moved, seconded by Mr. Steytler: That the question of the construction of the section Lindley Road-Senekal, being the first section of the proposed railway through the districts of Senekal, Ficksburg, Ladybmnd and Winburg, as contained in the report of Chief Engineer Wall, dated the 2nd June, 1910, be referred to the Government for consideration.

moved, as an amendment, seconded by Mr. Brain: To add at the end: “such reference to apply to the whole of the said report and more especially also to include the consideration of the following sections: Win-burg-Marquard and Senekal-Marquard.” He pointed out that the Parliament of the Orange River Colony had instructed the then Government of that Colony to survey the Senekal, Winburg and Ficksburg routes. The report there anent was now ready, and it was only fair that the whole of the report should be referred to the Government.

The amendment was agreed to, and the motion as amended was adopted.

moved that the following be laid upon the table: (1) The report or reports of the railway experts on which was based a scheme for a new railway station on the west side of Germiston submitted for the consideration of the public bodies of Germiston in July, 1909; and (2) the later report or reports of the railway experts which have influenced the Minister and the Railway Board in deciding that the new station shall be built on the site of the present station, and not on the west side of Germiston as previously proposed. He said the matter was one of very great importance to the community. The history of it, in brief, was that, in July, 1909, after continuous requests from the district for some station accommodation, the then Railway Board forwarded to the Town Council and other public bodies plans for a new station to be built on the west side of the town, at an estimated cost of £7,000. The significance of having it built on the west side lay in the fact that Germiston, like the Cape Peninsula, is blessed with level crossings. Shortly after the plans were forwarded to the Town Council, the then General Manager of Railways (Sir Thomas Price) congratulated the town on the settlement arrived at, and the extra station accommodation which was to be provided. Nothing more was done until the close of last year, when the Minister for Finance announced at the opening of the Law Courts at Germiston that no definite decision had been come to. A little later on the hon. member stated there was no doubt the site on the west side was by far the best, but that certain vested interests would be affected if the station was located there and not on the site of the present station, and though he said nothing definite, he indicated very clearly that it was more than probable that the new station would be built on the site of the old station. In September last the present Minister of Finance stated in a speech that the station would be built. Now, the people of Germiston wanted to know what had caused the change in the railway decision, and they wanted to know if there had been other reports by experts, or whether the change was due to vested interests at the old site of the station. He thought the Government might lay on the table reports showing what had actually happened.

seconded.

said that the site was not decided until there had been a personal inspection, and what was more, the decision had been unanimous. There was only, one report, and this would be furnished in due course.

said he would like to correct some statements which had been made by the hon. member for Germiston. He was entirely incorrect when he said that there must have been a change in the policy of the old Railway Board of the Central South African Railways. He was also wrong when he said that he (Mr. Hull) was in favour of the site on the west side. Before he went to England in connection with the South Africa Act, he explained that the railway administration intended to erect a station at Germiston on the old site which was the only site that could be used. So, far as the west side was concerned, a few shopkeepers there asked that a siding should he placed there; but so far as the erection of a railway station was concerned, it had railways been understood, and it was clearly stated in the presence of the hon. member Mr. Chaplin) that both the Governments —the Orange Free State and the Transvaal —(had it in mind that the new station should be erected on the old site. While he was in England last year he became aware that efforts were being made to get the station erected on a new site in the heart of the mines. After his return to South Africa he found that a great agitation had sprung up for the erection of the station on the new site. This agitation was caused by the shopkeepers around the place. He had no interest in the matter either way, and he had asked the Railway Board to inquire into the question, and to report. They reported to the effect that it was desirable that the old site should be retained. He was so anxious not to act precipitately in such a matter that he asked the Rail way Board to let the matter stand over until the new Administrator took office. The present Commissioner and his Board subsequently investigated the matter, and after going fully into the question came to the definite conclusion that the proper site for the station was the old site. That was the simple narrative of the history of the affair, and the facts were not as had been stated.

said they had it on record that in July, 1909, the Germiston Chamber of Commerce was informed by Sir Thomas Price that the decision of the Railway Board was that the new station should be built on the Triangle One of the most difficult questions to decide from a railway point of view was the handling of the traffic at Germiston. This matter involved a large expenditure of public money, and he thought the House should have before it the report of the Technical Engineer who advised the Railway Board and guided them in their decision. The House should have all the facts before it to show that this money w.as being spent to the best advantage, and on the best technical advice.

said that the Minister of Finance’s recollection of what had taken place was not as accurate, in his opinion, as his own recollection. The hon. member quoted from a newspaper report of the speech made by the chairman of the Germiston Chamber of Commerce, who had said that he had been told by Sir Thos. Price that the work of building the station was to be started at once, and that they were to be congratulated on getting such a fine station. It was the report on which the plans of that were drawn up which he (the hon. member) wished laid on the table of the House. Again, at an interview on January 17, Mr. Hull had said that there was no question of the superiority of the Triangle site for the Station; but the matter must be decided on the advice of these technical advisers. The point which he wished to make was this that surely it was an extraordinary thing that the railway authorities had gone so far as to propose that station without having the complete plans; and the General Manager congratulating them on going to get the new station unless there had been a proper report of the railway experts. What he wanted to see laid on the table of the House was the report, or reports, on which had been based the scheme for the station, which had been submitted to the Town dark of Germiston in July, and the report, or reports, which had subsequently influenced the Railway Commissioners of the Board in deciding to put the station at another place.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the report be adopted. Mr. C. J. KRIGE (Caledon) seconded. Mr. J. W. JAGGER. (Cape Town, Central) said that he would like to draw attention to the third section of the report, which defined what “absence” of an hon. member was. An hon. member might be a member of two committees, which was very frequently the case, and if he attended the one he could not attend the other. What was to be done in a case of that kind:? He thought it would be better to leave that out altogether, and delete all the words after the word “member.” No reference would be made to a committee in that case.

If the hon. member will allow me—but what it really means is that a member must either be in the House or in some committee.

It’s not clear.

It is not so here. What it really means is that a member must have served in the House or in committee. I would suggest that the rule be altered in that direction so as to read that absent shall mean when any member has not been present, either in the House or in some committee of which he is a member. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. H. SCHOEMAN (Oudtshoorn) seconded.

accepted this.

I understand that that was the intention— that an hon. member is deemed to be present if he attends either the House or a committee of which he is a member. The Government will accept that amendment.

moved that the whole of sub-section 3 be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the following: A member shall not be deemed to have been absent on any day during which he shall have been present at a meeting of the House, or of any committee of which the is a member, or if his absence is due to his illness, or the subpoena of a competent, Court.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

amendment dropped.

asked if the whole of the £400 would be paid to members on March 31 next. If so, he would like to move an amendment, became it was clear, from the Act of Union, that members should not be paid £400 for less than 12 months’ service. Otherwise, they would have a repetition of the payment of £300 to the members of the late Transvaal Parliament. (Cheers.)

said the committee’s recommendation was in conflict with section 96 of the South Africa Act, which said that a year was to be recognised from the date on which a member took his seat.

These rules have been before the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, which drafted them in accordance with the terms Of the South Africa Act.

agreed with what had fallen from the hon. member apposite, and he could not do better than refer to the provision he made in the Estimates. These he framed on the basis that every member should be paid at the rate of £400 from the time he took his seat, which was on October 31. That was strictly in accordance with the South Africa Act. When he saw the recommendation of the Committee, it struck him also that it was contrary to the South Africa Act, but Parliament was supreme. (Cries of “No.”)

I would suggest that the matter be referred back—(cheers)—to the committee for its consideration. It may be that the wording is in accordance with the Act for future years, but it may not be in accordance with the Act for the first financial year.

said there was another provision in the South Africa Act, which said that Parliament should meet at least once in every 12 months. It was intended that the balance should be paid at the end of the 12 months.

said he wished to point out another danger if the House accepted these recommendations. (Supposing the House was in session for seven months, and members received during these seven months £400, and then an extraordinary session of Parliament was called, and certain members were absent, say, for 10, 20, or 30 days, how would the Treasurer obtain from those members the fine of £3 a day.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF EDUCATION, seconded by Mr. SCHOEMAN, the report was referred back to the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders for further inquiry and report,

resumed the debate on the motion for Committee of Supply on the Estimates for the 10 months ending March 31st, 1911. He said that his hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Hull) on Monday last, in laying before the House his financial statement, made a sort of apology lest he wearied the House with figures; but he (Mr. Walton) thought that every member of the House was prepared to do his duty in dealing with such a dull subject as finance at this early period in the history of the Union of South Africa. (Cheers.) He thought the Hon. the Minister of Finance would find that he need not apologise to the members of that Parliament when he laid before them a statement of the public finances of the country, and when he explained at greater length, at some future time, what his intentions were in regard to expenditure, and what his financial policy was. His hon. friend had said that it was impossible, at the present time, to submit those statements to exhaustive examination. Why? Because they could not examine exhaustively statements which they had not got. This was the time for the Minister of the Interior to tell them of his financial policy, because they were starting Union. The position was altogether exceptional. His hon. friend had been spending money for several months without the authority of Parliament, but had had constitutional authority. But Ministers were responsible to this House for the expenditure. They were covered by the authority the Act of Union had given them, but he regretted that Ministers should not have taken the earliest opportunity of taking the House into their confidence in regard to their expenditure. (Opposition cheers.) He had had experience of Parliament, and he must say that he had never known statements so bald as those which his hon. friend had given them from time to time. When Parliament met, no financial statements were laid before the House. After Parliament had been in session for some days, and after questions had been asked, dribs and drabs began to appear in the “Government Gazette.” Now he believed that the hon. member would have given them the figures if he had been able to do so. They were not in a position to say why they were not laid before them, but it certainly did not reflect credit upon the administration of the Treasury that the Minister of Finance was not able to tell the House when it met what public money had then been expended. Union had been in existence for five months, and the Government could not tell the members of Parliament what the expenditure was when Parliament opened. They had been spending money, but the Minister of Finance could not tell him how much had been spent, and upon what the money had been expended. He hoped that that state of affairs would never occur again, because the fact that this was the first Parliament of the Union made it all the more necessary that they should make a fair and clear start. His friend should have taken care that whenever Parliament met, the rules found and followed in all Parliaments should have been followed here, because the whole structure of the administration depended upon its finance. It depended upon the control of the finance; it depended upon the control exercised by this House upon the expenditure of the Government; it defended upon whether this House took care the Government was frugal and not extravagant in its expenditure, because they knew if they had extravagance in the public expenditure, they were going to increase the taxation on the people, and the burden laid upon them, and it was in the House that they had the power of control. He bad alluded to that before, but thought it necessary to do so again. Parliament must control finance. That was the first duty of Parliament. In the old days, what did they find? It was the Crown calling Parliament together, and asking Parliament for money, and the people refusing to give it until their grievances had been redressed. The representatives of the people held the purse-strings, and they refused to loosen them until they were sure their grievances had been redressed, and they had examined the accounts; and when they had done that, they agreed to allow the expenditure to go on. That was Parliament’s first duty. It was not here for legislation. Legislation was one of its least duties, and, perhaps, the less legislation they had, the better would it be. (Hear, hear.) With whose money were they dealing? The hon. member was not dealing with his own money. (Hear, hear.) It was the money of the public, and hon. members were there as the representatives of the public to protect the public interests, to see that the public money, which was taken out of the pockets of the public, was not improperly spent. (Hear, hear.) He just wanted to clear the ground before they came to the actual estimates of revenue and expenditure. He wanted to point out that in addition to what he had already said, there was absolutely no control and audit of the expenditure from May 31st last. Under the Act of Union the Government was empowered to appoint a Controller and Auditor-General, and instruct him in his duties. He was surprised when he saw those instructions. He had never before seen such instructions given to an official to do such duties, because the Controller and Auditor-General was not an officer of the Government, but an officer of the House. He was responsible to the House, to see that the Government did not go outside the regulations of expenditure laid down by Parliament. He had to confess that he was considerably astonished when he read the instructions given to the Auditor-General, and which specially prohibited him from controlling the expenditure of the Government in any sense whatever. He was allowed to see that an official here and there stole nothing, and to see that there was no speculation in any Government office, but as to the control of expenditure and keeping the Government in hand, he had no power at all. So there was no representative of this Parliament controlling the finances at all. Considering cue extraordinary circumstances it was the duty of this Government to give that official the fullest powers Parliament would have given him. (Hear, hear.) They had a discussion the other day on the control of the Provincial Councils and the appointment of a Commission which was to start the Provincial Councils; at any rate, as far as money was concerned, and the Minister for Finance gave certain reasons for net having yet appointed that Commission. Well, his reasons would have applied very well as an argument for not having the appointment of such a Commission at all; in fact, for not having the Provincial Councils at work at all. But the fact remained that that Commission had not yet been appointed; the Provincial Councils were still hung up, and they had not before them any definite figures or any definite principle for the granting of money to the Provincial Councils by this House. Of course, Parliament must decide what money the Provincial Councils should have, and what money they would spend. How were they to decide? As the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) said the other day, if they left things as they were, what was going to happen? Every Provincial Council was going to demand money, and more money, and every member of the House was going to ask for more and more money for his particular Province. And they had no principle. The Government had no principle on which it could allow the money to them. That was not fixed, and that was what this Commission must fix— to lay down, if possible, the general principles on which the public money should be allocated by this House for Provincial Councils. The Commission had not been appointed, and the Provincial Councils would be hung up until it was. Here they had the whole of those estimates for Provincial Councils for the first time, and they got some sort of details. They had no means of testing them and inquiring whether that expenditure was justified or not, and never would have it until the Commission had got to work, investigated the affairs of each Province, and given the House some idea as to how much it should give to each Province in order to carry on its work. He regretted that his hon. friend did not include those estimates in the estimates he was going to submit to the Select Committee. He was sorry, because he thought all their estimates should be submitted for a thorough investigation, and in this case it was more necessary than at any other time. The object in sending the Estimates to a Select Committee was perfectly clear. They did not want to remove the rights of Parliament, but they wanted to appoint a committee to do the work Parliament could not and never had done. He exceedingly regretted that they were not going to have these Estimates referred to such a committee, but it was some consolation to know that in future an investigation of that sort was to take place. His point in this case was that they were dealing with the first Estimates of the Union, and which would to a great extent lay down the basis of the expenditure for this country, and they should not be compelled to allow those accounts to go through in what he had to call a slipshod manner. Continuing, he said he would like to bring a few points to the notice of the Government. It was true, as the Minister had said, that July would be awkward to end the financial year when Parliament met in October. But if July was objectionable, March was only less objectionable. And his hon. friend had said something about the time that the Government would be independent of Parliament.

I didn’t say that.

Independent of Parliament.

No, no.

said that as things stood Parliament could meet and pass a vote of censure, and the Government could laugh. They could say that they had the money to carry on, and Parliament could do what it liked. Parliament would lose its power by losing control of the finances, and if they altered the day they would only bring it three months nearer. His hon. friend had said that he objected to votes on account. He (Mr. Walton) did not see anything objectionable in the practice. It was a sound principle, and one that was carried out in England. Estimates were not finished till months had passed; and votes on account only showed that Government had the confidence of Parliament. But if they had five months to run before the end of the financial year they would not be going on sound lines. If they wanted to follow the English practice of calling Parliament together on March 31, they should go further, and still following that practice, and call Parliament together in February. There was one point in the speech of his friend upon which he would like an explanation. ’They wished to know the financial position on May 31, and none of their statements showed that. He (Mr. Walton) made sure that this was one of the points on which his hon. friend would touch—what cash he actually took in hand. The Treasurer told them that there was a general surplus on May 31 of £1,551,000, and then he told them that there was extraordinary expenditure in the Transvaal of £1,117,000, and in the Free State of £143,000, but he did not say what had become of the balance. He did not say what had become of this balance. He did not account for the balance.

What balance?

The balance my hon. friend has not accounted for. He had told them that this money had been spent, but he had not told the House what had become of the balance. Now, coming to the Estimates of expenditure and revenue, he regretted that the Minister of Finance had given the House this extraordinary comparison for ten months. The comparison could only mislead members. The Minister had asked them not to draw any conclusion from those comparisons, and he (Mr. Walton) had been wondering why he gave them to the House. They were not of the slightest guide to the House, and were of no earthly use. The Minister had apologised—and the apology was needed—for the lack of detail. He had told the House that the Estimates were built very much on the English plan. Well, he (Mr. Walton) could only tell the Minister that if Estimates of that sort were laid before the House of Commons they would be referred back to the Government. They would never be accepted, because they left too much to the imagination—and imagination was one of the last things that they wanted in connection with finance. Proceeding, Mr. Walton said he regretted that the economies which had been looked for under Union had not been effected. The country would be disappointed to find that, far from the Government having effected the economies which it had been indicated would take place under Union, and which would lead to a reduction of taxation, there had been instead an increase of expenditure. The Minister of Finance had told the House of economies which would be introduced in the future. Well, he (Mr. Walton) could tell the Minister that once he had started expenditure on a certain scale there was nothing in the world harder than to bring it down. The Minister bad started his expenditure on the higher scale, and he would find it difficult to bring about a reduction. He would find the whole feeling of Parliament against him in any reduction he tried to bring about. Treasurers of the Cape had had a very bitter experience of that in the Cape Parliament during the last six or seven years. They knew the extreme difficulty of getting Parliament to bring about economies, and to reduce the scale of expenditure. Then it would be all the more difficult to effect economies unless they started at the fountain head. If they were going to bring expenditure down they must begin from the top. In this connection he would have liked to hear from the Minister of Finance some explanation of the reasons which guided the Government in fixing such high salaries for Ministers. (Opposition cheers.)

Transvaal lines.

said he alluded to the subject with a great deal of regret, because it was a painful one; but it was the duty of the House to discuss it, and he thought the House was entitled to some explanation as to the reasons which guided the Government in coming to a decision to fix the salaries at a figure which to many hon. members seemed extraordinarily excessive. These were the highest salaries in the world, outside the British Empire. Why should they pay a Minister here two or three times as much as a high German official, who had to administer an important department for a people of sixty millions? He should like to hear a justification of this. In the Cape Colony Ministers all thought themselves amply remunerated for their abilities and time by a payment of £1,500 a year, without a house and without allowances, and he never heard any suggestion from any Minister that he was under-paid.

It was too high.

That is possible, but it was a good deal lower than this is. If in that case it was too high, what is the excuse for doubling the pay?

Quality.

The Minister seems to treat the matter entirely as a joke, and I suppose nothing we can say in the House will affect the position. Proceeding, he said it was not a personal matter. They were dealing with public money. He knew of no reason whatever why these gentlemen should suddenly have their salaries advanced from £1,500 to £3,000, with sundry allowances. He thought it was a mistake.

And what about members of Parliament?

Well, I have a note about members of Parliament, and I think there is a great deal in that, and I should be quite prepared to support my hon. friend in a self-denying proposition to cut it down. Proceeding, he said he thought the Union had made a wrong start in this matter of Minister’s salaries. It was extravagance at the fountain-head. They could not expect the men in the lower grades to accept a position which required economy and constant self-denial while this sort of thing was going on at the top. There were certain towns which had a certain amount of prosperity, but they had many areas where there were poor people, who had just the bare necessities of life, and who were constantly struggling to make ends meet. Life was a hard struggle for these people, and they (the Government) had no right to go spending money as they were doing unless they had the most ample justification for it. (Hear, hear.) The Administrators of the different Provinces were also being paid too much, he thought, and he had understood from the report of the National Convention that these gentlemen were to be officials of the Government, to administer the affairs of the Province; but that they would be as much under the Government as any other official. The payments were extremely liberal to these individuals, but the Minister should see that they did their work—(laughter)—as to supplying the House with estimates of expenditure; and he would like to know why these Provincial Estimates had been withheld until that morning. The difference between the Estimates and the amount actually paid or actually due by the Cape was £350,000, for ten months’ interest on the £30,000,000 came to £875,000, so that there was a difference there of £350,000, so that the actual expenditure for the ten months and the cost of running the Union would be £14,100,000. or £350,000 more than the figures given by the Treasurer. They might be disappointed about revenue, but they generally knew that they were going to spend all they had estimated for, and possibly a little more. In that matter there was a greater necessity for economy, because the demands of the Provincial Councils would grow year by year, and the demand of the Government would increase year by year; and there was an insistent demand on the Government for increased expenditure. Generally, the principle he would like to see adopted in the country—a sound principle—was that when they were dealing with administration— the bread-and-cheese expenditure—the Government should be as saving and as economical as possible; but when they were dealing with the development of the country they might, with prudence, let themselves go. (Hear, hear.) He should have liked to hear something from the Minister of Finance about the Cape Land Bank, which had been approved of by the Cape Parliament five years ago, but which, owing to the political calamity which had then befallen the Government—(Laughter) —and the financial position of the country, had never actually been put into operation. The principle was in force in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and had been of great benefit to the farmers there, who were enabled to borrow sums of money at low rates of interest. He understood that the working of these Land Banks had been very satisfactory. In the Cape they had not been so fortunate, and their farmers had to pay high rates of interest when they borrowed money—from 15 to 50 per cent. sometimes. Under the Act the farmers would pay only 6 per cent., part of which would go in the repayment of that loan. He was very sorry that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) had not seen fit to introduce it into the Cape Province, where they had the Act already.

And the money?

My hon. friend has the money. Continuing, he said that the earlier the Act was put into force the better it would be for the development of the country, because one could not have the country developed well and as it should be, if the farmers had to pay these enormous sums as interest. Dealing with the Public Service Commission, which was, he said, supposed to be dealing with appointments in the Civil Service, he did not think a report had not been issued by it; yet appointments had been going on wholesale. Some of the appointments, of course, had been necessary, hut there had been some disappointment felt in connection with the appointment of that Commission. Even that Commission had not reported. New appointments were made, and if they were passed and the salaries were voted the pay of the men concerned was fixed by law. He was sorry they had not heard more about development, which was a pet subject of the Prime Minister’s. They had hoped that something would be done Lot only for agricultural and mining development, but for other branches of industrial development. The decrease in the imports of butter by £168,000 was very encouraging, because it showed the value of the work done four or five years ago in this colony by the establishment of the cooperative principle. (Opposition cheers.) It had been proved that the co-operative principle had been successful, as it had been in Australia. It proved that the shallow critics who attacked the then Government for initiating that principle here was wrong.

The Cooperative Societies all went insolvent.

My hon. friend is one of the critics to whom I alluded, who did not take the trouble to examine into the matter. (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said he had hoped that the Minister of Finance would have told them what the Government intended to do with regard to that Portfolio of Industries and Commerce. (Opposition laughter and cheers.) He did not want to say that Government was dangling that appointment before the eyes of certain hon. members with a view to obtain their support, but it would be more dignified to make the appointment now or else do away with the portfolio. (Hear, hear.) Although, continued the hon. member, it was impossible to check the main Estimates with previous Estimates, they could do so with regard to the Customs. The Minister of Finance in order to arrive at the Customs revenue for the ten months had doubled those for the five months for which the figures were available. The Minister thought the Customs improvement was going to continue. He would like the hon. member (Mr. Hull) to remember that the trade improvement was due to the fact that we were recovering from a long period of depression. We had had heavy droughts and trade depression, but during the last year there had been a great improvement.

Three years of good government in the Transvaal and the Cape.

said the farmers had (been doing more, and the diamond mines had been restarted, while in the Transvaal there had been a great improvement which, unfortunately, was not going to continue. All these causes had led to increased imports, for which somebody had to pay, and they had to consider whether their increased production would amount to the value of the increased imports. Of the increase of four millions in exports diamonds accounted for £2,300,000, and he wished to point out that diamonds were very deceptive, and the Treasurer could not put their total value against imports and say that he had got a balance. The Treasurer had also referred to the increase in agricultural produce, but he had overlooked one fact, and that was that the increase was due not so much to an increase in production as to improved market prices. They had an increase in the value of feathers, whereas they had a decreased quantity. Again, the increase in the average price of wool during the last ten months was a penny per lb. compared with the previous ten months. There had also been a decrease in the quantity. There had also been increases in the value of mohair hides, skins, and goatskins. He mentioned these facts, because he was not at all sure that the Treasurer had not taken too optimistic a view of the matter. He would also like to refer to the banking returns, which gave one a fair idea of the state of the country. He thought his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) would find that there was nothing in these banking returns to point to any great improvement. They were perfectly sound and good, but he did not think they pointed to anything like a great improvement. They certainly did not justify the Minister of Finance’s optimistic view. Proceeding, Mr. Walton said that they had no railway position put before them, and he regretted that the Minister of Finance did not include the railway finances in his general financial statement. He wished to point out that there had been no effort, made to bring about uniformity in the matter of taxation in South Africa. Why should a man who wanted to buy a farm in the Cape Colony have to pay 4 per cent., when a man in the Transvaal had to pay only 1¼ per cent.? Where was the justice? Granted it was upon the old system, why was some effort not made to make that taxation even?

Time.

Time! Why my hon. friend has had five months. When is it going to be done, if not now? Then with regard to the Excise, what his hon. friend intended to do with it he did not know. They had at present not less than four Excises in the Cape. They had Union, and they had removed the barriers between the various Provinces. How on earth were they going to check the removal of liquors from one Province to another, unless they had the old system of Custom-houses. They had an Excise on brandy in the Cape of.3s., and in the Transvaal it was 9s. What was to prevent a man from carrying brandy from the Cape into the Transvaal? He had been told that there was some intention of making a man declare, when he paid the Excise, where he intended to move his stuff to, but suppose he made a declaration that he was going to take it to Mafeking or Vryburg, and, having got it there, trotted it across the border. How were they going to stop that? So in one country they were going to have these varieties of taxation. Take the case of imported, liquor. They had an extra tax of 12s. in the Cape, but in the Free State that tax did not exist. What was to prevent a man from bringing liquor from the Free State into the Cape? If they were going to stop it, it meant that they were going to maintain the barriers between the Free State and the Cape. By this system of leaving the Excise alone, they were going to lose revenue, and if they were going to have protection they would have to retain the system of barriers, just as they had been before Union. Then they got no indication as regarded the cigarette tax, the chemists’ tax, School Board rates, and Divisional Councils—

The native tax in the Transvaal.

That is another point. My hon. friend makes no effort to solve that. He does not tell us in what direction he intends to move. Proceeding, he asked what about licences? He had not brought up the question of the licences paid by barristers in the Transvaal. The general result, as far as one can judge from the details given was, in the case of the estimates of expenditure, rather disappointing. As regarded the estimates of the revenue, he was afraid they were optimistic. The deficit was to be met by taking the railway profits, the imposition of the diamond tax, and other taxation mentioned by the Minister for Finance. He could not help feeling amused by the proposals, because two or three months ago they were told by the Prime Minister that the Minister for Finance was so engaged in Pretoria, with his head wrapped in wet towels, solving the question of finance, that he could not even come down to Parliament. In view of that, everybody had to be very careful. Well, the time had expired, the operation came on, and they were given this solution. He would put it to the Minister for Finance that there was really nothing much in his solution. He (Mr. Hull) told them time after time that he had solved the difficulty, and had equalised revenue and expenditure. He had, and snaffled the railway surplus, and reimposed the taxation before in force. There did not seem to be any originality in that, and the real difficulty he did not seem to have touched. With regard to their public debt, he did not think anybody could say the amount was unreasonable, but he was sorry, in dealing with it, he did not divide the reproductive debt and non-reproductive debt. He (Mr. Hull) did not say how much was actually earning its own interest. Non-reproductive debt was dead debt. It did not earn its own interest, but the greater part of their debt earned its own interest, the railway, for instance, had not only paid for its own interest, but for the whole interest of the debt of the Union. The Minister for Finance had taken £1,220,000 from the railways. He did not make any other effort to say what the assets were in the Provinces what assets were reproductive, and what non-reproductive. He should let the people understand what they had to pay interest on—dead debt and debt that yielded its interest. The Minister for Finance said he had balances of loan funds amounting to £447,000, and he was going to the money market to fund his floating debt, and was therefore going to try and get through a Loan of considerable magnitude. He would find it somewhat difficult. The £447,000 would not carry him very far with the railways he was constructing, and the police and public buildings he was erecting. He (Mr. Walton) had to thank the House for listening so attentively to his dissertation on rather a dull subject. He had done his best to go through his hon. friend’s figures, and without any criticism that might be called carping. He hoped they would remember in that House that the first interest was to Watch with the utmost care the expenditure; to control it and check it, and it was the duty on every member of the House to remember that he had an individual responsibility to see that money was not extravagantly spent, to see that they were frugal in their expenditure, to see that they were careful and modest, and to remember that any carelessness, and looseness, any easy-going with regard to that expenditure was inevitably going to bring trouble. ((Applause.)

who was received with cheers, said that he would make no apology for interfering in the debate at the present time. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth had said this was an occasion of the greatest importance. This occasion was what his hon. friend for Pretoria East had boon trying to get—a fresh start. They knew how anxious he had been about a fresh start well, this was the fresh start. (Laughter.) It therefore behoved everyone sent there to look after the interests of the taxpayer to see that this new start was made on right and sound lines. That was the first duty of the representatives sent to that Parliament. Now, he could not give the Treasurer much sympathy. He supposed hardly had a Treasurer got up to unfold a tale of greater financial booms. (Hear, hear.) Whether that smacked of the locality where chairmen expounded at company meetings and always prefaced something good by a similar plea to that of the Treasurer, he did not know. (Laughter.) He did not sympathise with the Treasurer at all; he thought he was in a most enviable position. He might say when he was a Treasurer he stood up under very different circumstances, and he got very little sympathy. The sympathy ought rather to go out to members of the House who had been sent down there to do the best they could to unravel figures put before them. They were asked to make bricks without straw—always a difficult task. It was a difficult task for them without the accounts to get what they wanted, and so they had to corkscrew what they could out of the accounts. No, the sympathy ought to go to members of that House. The Treasurer was a man who had made a lot of little traps, and he laughed when people walked into their Now these Estimates which were before him were full of little traps. The first little trap was the number of officials employed. The comparison was made up by the Minister himself, and laid on the table of the House. They, innocent fellows, thought it means something; but they had found it meant nothing at all. They attempted to compare the figures in the departments, and when they tried to base an argument on these figures they were told that they had got hold of the wrong figures altogether. That was one of the little traps. (Laughter.) Then there was the point of the balance with which Union was started. Now the Treasurer had had five months, and he had had a considerable staff of the ablest men in the country. Here five months after he met Parliament and referred vaguely to the matter, and said that in a few weeks they would have his opening balance. They had to go into the figures in ignorance of all except what little the Treasurer had told them. It was a difficult position, and he thought that they deserved the sympathy of the Treasurer. And when they fell the Treasurer laughed, because it was one of his little traps. There was another trap of considerable magnitude—a pitfall. He might even call it an elephant pitfall. (Laughter.) It was a fact that there was an enormous balance of money belonging to the Union hidden away in the railway, which stood, according to the accounts, furnished by the Railway Board, at £2,500,000. They were told it was earmarked. But they wanted some account of it. Whether it was earmarked or not, it was part of the balance of the Union, and surely they had a right to be told something about it. He must say, at first he felt rather stupid, because he read in all the newspapers that the Treasurer’s statement had been clear and lucid. He had found it difficult to disentangle the figures of the Treasurer. He ran the gamut on the revenue balances, and then loan balances, and then these were amalgamated, and then separated, so that it was difficult for a plain, somewhat dull man, to determine the amount of money they had got, and he must honestly confess that he did not, and he did not think the (House did not know how much the Treasurer had got in his pocket. He would try and tell them. He gave them an interesting account—it was difficult to get what it was by following the published figures, but they would pass that by—of the revenue balances of the four colonies. They came out altogether to £2,181,000, he believed, including a most extraordinary thing, which he rather fancied appeared in two places, and that was the accruals upon the railway account, which were brought up in the revenue balances belonging to the different colonies—accruals from the Gape and Natal railways. Now, he would like to know whether those accruals did not, in the ordinary fashion, also figure in the railway revenue collected for the four months, because that was the ordinary way in which railway revenue was treated. It was carried to the account of the railway receipts. If that were so, this sum ought not to appear in the revenue balances. He did not think they did appear in the revenue balances, and be would tell them why later on Then there were £2,630,000 lean balances taken over, making altogether £4,460,000. There was deducted from that the money spent during the four months, the £1,650,000 of Treasury bills paid off, and the £533,000) for loan services, making £2,117,000. Deducting that from the £4,460,000, they got £2,353,000, and not £447,000, and he would like to know what the Treasurer had done with the other sum, the little sum of the revenue balances, which he had not accounted for, and which was in his pocket at the present time.

We hope so.

Oh, it is in his pocket quite safe, as I will show you by-and-bye. Continuing, he said that the Minister of Finance told them it was quite true that there was this large revenue surplus, but that it had been earmarked in the Transvaal for certain things, and when some incautious person challenged the Minister about the extraordinary variation between the amounts for public works, buildings, and so on in the two Provinces, his answer was: “Oh, these things are really re-votes; they come out of the surplus.” One had no answer to that, of course, but he (Mr. Merriman) wanted to know if they came out of the surplus, why they were put on the Estimates against revenue for the present year. Why did they diminish their revenue and their resources for the present year by putting on something which it was said was earmarked as coming out of the balances in the Exchequer? He thought Parliament was entitled to a clear account of what were the commitments against the loan account. They, heard in the newspapers—and it must therefore be true—(a laugh)—of the vast commitments in Pretoria for public buildings, but what they were, and why some of the commitments should appear on the Estimates to be charged against the revenue of these 10 months, were things upon which the House would require a little explanation. He (Mr. Merriman) had alluded to the extraordinary fact that there should be an enormous sum of money removed from the purview and the control of Parliament, and not thought even necessary to be mentioned by the Minister of Finance when making his financial statement. They would find in the report of the Railway Commission that they had, at the beginning of the year, no less a sum than £50,000 cash, and £2,500,000 on fixed deposit—or, altogether, £2,550,000 in their possession. Whether that sum had been diminished or added to since he did not know, but he did want to point out, and to emphasise most strongly, the unconstitutional position they were in when they had an undertaking which earned half of their revenue, and for which, if anything went wrong—and things had gone wrong with their railways before now —they would have to fall back upon the general taxpayer It was wrong that they should have a huge sum like that removed from the purview and the control of that House. It was wrong, he ventured to say it was unconstitutional, and it was a matter to which the House should address itself at the earliest possible moment. He held that every action and every deed of the Railway Board should be subjected to the keenest scrutiny, and that the Minister should have entire control over the financial part. It was never intended for one moment by the South Africa Act that that Board should have the power of investing huge sums of money, and that the whole financial control should be taken out of the hands of the Minister. The idea was that it should be a Managing Board—that it should confine itself to the management of the railways, but that the financial control should be in the hands of the Minister. He thought it was a subject which should have the strongest attention, of the Government, because if they were going to allow a practically uncontrolled body to administer gigantic funds like that, all he could say was that they were neglecting their duty to the taxpayers of the country. Few people who were in the House had an idea that there was £2,500,000 in the hands of that Board put away in all sorts of odd pockets. Read the accounts and try to unravel them—one found after another— all there for a purpose; but the effect was to conceal from the eyes of the owners of the railway—the taxpayers of the country— what became of their money. When they talked of borrowing money to construct railways with, they had that huge sum deposited in this bag or that bag. There were serious things which required looking into. According to his reading of the finances of the country the Treasurer would have in his bag, although he had allowed it to remain in the bag of the Railway Board, two sums, which, added together, amounted to £4,800,000, or, roughly speaking, five millions of money. Now, in those circumstances he thought that they were justified in contrasting very narrowly indeed that financial proposal, and he must say that in that respect he had sympathy with his hon. friends who advocated equalisation of taxation, but he did not agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Walton), and he considered it was absolutely impossible to suppose that the Government which had hardly had time in which to turn round should try to equalise taxation all over the Union; but in a certain direction he did think it was possible without much expenditure of time to do something with the large balance in the hands of the Treasurer, and he thought it was only fair that it should be done. He must say, and he hoped that the Treasurer would not take it amiss, that in the account of that money in the bag there had been an absence of lucidity on the part of the hon. gentleman; and knowing the powers of lucidity of the hon. gentleman, he thought he must have done it intentionally. (Laughter.) The Treasurer had said that he would allocate it to Public Works as if he had said, “and all that sort of thing you know.” (Laughter.) They could not have that sort of thing in the House. Just before he came on to revenue, he would like to say a word or two about the debt. He was in accord with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Walton) in this: that no notice had been taken of a large set-off they had against their debt. They had a set-off in the Sinking Fund of £5,300,000, which the Treasurer had mentioned. Then they had liquid assets, which a bank or an insurance company would be glad to pay cash for they kept the money locked up. Presumably they were first-class securities; and in Natal and the Orange Free State they had similar sums; and he had not been able to follow what were the results of the repatriation, and the land settlement accounts in the Transvaal. They bore very tremendously upon their financial position. He would not hazard what the exact result was; but he thought they were assets which, added together, came to about 12 millions, which might be deducted from the debt which his hon. friend had mentioned. He thought it was satisfactory to know that a large portion of the Cape debt was held in that Province, which was a great thing, because he was a great advocate of internal loans. The strength of France lay in this: that to-day its debt was held by French peasants, and a good thing is would be for this country if they recognised that; and when he saw foolish men giving as much as £800 per morgen for ground, it was, he thought, the height of folly, and it would be better for them to take their money out of their stockings and put it into some of their loans, and so support the Government of the country. He hoped that some day or other the South African Boer, whether English or Dutch, would be to this country in supporting its finances very much what the French peasants were to France. It would be a good day for everybody concerned. When his hon. friend had talked about consolidating the debt, he did not think he (Mr. Hull) quite grasped the position. He had the figures there to show what amount they peld in relative stocks. Now the more highly-priced stocks were those which had been running for a time, and they could no more touch them than they could consolidate the loans of England. It was the same thing with their 4 per cent, stocks. It would be an advantage if they could turn them into per cents., and he supposed they could, but they were borrowed from a certain currency and a certain portion fell due within the next seven years—seven millions, as far as he recollected. These, of course, the Treasurer would be able to refloat, but if they once fell into the hands of those amiable gentlemen in London who were willing to help them—for a consideration— (laughter)—they would come out at the thin end of the horn. His friend, Sir Gordon Sprigg, had once some years ago gone into a famous conversion scheme, but they had increased the capital, and the interest they had to pay. That was not a kind of conversion to which they should unite themselves. If they invited those gentlemen, they were always willing to assist them— at a price. (Laughter.) But the Treasurer could not do that without an Act of Parliament, so that they would have plenty of time to discuss it. There was a subject of extreme delicacy, and he thought the Treasurer had shown so great a delicacy that it had not been touched upon at all. (Laughter.) We were great sinners in that respect, and Natal was also to a certain extent, but it never funded its debit balances. He hoped these debit balances would not be funded, but would be paid off gradually. (Hear, hear.) It was rather remarkable that if we took the financial results of the Cape from 1870 to the present time and set surpluses against deficits we came out quite level; in fact, we had paid off more than a million. We had put all our surpluses into railways, and had paid off debt and so forth; if we had borrowed money with which to do that we would have been perfectly square, but we did not know it. The hon. member then called attention to the unique position the Cape Colony occupied when it entered Union. All the other colonies exercised their borrowing powers and rights, although there had been some talk in the Convention about what they were going to do in this matter, but after charging other people with discussing what had transpired in the Convention he was not going to talk about it that afternoon. (Laughter.) The other colonies—rich, some of them bursting with cash—(laughter)—raised loans and spent the money as hard as they could. (Cheers.) On the other hand, the Cape—he really must assume a virtue here—(laughter)— did not borrow money. He was pressed to raise a loan, and could have done so on most highly advantageous terms, because we had worked our 3½ per cent, stock up to the top of all other Colonial stocks. Our stock was even higher than Canada’s, so it was possible for him to raise a loan on favourable terms. But he did not think it would be right to do so under the circumstances, and therefore he refrained, and he refrained from beginning a number of works which were authorised. He did hope that fairplay would be shown in this matter, and that the Cape would not be prejudiced by a too-scrupulous care of what it thought the right thing to do to the other partners when it came into Union. (Hear, hear.) Turning to revenue, Mr. Merriman hoped the Treasurer was going to get his revenue, but if they took four months’ receipts, and went on that basis, the Minister would be short. We ought to get £4,800,000—we had £4,270,000. That was a shortfall which he (Mr. Merriman) hoped would be made up. There was one thing which had not fallen very short, and that was the expenditure—(laughter)— which was very little below the average. That was an unfortunate thing. They generally found that revenue estimates did not come out, but expenditure always did. In the revenue estimates, the Excise was put down as producing less. He thought the Treasurer would get more, as he (Mr. Merriman) would like to point out to the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt). How eloquent these two hon. members had been on public platforms in regard to this matter. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that the scandalous Treasurer—(laughter)—had made a present of £50,000 to the wine farmers. The hon. member for Georgetown, with his talent for making two out of one, said that the wicked Treasurer at the Cape was making a present of £100,000 to the wine farmers. (Laughter.) They would be pleased to know that their prognostications were entirely wrong, and that we derived £40,000 more in Excise last year than we did the year before under the higher scale. He was sorry for those two hon. members, whose charges had a tremendous effect. It was a curious thing that this rise in the consumption of Colonial spirits was not at the expanse of the foreign spirits, because we had more Excise from foreign spirits than we had the year before. He thought the Treasurer would experience considerable difficulty through variations in the Excise in the different colonies. The Free State clapped on an import duty on Cape brandy. That was an extraordinary thing for a unified country. In the Transvaal they had a different Excise, so also in Natal. He thought the Treasurer would find that a very inconvenient thing, and it should be put straight. They now came to the expenditure estimates (proceeded Mr. Merriman). He did think hon. members would agree with him that it was shocking to the whole country to find how absolutely falsified were their arguments with regard to the advantages to be derived from Union. It was put in the forefront—and the people in the backveld took as much interest in the matter as the people in the towns—that one of the great results of Union would be an economy in administration. (Opposition cheers.) But it was a shook to them all to find that, so far from economy being carried out, that there was more extravagance than before. They had all the disadvantages, so far as he could see, of a Federation. They had all the disadvantages of Federation as regards expenditure, without some of the undoubted advantages which Federation possessed. This House was now asked to go into the Estimates to scrutinise the expenditure. Well, the only question ever asked him upon a platform was about economy of expenditure, and economy particularly in the matter of salaries. These questions were pushed home on every platform in this country. He gave no pledges because he was too wise—(laughter)—but at any rate they promised to do their best to try to keep the expenditure of the country down, and it would be falsifying all that they had said if they did not manage to contract the expenditure which was put forward in these Estimates. Wha.t did they find here? They found no diminution in the staff. What an army they kept Twenty-five thousand were included in these Estimates. Twenty-five thousand Civil Servants, and 30,000, he thought, in the railways, or a matter of 64,000 people apart from the provincial establishments, apart from the teachers, an army of teachers he calculated mounted to about 10,000. Roughly speaking, they had about 75,000 in all. Take the white male population of this country, make a little sum and see how many of them took to keep the Civil Servants who, they must remember, were diametrically apposed to the interests of the taxpayer. The Civil Servant did not want economy. There was not one of them who was not asking for more nay. Now they were asked to pass this huge, gigantic, and excessive expenditure. Look at the number of secretaries? He was always opposed to a large number of Ministers, because he knew that the more Ministers, the more under-secretaries they had. All that hampered and clogged the wheels of progress, because if they applied to Mr. A, In had a minute to send to Mr. B., and Mr. B. had to refer the matter to Mr. C., and it was months before it came back and they got what they wanted. That was the system they were setting up here. He said nothing about salaries—no doubt they would be discussed later—but he would say this, that he did believe the Government of the Union was one of the most expensive Governments under the British Crown. They could bring figures to prove it. Certainly they had untapped sources of taxation, but he said that whether they took money out of the pockets of the capitalists or of the farmers for the purpose of keeping all these Civil Servants, it was bad for the Civil Servants and it was worse for the country. And how many judges did they suppose they had got in this country? His horn, friend down at the end of the table said that they could not have too much of a good thing. Well, for 1,250,000 whites they had 31 judges. That was too much. In fact, they were altogether over judged. (Laughter.) Many pleasant evenings could be spent over the Estimates picking out the number of people who drew over a thousand pounds a year. They would be astounded at the number of people who drew over a thousand pounds a year. They were swelling their expenditure up until there was no stopping of it. Might he be permitted to recall the words of the late Mr. Gladstone on a famous occasion, when he said: “An excess in the public expenditure beyond the legitimate wants of this country is not only a pecuniary waste, but a great political, and above all, a great moral evil. It is characteristic of the mischiefs that arise from financial prodigality that they creep onward with a noiseless and stealthy step, and commonly remain unseen until they reach a magnitude absolutely overwhelming.” Well, he thought that every word of that should be laid to the heart of every man who had to deal with public affairs in South Africa. There bad always been a tendency in this country, unless checked with an iron hand to allow expenditure to creep on in a noiseless way until its magnitude was absolutely overwhelming. (Well, when be looked at these Estimates, be ’Would not say that these words could be applied, but he wished to say that there were danger signals ahead, and he said it was the duty of everyone to put his foot down upon thus extravagance, and above all the useless waste of public time in all this writing of correspondence. (Cheers.) What was this country crying out for? The country was crying out for communications, and every halfpenny they could spend should be spent, not upon costly public buildings, but upon the development of the communications of this country. That was one. Them they had the unfortunate state of a large number of white people in this country sinking lower and lower. No amount of money spent in raising those people would be too great, if they could put an end to that evil, or begin to put an end to it. They talked, they talked, they talked, hut little was dome, and the people were still there, and the evil was still going on. These were two things upon which money could be safely spent. (Cheers.) They talked about the development of the country, a good thing, a fine sounding name, but the true development of the country was by the hard work of the people who lived in the country. Well, he was not going into details on the Estimates, but he wished to say that these Estimates would demand the narrowest scrutiny if hon. members were to do their duty. He repeated that the Provincial Estimates were inexplicable. They were asked to do something which he did not think any Parliament would do, and that was to vote large sums of money without any details being given at all. (Hear, hear.) He thought that that was contrary to their system, and every other system. He wanted to say in conclusion that they were faced with an entirely abnormal situation. By the Act of Union the Government was empowered to spend money without Estimates; to spend money for practically eight months. If they had done as he wished to do, and had proclaimed Union on January 1 of this year— (hear, hear)—they Would have been enabled to conduct the business of this country upon the Estimates of the four colonies until June, and they would have been able to call Parliament together in May to take a vote on account to carry them on until proper Estimates had been passed, and things would have gone on in a constitutional way. They did not do it. He might say he was in a hopeless minority, and they got the present abnormal position that they handed over to the Government the power of spending money. They were bound to exercise it to the best of their ability and now Estimates were put before them, and they were told clearly enough that they must not object to anything upon them, as the money had been spent already. They (the Government) had the power of spending, and they did their best, and if they did wrong it was entirely with the concurrence of the Convention. They could not say that it was unconstitutional, but he might say that it was very unparliamentary and under these circumstances he could not see how the House was to sit down and consider those Estimates, and do its duty to the country and to the taxpayers of this country, who demanded it from them, and were crying out against extravagance, and if they let it go on the taxpayers would visit it on their heads. Was there a way out of the difficulty, he thought there was and in his opinion far better than sitting down and considering Estimates which were imperfect, avowedly imperfect, and simply ratifying What had already been done, it would be far better if they said the financial year should start from January 1 (Cheers.) They would give the Government authority until the end of December, and they would ratify after examination—they were not going to ratify an outrageous thing—they would ratify what they did. They would give the Government a, vote on account to carry on the work until the Estimates for the coming twelve months could be fully gone into. They would thus put the affairs of this country on a sound and Parliamentary footing. And they had a precedent for that course. They would remember in 1902 they had the whole Parliament of the country suspended for a year, and the Government was carried on by warrant by the existing Ministry. They then came down with an Act— No. 7 of 1902—and said: “We have got a most abnormal condition of affairs.” Sir Gordon Sprigg said: “I wanted Parliament summoned. I was overborne in the matter.” Well, of course, here there was nothing of that sort, because they themselves had given the Government the power to spend the money. But Sir Gordon Sprigg came down with a Bill for the period during which he had conducted the affairs of the country without any Parliamentary sanction. It was moved that the Bill should be referred, after discussion, to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. After the House had had the usual discussion upon the Estimates, they scrutinised it, and brought the Bill back to the House. It was read, and then things were put on a sound footing. What would be the proper thing now? He threw out the suggestion, because if they had these Estimates now, they would have needless discussion, fruitless discussion, and, maybe, acrimonious discussion, which would do no good. It was quite clear that the Government had acted within their rights. But they had got into position where some measure was needed to lift them out of the rut, and establish them at the earliest possible date on some sound principle. He would not discuss now whether January 1 was the best date for the financial year or not. In his opinion, it was. He agreed with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth that if they had to change it from June, it should be January; but his principal reason for suggesting that date was because it enabled them, at the earliest possible date, to get Parliamentary approval. If they in the next few days got a vote on account on the Estimates of the coming year, they would be on safe ground They could then set to work to push the Estimates through, and then be in a position to deal with the whole question of the expenditure of the country, and could meet to deal with the question of Estimates for the year. He had to confess that he was gravely perturbed. He had only one object in view, and that was to see the administration of this country conducted with economy and efficiency—(cheers)—and, in the present state, to try and assist the Government to get the business of the machine in as good working order as possible and as quickly as possible (Cheers.)

was understood at the outset of his remarks to deal with the suggestion that had been brought forward by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) with regard to the end of the financial year. He (Mr. Orr) thought that this question should be handed over to the Committee on Public Accounts for consideration, and that a report should be presented to the House on the subject. The Treasurer had stated that the balance, in hand at the time Union was entered upon amounted to £2,181,000. Having that amount in hand, the Treasurer had estimated that there would be a revenue of £12,551,000. the total coming to something like £14,532,000. He hoped these figures were correct, because he might be falling into one of those little traps that were mentioned by the right hon. the member for Victoria West. Turning to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, he found the expenditure put down at £13,802,315, and if this was taken from the amount given as revenue, with the balance added, they would find a surplus left of £729,685. But the Treasurer in his statement made no mention of the balances carried forward from the Colonial Exchequers; and he hoped that this matter would be explained to the House. He gave them the revenue and expenditure, and then said that he would make the deficit up by so much from the railways and so much from a profit tax. But if the figures which he had given the House were correct, then there would be a surplus of over £700,000, and there would be no necessity to get money from the railways or by means of a profit tax. The speaker went on to refer to the poll tax in Natal, for the remission of which the hon. member for Weenen had raised a plea a few days before. Because this tax was so unjust, he hoped that the Treasurer would reconsider the matter. Dealing with the expenditure on steam ploughs in Natal, he said he could not see any justification for placing on the Union Estimates the sum spent by the Natal Government on those ploughs. They were purchased by the Government in utter defiance of any law or statute. The Natal Parliament had refused to sanction the purchases, and the responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the Minister, who had acted contrary to the wishes of the Parliament in the matter. Proceeding, he said that the Minister had included in his Estimates no less a sum than £715,000, for public buildings. He would like to know whether that sum would be left to the different Provinces to spend, or how it would be dealt with. He congratulated the Minister on the sound lines on which he had indicated he was going to work, and he hoped the practice would be to give thorough sound financial control to that House,

commended the practice followed in Natal of printing the speech of the Minister of Finance. Members would then have before them figures on which they could rely instead of having to depend on newspaper reports, which did not always agree. He hoped the recent speech of the Minister would yet be printed. He would like also to point out that unless certain existing legislation in Natal wore repealed the effect of the Minister’s proposals would mean double taxation of minerals in that Province, and the result would be a great increase in the already heavy burdens which certain mining industries there had to bear. He referred also to the omission from the Estimates of an item showing the loss which arose from certain works and services. The Constitution provided for such particulars to be given in the Estimates, but he saw nothing in the Estimates giving the loss entailed in certain services which involved loss, such as the carriage of grain over great distances for export.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until tomorrow (Friday).