mistakes in the set examination papers, but I got very little satisfaction and was told to communicate with the university authorities. The latter admitted that there had been a mistake but said that they had allowed 10 per cent, on the marks. Surely no examination paper should be submitted to students unless the problems have been worked out. Then there is an absence of language in the matriculation examination, and there is one language in particular which has been neglected, and that is Latin. I want the Matriculation Board to remember that one of the subjects for the entrance examination at the University of Cambridge and other universities is Latin. Students who intend going overseas are hindered if they do not know Latin. I do not know who is the responsible person dealing with the university curriculum, but I would ask him to enquire whether the inclusion of Latin could not be considered.

What about Scotch?

You take your Scotch, in a bottle and you will be quietened. It has silenced many a good man. I am going to deal with the boot question. It rejoices the hearts of those of us who years ago stood up in this House for South African industries to see how our boot industry has grown. Hon. members on the Opposition side of the House in those days were always strong for the protection of industries. What a change has come over them. It is not so very long ago that Labour members who were sitting in this corner where I am now were crying out for the people not to go in for South African boots. Years ago when I suggested that we ought to make our own rolling stock in this country there was not a single voice raised in my support until the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) came. Years ago I was able to produce evidence to show that a railway engine done up on the piecework system had proved more costly than one done up on the daily wage system. I am not a believer in piecework. Piecework is a system which has shown that immediately a man can earn a decent wage the rates of wages are reduced and the quantity of work he has to do is increased. Somebody quoted Henry Ford to-day. I would ask hon. members to read some of the books dealing with these American works. A recent writer visiting the steel works of America said to the manager: “I do not see any old men about here.” The manager replied: “I will show you the old men later on.” The visitor was shown the works, entertained to lunch and so on, and when he was going away he said: “But you have not shown me any of your old men.’ “Oh,” said the manager, “you will see the cemetery on the right-hand side as you go out.” That is the result of the piecework system. I would ask the Minister to take notice of another matter. An Act of Parliament was passed which laid down that you must not use adulterated leather in South African boots. No boots can be made in this country unless you use pure leather. On the other hand, adulterated leather can be used, and is used, in imported boots. When you compare imported boots with South African boots you see the difference. I suggest that that Act of Parliament should be enforced. All you need to do is to compel a stamp on the soles of these imported boots, “adulterated leather, not made in South Africa.” Let the public see what they are buying. Statistics show that European labour in the boot factories of Port Elizabeth amounts to 50 per cent, of the whole. We do not want over-protection in the boot industry. We only want sufficient protection to see that the workers of this country are protected from the unfair overseas competition. During the last session of Parliament I spoke against the increase of hours on the railways to the 10-hour system. Since then I have made further enquiries and I know of one man at Zwartkops station who is on night duty for 12 hours at a stretch, from 6 to 6. I am told that sometimes 30 to 40 trains pass through there in the night and a lot of shunting has to be done. I ask the Minister of Railways to go into that. In such places as that it ought to be an 8-hour shift.

Hear, hear.

I know the ex-Minister of Railways and Harbours is a great man for making things pay and I was somewhat surprised when I heard the present Minister of Railways speak so kindly about his predecessor and the way he balanced the Railway Budget. Well, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) certainly balanced the railways, but he did more to over-balance his party than anybody we have. I would say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger): When your enemies speak well of you, beware. I quite admit that railways should be made to balance, but I must say that I do not believe in a system of balance at the expense of men who are turned out into the streets. I do not agree with all these great speeches about everything being made to balance, and I hope the present Minister of Railways and Harbours will take the earliest opportunity of examining the hours and wages of the men and the rents of railway cottages. With regard to the railway cottages every penny in extra rent which these men were made to pay was a reduction of wages. I would have informed the new employees that if they took over a house now they would have to pay the increased rent, but I would not have increased the rent of those men already in occupation. I may say that I strongly advocate the construction of all rolling stock in this country. Construct as much as you can in South Africa. There is just another subject I wish to touch upon. I may say that there is a good deal too much discussion going on, but I enjoyed the speech of my unfortunate fellow-countryman this afternoon and I recognise that the man, Sidney Smith, who said that a Scotchman did not know a joke, had never met my friend. A good deal has been said about, and we are still hearing a good deal about the new Government. It is a new party and it is claimed to be the people’s party. We who have sat in Parliament know all about that, we who have been in politics for half a century know what they are. How long do you think they will continue to sit over there? They remind me of a fowl sitting on ducks’ eggs. When the ducks came out the fowl went to the water’s edge with them and was much astonished to see the little fledglings swim into the water. My friends on the left are like little ducklings swimming in the water of socialism. The speech of my hon. friend the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) states that labour is socialist—did you say communist—they would soon be growing up and they will soon be going to the water’s edge just like the fledglings to swim in the deep waters of socialism.

They will come back bye and bye.

Well the old hen will not think the same of them again. I am sorry for my friend, the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. C. A. van Niekerk). He has a great big heart but a very narrow brain. I appreciate the Government’s intention to protect and further local industries, but I regret to hear that they are going to discharge native labour and employ white men. Are we not able to find employment for from 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 million Europeans without discharging a single native or coloured man? Let us have our true position. The coloured man and the native is inferior to us in every way. We in South Africa have a trust, and that trust is to see that we employ as far as possible our own sons and Europeans. They are the aristocracy of labour, and we are the aristocracy of South Africa. Take these men on to the land, give them small allotments, put competent men in charge of them, rear them up to be sons of the soil and do not employ them the same as coloured and natives at 5/- or 6/- a day.

Two young members of the Opposition, namely, the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) made very sensible and valuable speeches. Those are the kind of speeches that the country wants. The attitude adopted by those hon. members compares very favourably with that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who complained that the Government was not carrying out its promises regarding a State bank and the importation of cattle from Rhodesia. The Government did not promise to establish a State bank this year. It was stated in the election programme of the party that a commission would be appointed to investigate the establishment of a State bank. The members of the Opposition know that the agreement with Rhodesia only terminates at the end of the year, and before that time no alteration can be made. The criticism of the Opposition in this respect is therefore unfair. The main work of this session is to vote the necessary money for the administration of the country, and not for the carrying out of the programme of the Government. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) advised us to build on the foundation of the S.A.P. Government, but I am sure the Minister of Finance will not follow his advice, because the foundations of the S.A.P. are tottering. The people have shown by their verdict at the elections that they wanted a new Government to put the business of the State on a better footing. I welcome the abolition of the medicine tax and the reduction of the tobacco tax, but I hope the unfair tax on the increased value of stock will also be abolished. At the S.A.P. Congress Mr. Duncan admitted that it was unfair, but it is a pity he did not bring his influence to bear on the Government to alter it. All improvements such as the putting up of windmills and the making of dams ought to be deducted from the amount of income tax. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) urged that the Land Bank should also make advances for inside fencing, and that repayments should be spread over twenty years. That would be a great improvement. Last year we lost seven million head of small stock. The Drought Relief Act gives assistance to farmers, but in 1922 many of them went under, who could have been saved with the loan of £100. The sum of £100,000 on the Estimates for advances to farmers is inadequate, and I hope more money will be voted before that amount is exhausted. I am disappointed with the members of the Commission to whom applications are to be sent. The hon. member for Calvinia, who is now Minister of the Interior, requested the Government last session not to appoint members of the S.A.P. on these commissions. That raised a storm of indignation; yet it is exactly what happened. In my constituency and the adjoining districts only supporters of the S.A.P. were appointed, and one of them promised the people to let them have 300 head of sheep if they voted for the S.A.P. Despite that fact, he was appointed a member of the Commission. I would like to know whether there are not also suitable Nationalists. It was an established practice with the previous Government only to appoint its own supporters to these commissions, but this should be changed. It was the same in the case of the appointment of locust officers. As was pointed out in one district 27 out of the 28 locust officers were members of the S.A.P. Then there are the scab inspectors, all of whom are supporters of the S.A.P. and act as election agents during the elections. In my constituency a certain Truter is chief inspector, and during the elections he acted as election agent of the S.A.P. and was responsible for the spreading of the story that a whole Nationalist branch had turned and would vote for Mr. Nel, the S.A.P. candidate. I have in my possession an affidavit stating that that story is untrue. But he went further still and said that as a result of representations by Mr. Nel to the right, hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) the farmers got a concession to go to Carnarvon. A telegram to that effect was received and read by him. Last session I made representations to the Secretary of Agriculture for that concession. During the elections my name was not mentioned by the chief inspector, who only mentioned the name of my opponent. The late Prime Minister complained that we were applying the spoils system. This Government does not do that; it is the previous Government who sinned in that respect. They filled the whole civil service with political supporters, and now the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says he is going to fight the spoils system tooth and nail. Dear me! That hon. gentleman seems to have made up his mind to clean up the political stable. I wonder if that was what he was doing when he waved the Republican flag in the cities and the red flag in the country. Gen. Smuts tried to frighten the people in the city with the statement that Gen. Kemp would be appointed Minister of Defence, a man with whom he fought for three years during the Anglo-Boer war. The hon. member for Standerton prophesied that there would be a red revolution when the Nationalist party came into power. “God help this country,” he said. And what has happened? New capital is coming into the country, big buildings are being erected, industries are started and the share market is rising. I suppose that is the red revolution. I am glad that the Minister of Railways cancelled the contract for the building of 25 coaches, and that they will now be made here. The sum of £96,000 will be spent here, and the people of this country will earn the money. That is a somewhat different policy from that of the previous Minister, who last year sent a big order overseas, most of which work could easily have been carried out here. I am also glad to see that the Minister of Railways has increased the preference for South African material from 5 to 10 per cent., and I hope it will be increased still more. New Zealand gives a preference of 20 per cent., and the British Admiralty 25 per cent. Another anomaly is that the branch lines are not allowed a sufficient percentage for their traffic to the main lines, and the main line traffic to the branch lines. The rates for wool should be reduced. From Victoria West to Port Elizabeth the farmer has to pay 5s. 3d. per 100 pounds, whereas the price was only 3s. 7d. before the war. The rates for the conveyance of slaughter stock and fencing material should also be reduced. The conveyance of stock during droughts is a matter of vital importance to the farmers. A reasonable concession is given, but no allowance is made for the vehicle of the farmer. I hope the Government will take into favourable consideration the points I have raised.

I should like to be allowed to add my congratulations to the congratulations which have fallen from both sides of the hon. House to the two hon. gentlemen opposite for the clear and admirable manner in which they have introduced their Budgets, and I should also like to be allowed to congratulate them in another direction, and that is to say how sincerely I congratulate them on that fund of common sense that, forgetful of their election speeches, they have adopted the policy of the late hon. Minister of Finance and the late hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours, and thereby have been able to represent a most admirable Budget statement to this House. I would like to say to the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours that, after the admonitions he has received to carry produce on the railways at the least possible rate, he should see also that the railways are administered in an economical manner, and follow in the footsteps of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and try, as opportunity arises, to reduce the rates as soon as possible, notwithstanding the enormous reduction of rates which have been made under the administration of the late hon. Minister, when an amount equal to what has been written off the deficit was the reduction made in the rates, or almost a similar amount, and most of this was in connection with agricultural produce, which is so essential if the primary industries of this country are to be developed. May I say that I really am nervous in addressing the House to-night, because for the first time during the course of this debate I see before me on the Treasury benches six hon. Ministers. We have been carrying on this debate within one hour for five full days, and this is the first time I have seen so many hon. Ministers grace this hon. House with their presence. On many occasions we have had two hon. Ministers in this House, and my young friends opposite have been fairly regular in their places, but as the oldest member of this hon. House, I have never in the course of my Parliamentary experience attended a Budget debate whereby so little courtesy and consideration has been shown by hon. Ministers as in this debate by their absence. The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs adds his voice to the other shouters on the other side of the House—

I did not say anything.

I can remember when the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the hon. Minister of Labour and Defence used constantly, when they were addressing the hon. House on the Budget and it happened to be for one moment that the Minister presiding over the department that they were for the moment criticizing was away—they used to stand up on the cross benches and move the adjournment of the House, to give the hon. Ministers an opportunity of returning. My hon. friend opposite is in a different position now, and looks upon matters with an entirely different eye from the old days, when he did not expect to sit where he is sitting now, nor to have the company which he has at present. I have come to the conclusion that this silence on the part of Ministers in replying to criticizms is not due to want of courtesy, but is owing to the fact that the Government, not having arranged their views, or differences of views, the Prime Minister considers it advisable that none of them should be allowed to make a speech, as it was perfectly possible that one would contradict the other. I expected at least that we would have had one word of explanation from the Minister of the Interior, with that great and ponderous eloquence with which he enlivens the House, and I thought that we would have had an opportunity of hearing his views on the advantages of coalition. I will tell the House his views on coalition, for they were published in “De Burger” of November 1st, 1922. The hon. gentleman’s views are reported in that journal as follows: “Coalitions have been formed, and differences in principle and policy have been suppressed or ignored. However necessary and desirable this may have been in war time, there can be no doubt that in time of peace it is wrong and demoralizing. It means the continuous trafficking in principles, and a violation of conscience. It means dishonesty on the part of political leaders, who have to try all the time to speak to widely different elements among their supporters. It means the raising of opportunism to the level of statesmanship, making way for political lack of character. Under a coalition no problem can be tackled or solved in a manly way. The South African Party is virtually a coalition, with all the drawbacks inseparable from a coalition, and enough has already been said as to the effect this is bound to have on our political morality.” Now may I say to the hon. gentleman that the old Unionist party joined the South African Party without any bargaining or consideration of any sort whatever.

You did all the bargaining before that.

The hon. member has not the opportunity of running away that he had on previous occasions when troubles were about. He must not abuse his ministerial position to prevent nervous people expressing their opinion. When the old Unionist Party joined the South African Party we threw in our lot with a party that we knew contained a majority of the Dutch-speaking people, and we—the English section—realized that in the years of struggle and stress the magnificent example set by the late Gen. Botha and his followers, and by Gen. Smuts as well, justified us in throwing in our lot with them for the purpose of bringing about racial unity. I ask hon. members opposite who jeer to cast their eyes along the ranks of the South African Party, and they will find that intermingled are people with English and Dutch names, but if they look at the Nationalist Party they will not see among it one man with an English name. I leave the hon. gentleman to explain away that magnificent utterance of his of which I have informed the House and which I am perfectly certain the hon. gentleman on the labour benches will greatly appreciate. I was not in the House last night, but I have read the papers and I understand in the course of the debate the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) explained to this House how the country was thrilled by the electioneering utterances of the Prime Minister and how the youth of South Africa became so imbued by his doctrines that we now have a large number of young members in this House whom in the exuberance of his eloquence, the hon. member branded as the young Turks. Judging from the hon. members I see over there I think there is a certain amount of justification in the expression, but I doubt whether it is a compliment or whether it is a line they would like to follow, because I understand that the young Turk was always out to break up things. If I have got any political vision, the young Turks are likely to break up the Coalition.

We have broken up the S.A.P.

My hon. friend has always shown how sincerely eager he is to do anything in that direction. The speech of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) caused me to turn to the speech of the Prime Minister which had caused such delight throughout the country. I found the Prime Minister said that the old Government with a majority of 8 was sufficiently strong to carry on the administration of the country. What must we expect from a Government, not with a majority of 8, but with the united labour socialistic organization such as we see before us, of whom the House and the country had expected great things. I am sure we have not and the country has not the slightest idea of the policy of the Government, the Prime Minister at Smithfield said his main line of policy was agricultural development and sympathy for the farmers. In recent years he said agricultural has not enjoyed the sympathetic handling to which it is entiled. Witness the Tobacco Tax and the free importation of slaughter stock from Rhodesia. Sir Thomas Smartt had never shown sympathy with the farming population. Well I leave the country to judge.

They have judged.

Whether the late administrator had or had not shown sympathy with the farming population I will leave the country to judge. Might I give some examples of the sympathy they did show. Was the Cooperative Societies Bill a measure showing sympathy with the farming population of this country? My memory carries me back to 1922 when that Bill was received with rounds of approval by all sections of the farming community. Was the Drought Relief Act not a measure in the interests of the farming population?

Was the Tobacco Tax?

I am coming to that and you will be sorry when I do come to it. You have already had many manifestations I think that hon. members on the Government benches even are not satisfied with your action over the Tobacco Tax. Was the equipment and establishment of an agricultural demonstration train which had never been attempted in this country before not a measure of sympathy with the farmers? Was not the establishment of district country agents for which I hope now that the finances are better, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will see further funds provided, a measure of sympathy? Did these measures show any want of sympathy to the agricultural population? Owing to the first main plank of the platform of the hon. Prime Minister I am emboldened to ask my hon. friend opposite what steps he proposes to take in regard to certain further necessary farming measures. Let us take the Co-operative Societies Act. This at last has established limited liability societies in this country as well as unlimited liability. In the course of the Act it has been found out that one of the difficulties in connection with limited liability is that there is no provision in the law whereby the Land Bank can make advances against produce. If the Minister of Agriculture will do me the honour when he goes back to his office to ask for the papers, he will find that a Bill has been carefully drafted to deal with these questions. That Bill it was my intention to introduce into Parliament had the last session not come to such an untimely end. One of the great difficulties, and it does not brook delay—I can assure my hon. friend it is more important even than the Government Attorney’s Bill—is that you must have some provision whereby the Land Bank can make advances against produce. I have found in the working of the Co-operative Societies Act that while the bank manager was willing to help, the law did not allow him to do so because the law made no provision for a lien on his produce. When I had to deal with these societies I found the directors individually and severally had to guarantee to the bank the amount of the loan. That made it certain that a limited liability company was practically putting its directors in the position of members of an unlimited society. Having discussed the matter with the Treasury and the Land Bank we drafted a Bill making provision that the Land Bank would be in a position to make advances against the produce of a co-operative society, those advances giving the Land Bank a lien against that produce. Co-operation is so essential to the population of this country I think the Minister would be well advised to let the Attorneys Bill stand over and in its place carry through this Bill.

Notice has already been given of the Bill. You might make that speech on the second reading.

I am very glad to hear it. I am very glad to hear that you have adopted my Bill.

Was it your Bill? I remember it was I who asked you to put that measure through, and it took me a very long time to persuade you to do it.

Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The Government have taken over my Bill. I would like to take this opportunity of sincerely and cordially congratulating them. That is three good things they have done. They have taken over the late Minister of Finance’s Budget, they have taken over the Budget of the late Minister of Railways and Harbours, and now they have taken over my amendment of the Land Bank Act. I hope they have also got in the one Bill—they might make it an omnibus Bill—provision for the question which was brought forward so admirably by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), that is provision, now that fencing is going ahead, for the Land Bank to make advances on fencing, not merely for boundary fences, but for paddocking fences, too. My hon. friend will find that was in the Bill also, and I hope he will take it over.

The Bill is on the Table.

Well, I have got a couple more for you. There is another Bill—the Auctions Bill—to make provision in connection with the sale of livestock and agricultural produce. It was a necessary measure. Then there is another matter of considerable importance. I understand the Minister of Finance has continued the grant in connection with the export of meat.

We have retained it, but we do not know how much it is going to be.

Oh, I see, my hon. friend has retained it but he does not quite understand it.

What a reasonable remark.

I can quite understand that too. If that vote is on the Estimates and goes through it will be necessary for the hon. gentleman to go on next session with another Bill I introduced last session. I will tell you why. When the Bill was introduced last session for the purpose of encouraging people to file their charges as quickly as possible, a clause was put into the Bill to the effect that no cold storage company could participate in the vote save within one month of the passing of the Bill they filed a series of charges for dealing with public slaughter stock at a reasonable rate. That was done because the Bill was introduced late in the session and it was felt that if you did not hurry up people you would be giving a benefit for these people to trade the stock of other people. Since then a deputation came down from Johannesburg and it was pointed out to me by the municipal abbatoir people that it would be impossible for them even if people were making use of the Johannesburg abbatoirs to participate in the bonus, and I made provision in that new Bill to deal with the matter. I gave them a promise that a certain clause would be put into the Bill, that the new Bill would make provision for one month after its passing for anybody who had not applied before and would submit their prices to the Government would participate in the bonus. It is essential that this Bill which was introduced last session should be revived, and I do not think it will take more than one minute to go through There are other matters which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister, the embargo on cattle. I wonder when the hon. gentlemen who are the wing of the Nationalist party and who represent Johannesburg, a place which at certain seasons of the year, owing to climatic conditions, finds it, difficult to get decent slaughtered meat—what they are going to say if the Government puts an embargo on cattle? We were told that we were unsympathetic to the agricultural population because we did not put an embargo on cattle. We did not, but we called together the representatives of the various territories and discussed the situation with them, and we came to the arrangement that only animals of a certain class and fatness would be allowed to come into the country. That agreement has worked very well, and I would like to know if the Government are going to put that embargo on cattle; if they do, they will interfere with the good relations existing between the Union and Rhodesia and they will do grave injury to the sending duty free of millions of pounds worth of goods across the Rhodesian border. If they carry out their promise the rift in the coalition lute will come sooner than we expected. We have been told we have no sympathy with the farmer. Who has done more than the late Government in trying to put the cotton industry on a sound basis? It was during the last three years that so much has been done to put the industry on a sound basis. The late Government felt so strongly about it that we entered into communication with the British Empire Cotton Growing Association, and when the late Prime Minister was in England the whole of the question was again gone into with the result that the Corporation have sent an expert from India of the highest standing. He is now assisted by two other experts, and another is coming. They are placed in conjunction with the Agricultural Department, and the British Empire Corporation are paying the whole of the expenditure in connection with this investigation. I would like to approach the tobacco tax. If there was one thing over which there was a lot of sound and fury it was this tax. The late Government made certain statements in connection with the tax. We had thought a good deal about it and we had representations and interviews with people in the industry, and we came to the conclusion that the only means of dealing with it was to see that the smaller producer, and more especially the producer of lower grade tobacco, should go free, and I tell the Minister his relief will not be of any benefit at all. I wish he would listen to me, because I am out to instruct him. You have got into such a mess over the tobacco tax that I am anxious to help you. He says the solution which they have promised will not mean a repeal of the tax—it is a fair tax but that was not what was said at the hustings. I think he is going to reduce the ordinary tax on smoking tobacco to 3½d. and on roll tobacco to 2d. Is that going to meet the condition of affairs so freely discussed during the elections?

No, I did not say that.

You have said so in other words because you have embodied it in your Budget.

That is not all I said.

I do not think he knows what he said until they produce the papers. From 90 lbs. of tobacco you make 135 lbs. of roll tobacco. This means that in roll tobacco you have 50 per cent. of moisture.

Why did you not tell them that?

The members of the Government dealt with it during the election. I dealt with it last August, when a deputation came to interview me and other Ministers. We said we would devise a scheme whereby the lower price tobacco went free and there was no hindrance to the producer getting rid of his tobacco, especially of the kafir character.

Did you carry out that promise?

No, owing to the misrepresentations of my friend and his friends on the opposite side I have not had an opportunity of doing so. It was our intention and it was agreed to deal with the matter last session, but owing to events over which we had no control, we had no opportunity of dealing with it. If you make from 90 lbs. of leaf tobacco 135 lbs. of roll tobacco and sell it at 5d., and after deducting duties, it leaves £4 0s. 4d., or 7 1/2d. per lb., for 135 lbs., or 11d. per lb. for the leaf that goes to make the roll. Take the cheaper characters of tobacco. You may have in granulated cut tobacco from over 90 lbs.; having taken the rib out you make 60 lbs. of manufactured tobacco, and you get £1 10s., or 6d. per lb., for 60 lbs. In one case you get 6d. as against 7 1/2d. The fact is you are going to penalize the people still further who have cheap leaf-cut tobacco to the extent of 3d. or 4d. a lb. discrimination in selling price between it and roll tobacco.

We did not penalize to the same extent as you did.

I admit that roll tobacco is said to be the best. My hon. friend opposite knows full well that in roll tobacco the best leaf is on the outside and leaf of inferior quality is inside. The duty is going to discriminate to an extraordinary extent to the disadvantage of the people who are making a cheap quality of cut tobacco. I have always felt that so far as tobacco is concerned the proper way to deal with a tobacco tax is to deal with it by a stamp duty on a sliding scale.

Why did you not do it?

You turned me out. You have tied yourself into such a difficult position that I am giving you the advantage of the improvements which we proposed to make. If some of your people do not bring back a little more than the Government has promised them, their constituents will tear them to tatters. I might say one word about my hon. friend for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). We all looked upon him until the other evening as one of the moderate members of this House. I say to him now in all earnestness that I was surprised to see his true character coming out the other evening. The hon. member who is an old member of this House made a bitter attack, an unjustified attack on the members on this side of the House. He made a bitter attack on myself and said that the remarks we had made in connection with what we considered the leniency of the sentence on Maritz were due to racial considerations. I give that statement an unqualified denial.

What are the facts?

The facts are, I have been a member of this House for many years and I held a responsible position as Leader of the Unionist Party. I was consulted in regard to other people including the member opposite who was in durance vile. I was one of the people that was anxious to see that the late Gen. Christian de Wet, owing to the feeling that we had against him, that he should be released as soon as possible. When he was released did any one of the people who supported me ever raise their voices in any way whatever? The attitude I took up was this, that though I regarded what had taken place seriously I felt that if the dead past would bury its dead we would never raise our voices in objection. The party that I led know what advice I gave them, and practically to a man abided by the decision which was given.

So that you ruled the country then already.

My young Turkish friend from the opposite side of the House will know that in matters of that sort if it is intended to have that effect upon the country which was the only justification, voices would not have been raised against it in this House when these people were liberated, and nobody did anything to bring in racial feeling in that connection. But I considered my hon. friend and I would be wanting, and we would be wanting, in our duty if we did not point out in this hon. House, and we have a perfect right to point it out that our objection to Maritz was not owing to the fact that he had gone into rebellion, regrettable as that offence was, but considering that he had a responsible position and a sacred obligation to perform. So far as this was concerned I would never have raised my voice, although I would have considered even that a little indecent haste had been exercised. But I consider that I and other hon. members were justified in asking the hon. the Prime Minister to give some explanation why he did not consider the feelings of other people—not because these people had gone into rebellion. I have always acknowledged that for the differences that divided us, every allowance must be made on both sides. But there is a crime far worse than rebellion—to have handed to your charge young men, first enticed and then terrorized them into breaking their sacred obligations; and to their everlasting credit they remained faithful and true to their obligation; and to have them surrounded.

You make us cry.

Thank heaven the many years I have been in this House we have not experienced the manners of my young Turk. I hope that the good sense of both sides of the House, whether they agree with me or not, will see when you are discussing a question of this sort on which people feel very seriously indeed, that the hon. member by his presence in the House of Assembly will learn manners, if he is to be of any use in the discussions which take place here. What I was saying is this: You must consider the feelings of the public; of these young people and their friends, when they were faithful and true to their oaths and obligations, and were surrounded by machine guns and disarmed and not given an opportunity of going to the rear and joining their friends there, but were handed over bound to the enemy. I say to the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie), if with his position in the House and the influence he exercises in the House and the country, he does not set his influence against making a hero of a man responsible for an action of this character, I can foresee very evil days indeed for this country. I thought it was only fair; this is the last time I shall refer to this.

It would be a good thing for the country if it were the last time.

It is a good thing for the country, I would inform my hon. friend, when the country and this House know the feeling that exists about this act. The hon. member must remember, and he was an hon. member of this House, that when the campaign in connection with German South-West Africa was decided upon, 91 members voted in its favour and 12 against. That is constitutional government; and the officers who were placed in a position of responsibility were supposed to carry out that order of constitutional government. I want to make it plain, when we are accused of racial feeling in connection with this question, that it was not a question of racial feeling. That might justly have been charged against us if we did not raise our voice against other people who were in a similar position, but we felt in the strongest possible manner, and I cannot understand that the hon. members opposite cannot feel it, that a man, placed in a position of sacred trust,, handed over to the enemy men who were placed under his charge whom we were bound to protect. Hon. members have experienced that I have always tried to obliterate the racial question in this country. I do not like to enter into a personal question, but I employ in my service more people of their race than the whole of the Nationalist party opposite, and I have never asked a man, in making an appointment, whether he is an Englishman or a Dutchman. I know them by their name, and I employ more than the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) who is so glib

What information have you got?

I have been to a good many farms. I have been to the Free State for two years discussing the matter in a most friendly manner, that they may employ a little more of these people than they are doing. I have appealed to farmers of the Eastern Province that they may do the same. I have a good deal of experience, and some of it is not of a satisfactory character. I must ask this hon. House to excuse me for trespassing on its time like this, but I would like to have the country know the reasons and causes why I bring forward this question, to blot it out for all time, and to deny that the idea is that the question has been approached from the racial point of view. I do not care to what race men belong, but for a man to be made a hero who has committed an act of that character is not for the future good, the well-being and peace of this country.

The hon. member who has just sat down has re-opened a question which it was hoped had been relegated to oblivion, and he expressed the very deep-seated feelings of his own and, presumably, of the people he represented. I would give the opinion of many others, whose opinion are equally of value to those subscribed to by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). When Maritz was tried he was guilty not of one crime, but of several, so it is alleged. Then I ask, why was he not dealt with accordingly by the Special Court which tried him? If he were guilty of these heinous offences, then it was the duty of the Court to pass sentence accordingly. But there was a general election coming on, and that Court did not pass sentence according to the crimes alleged against him.

What do you mean by that?

I mean that the Court did not pass sentence according to the seriousness of the crime for which he was convicted. During the rising on the Rand, two years ago, when very little quarter was extended to men indicted on the capital charge, we were told that judges had to try their cases because it was impossible to get a just verdict from a jury. These judges, it was asserted, divested themselves of all outside influence.

Is the hon. member entitled to reflect on the judiciary?

The hon. member has not yet reflected; but I must point out to him that he will not be allowed to reflect on acts of judges in the execution of their duty.

I will try to make my meaning clear without transgressing the rules. If the crimes of Maritz were so serious as has been alleged, then it must have been the duty of the Court to pass sentence accordingly. On the other hand, if the Court looked so leniently on his alleged crime, that it thought that the sentence sufficiently met the demands of justice, then it was within the province of the Prime Minister to exercise clemency and release Maritz. I compare this with the case of the nine men who were sentenced in connection with the Rand disturbances and who were released on May 19th. They were released on that date because a Royal visitor was to have landed on these shores. Six of the nine men had received the capital sentence, and their release was quite an act of clemency. But if it was right to buy the popularity of a Royal visitor by the release of these men, by an act of alleged clemency, it was correct, as an act of genuine clemency, to release Maritz. I do not want to do more than to demonstrate to this House that there are two points of view in all these questions, and the best thing now is to forget these things. It is a pity that we, as Britishers, if we committed a wrong as a race in this country—and I have never heard any just Britisher deny this—then the best earnest of our feelings of repentance is to do all we can to make reparation, and to admit freely that we have done wrong and to take the hand that is offered to us and try to do the best for our common future. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) referred to the fact that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was the author of an open letter during the election period. During the time the present Minister of Justice was pursuing his election campaign in the Transvaal, he happened, inadvertently, to be seated on the same platform with one of the released prisoners, and that fact was used as an election stunt by the present Leader of the Opposition. That reflected adversely on Garnsworthy and helped to damn his chances of making his livelihood, and although he is a released man his punishment is practically being-continued as he finds it impossible to obtain employment. There is no fault in popularizing the visit of a Royal personage to this country, but it was absolutely wrong to release Maritz the other day. There you have the other point of view. We have to remember that these things occur because this country had to go through the crucible. Now the time has come to forget those things and do something constructive. At the present time unemployment is the greatest evil we have to deal with. Prior to the elections, one noticed none of the papers controlled by the people associated with the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) would admit that unemployment was as serious as it was claimed to be by the Nationalists and members of the Labour party. As soon as the election was over, however, we find this press took up an unemployment campaign. This is an extract from one of the articles: “There can be no doubt that the public has been startled and perturbed by the figures of unemployment made public by the ‘Rand Daily Mail’ … from 15 to 20 thousand male adults are to-day living in enforced idleness, not to mention numbers of women and juveniles.” That is a paper owned and controlled by the late member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey). At other times when unemployment has been discussed it has been shown that the supporters of the late Government have not a true or sincere outlook on this question. They have not to-day. A prominent educationalist said this week that the poor white may work till he is 50 or 60 and after that the only thing for him to do is to poison himself. This educationalist went on to say that no society is good that leaves a man to starve. Now that is all very well, and I agree with it, but he went on to add that everybody would be pleased to help the unemployed and would do so if assured that the unemployed were not wasters or drunkards. Now that illustrates the sort of attitude taken up by a highly placed and highly educated person. That is where the canker comes in. These people do not understand the unemployed. The question of unemployment has to be dealt with by the Government without assistance from the Opposition of to-day. The prime object is, not merely to find work for our people, but to find them work which ensures a condition of life which is at least equal to that of the European artisan. This may and can be achieved. Relief works may alleviate distress, but they do not get at the root of the evil by establishing industries and enabling our people to market their labour and develop their skill to their own advantage. A great deal of that is due to the monopoly control of industry. Industry in this country to-day is becoming more and more trustified. We have the mineral trust, the food trust and the agricultural trust. If we are going to support the competitive system by legislation in the House then let us have real competition, and protection to prevent our industries being strangled before they are established. I am sorry the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) is not here as I wish to make some remarks in connection with his speech to-day. I should like to say that the very manner in which the hon. member obtained the opportunity to speak when he did, in itself showed that he belongs to a caste which is accustomed to having what it wants and when it wants it. The hon. member has under his control a number of mining ventures on the Rand. In those ventures industrialists have been victimized as much as anywhere in this country. The influence of the officials under this gentleman has been used with outside and independent contractors to prevent men on their black list from getting employment elsewhere. If this question of unemployment is not solved we shall have a state which will be a sixth-rate Jamaica, a state which will not be worth defending nor administering. The time has come for the Government to demonstrate that they are going to depart on entirely new lines, and while not discrediting or distrusting their senior officials, I hope they will see that those officials understand that the new policy has been initiated. There are many avenues in which their energies can be directed. Take the matter of mining. We have large areas that can be opened up and developed. There is on the Far East Rand country which is rich in minerals and potentially rich in agriculture, a country which is waiting for what it has been promised for long and which is at present existing under the disability that those who are farming have no security of tenure owing to the inactivity of the mining monopolies controlling that ground. East of Springs via Nigel and as far as Heidelberg there is a stretch of prospected country On which the reef has been proved by boreholes. It is equal in extent to that from Johannesburg to Brakpan, where over 30 million pounds worth of gold has been produced yearly, and yet, although companies are formed and mining rights secured, they remain dormant. I would urge the Minister of Mines to proceed with the proclamation and opening up of these areas, even, if necessary, by the State. In a country such as this there should be no such thing as a redundant man who is able to work. If our system has any inherent principle which precludes the use of these men, then our ministers have a mandate from the country to see that that principle is eliminated from the system. There is a great deal that can be done in the way of farming. Crown-held areas which are suitable should be taken in hand and our unemployed, who are fitted for such work, should be set to prepare such areas for occupation by clearing, fencing, breaking up and cleaning of ground so that permanent occupation on tenable terms can be brought about. With regard to the Hartebeestpoort Dam, I do not know if the hon. members are aware that the men who got work there, cutting canals, are little more than slaves. They are paid at the rate of 3/6 a day with 3/- for a wife and four children so that the most they can earn is 6/6 a day. A man has to live apart from his wife, and the money for her maintenance is handed over to a magistrate. That is a disgraceful state of affairs and an acknowledgment of failure. With regard to the question of national housing referred to by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) I must say that is a direction in which there is room for expansion and the taking in of a great deal of labour. It is work which can be done without raising a loan and there is nothing to prevent the Government issuing a loan which could be earmarked entirely for building purposes. I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister that in the Transvaal there are existing today railway cottages that were built 33 years ago. They are now in an uninhabitable, condition, many white labourer are housed in these cottages for which they paid £2 odd a month, but recently, owing to retrenchment and economy policy, the rents were raised 18/- a month so that to-day they are paying something like £3 3s. a month. They have long since paid the irredemption. No money has been spent on their maintenance and the people who are in the lower earning strata of society are compelled to pay these exorbitant rents. There is another matter where the minister can help, and it is in a direction that will appeal to people on the Rand, that is in the adequate protection of level crossings. That would find employment for disabled men and others unfit to do manual labour. I would also ask the Minister of Mines to see that the mining regulations are so altered as to make a mining inspection a real inspection and not a social visit. On the mines to-day I do not think there is a single man who gets less than 48 hours’ notice of a proposed inspection. I have worked in a mine for 17 years and I have never known the case of a miner not being notified of the visit of an inspector. This collusion between managers and inspectors leads the men to believe that if they give any evidence it will be followed by retaliation. In Australia an inspector of mines has the right to visit a mine any time and take command of the bells and shaft signals and carry out surprise inspection. With regard to stop orders on the Rand, I would like the Minister to devote particular surveillance to this matter and to see that he does not allow himself to be led to believe that it is not a serious matter. It is a canker in the heart of the Rand to-day and one of its greatest evils—that and mine trading. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) to-day tried to throw a sop to the farmers when he said the mines were trying to do their best to purchase their requirements from local farmers. I would like to warn the hon. members, because when these people talk about solicitude for their welfare they had better look out. We have had lots of it. They do all their buying on a monopoly basis the same as they do all their business, and when you come to sell to them you find they control the market and you will have to sell at their price, I trust that we will have the support of the House in these matters and that they will fructify and materialize in tangible legislation.

I want to bring to the attention of the Government certain matters concerning agriculture which have not been raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) said there was overproduction in the country. His remark is more applicable to the over-production of oratory in this House. There has been a great deal of that, but we heard very little of agricultural interests. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) mentioned the name of the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the release of Gen. Maritz He said that Gen. Smuts, as a South African, would release another great South African. That hon. member, however, should not say too much about South Africanism, as he has been a South African now for only three weeks.

He gave his blood for this country.

He has been naturalized only three weeks.

It is not naturalization that creates a South African.

You are a South African if you were born here or naturalized.

If you were born in a stable that does not mean that you are a horse.

I am not too well acquainted with the law. The only member on the Government benches who spoke about agriculture was the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. De Waal), who tried to be a protectionist and a free trader at the same time.

You speak Dutch and English mixed.

It is the Stellenbosch dialect.

I am a young member, and it is the first time I have spoken in this House; later I shall be more at home. The hon. member for North-East Rand said we have two capitals; I say we have five, seeing that we have five Parliaments. It is the small taxes of the provincial councils which brought the Nationalist party to the head of affairs. In the Cape we require no provincial council. We have our divisional councils, who look after the roads. Have hon. members ever seen our good roads?

Is the road from Kraaifontein in the district of Stellenbosch?

If the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) had read the notice on the board he would not have lost his way, The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) invited members of the Opposition to come over to the Government side, and another hon. member called the members of the Opposition Unionists. That is nothing but throwing dust in the eyes of the people of the country. Unionists will be able to get their own back on those hon. members. The hon. members for Ceres and Piquetberg and other members only spoke during the election of the abolition of the tobacco tax, and many of them went about with a medicine bottle in their pockets to show to the public. I give the assurance, however, that the votes of my opponents in my constituency were bought with promissory notes long before the elections. I would like to go into this matter. The Minister of Finance said that the tax on roll tobacco was reduced by 1 1/2d. and that on smoking tobacco by 1d. I am a member of the society which was established without any assistance, and which mostly handles Turkish tobacco, the kind of tobacco which requires the most careful treatment. The tax on tobacco was 1s. per lb. at first. After a great fuss was made, it was reduced to 6d., and after some more obstruction to 4d. per lb., whereas Turkish tobacco and the best Rustenburg tobacco has still to pay 6d. Now the Government has again reduced the tax on the other kind, but Turkish tobacco remains at 6d. On cigarette tobacco there is a stamp duty of 22 1/2d., plus 6d. excise, making a total of 28 1/2d. per lb. in the Cape Province. The co-operative society to which I belong pays an annual duty of £75,000 to the Government. The farmers, on the other hand, have only received £62,000 per annum. I hope the Government will treat the farmers sympathetically when they make representations on this point. I am glad that at last cold storage accommodation is to be provided. I only hope the fruit exchange will be consulted so that we will not have another difficulty like that of the grain elevator at Durban. We should keep in mind that the farmers in the Western Province are planting millions of trees.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.

The House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.