from James McKay Cape Infantry Regiment.

from Hilda M. H. Newman, widow of Thomas H. Newman, late clerk Prisons Department, Transvaal.

from M. J. Botha, principal teacher, Boys-’ School, Riversdale.

(a) cattle died from East Coast fever, and numbers destroyed; (b) approximate value of the animals died, destroyed or slaughtered since the disease first made its appearance, to the present time in the Transvaal, Natal and Gape Provinces.

(1) Surveyor General of the Gape of Good Hope, year ended 31 st December, 1909, with appendices; (2) Registrars of Deeds, Cape Town, King William’s Town, Kimberley, and Vryburg, 1909; (3) Klip River Investigation Commission.

Customs and Shipping Statistical Abstract, 1826-1909.

Government Notice No. 1019 of 1910, 29th November, 1910, notifying an amendment to Rule No. 9 of the Natal Government Savings Bank Rules in respect of the rate of interest.

moved that the second reading be set down for Wednesday.

said that hon. members were not in possession of the Bill, and personally he was strongly opposed to the second reading being taken on Wednesday. It was wrong in principle to introduce a Bill on a Monday and move the second reading two days later.

I may inform the hon. member that the Bill has already been published in the “Government Gazette.”

When?

Well, I am informed that it has been published. (Opposition laughter.) Proceeding, he said he would move that the second reading be taken on Friday.

The motion was agreed to.

resumed the debate on the motion for Committee of Supply on the Estimates for the 10 months ending March 31, 1911. He said that the debate on this matter, like Budget debates in general, had roamed over a very large area. Not only the acts of this Government, but the acts of previous administrations, for which they were in no sense responsible, had passed under review at great length. Well, he did not think it was necessary for him, or any other horn, member of the Government, to reply to the extraneous points that had been raised during the debate. There were, however, points of interest which had been raised, and which merited the attention of the House, and should be closely scrutinised and discussed. Take, for instance, the point which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) had laboured most, that was in regard to the Government having announced no financial policy. Well, no one knew better than the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar) that this was not the occasion for the Government to give a statement in regard to their financial policy. The problem which the Minister of Finance had to deal with was a very simple one. He had now only to deal with the expenditure which had been in-surred. The larger questions of financial policy would no doubt have to be discussed, but not at this stage. His hon. friend (Mr. Walton) seemed to have forgotten that the Estimates now before the House were entirely of an exceptional character. They were now dealing with estimates of money, which, under an Act of Parliament, under an Act of British Parliament, had been in process of spending since May 31 last, and the greater bulk of which would have been spent by the end of December. Hon. members knew what the position was in regard to these Estimates. The South Africa Act, embodying the resolutions of the National Convention, gave the Government power to draw on revenue for the purpose of meeting expenditure up to two months after the meeting of Parliament. The Government had been given that power, and no greater power could have been given an Act of the British Parliament. That was the whole position. Therefore, he thought that there was very much in the contention of the right horn, member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) that the best thing for Parliament to do was to pass over their Estimates as quickly as possible. (Laughter.) They did not want to hurry over anything, or shirk the issues in any form. On the first day Parliament had met there were cries from both sides of the ’House for the Estimates, and they had laid them on the table at the earliest possible opportunity. But the plain constitutional position was that the Government had acted under legal authority, and under that authority most of these moneys had already been spent, and no vote of the House could touch that.

We would like to know how the Government spent it.

That was the point my hon. friends opposite laboured, and my right hon. friend the member for Victoria West who said that a large sum of money had been left in the hands of the Railway Board.

What I did say was that it should be taken out of the hands of the Railway Board.

Well, even Homer sometimes nods. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he read an extract from the South Africa Act to show that these moneys should be under the sole control and management of the Board, He agreed with his right hon. friend that it was not a correct principle to have large sums of money floating about, and that they should be in the hands of the Railway Board. With regard to the future, there was much in the point which his hon. friend had laboured in the House; but the position was clear—Parliament could do nothing with these funds, which were under the sole control of the Board.

May we know what they are?

My hon. friend raises that point quite fairly, and I think this has been one of the drawbacks right through the Estimates, but my hon. friends forget that under the Constitution there was the ordinary administrative revenue and expenditure of the union, and also the railway revenue and expenditure; and it is a great drawback that those two Budgets have, not been presented to the House at the same time, because if that had been done, many anomalies would have disappeared, and the whole financial situation would have been clear to the House and the country; but it so happens that the Treasurer has only brought forward one portion of the finances, and the other has been left to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who has not yet dealt with his portion. If both had been presented, I think very much of the criticism would have disappeared. The “secret” which the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir Geo. Farrar) pursued so amusingly on Friday would then not have been pursued at all. He is not always amusing; but he certainly was amusing on Friday. The plain fact of the situation is that my hon. friend the Treasurer’s statement was only a partial one, and when the other part is before the House, my hon. friends will be in a position to know all the facts with regard to the financial situation. Continuing, General Smuts said that one point which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) had raised he thought very important, and that was with regard to the financial year. Those Estimates went on the assumption that the financial year of the Union would end on March 51, and his hon. friend had argued—quite rightly, he thought—that if March 31 were adopted, it would be possible for the Government of the day to pass their Estimates, say, by the end of the year, and then adjourn. On the tacit assumption, he thought the hon. member was quite correct, and if in future Parliament met in October or November, that would be possible. But he did not think that would be a precedent which was likely to be followed. Parliament had met that year under a very special condition. Having referred to the reasons why Parliament had been opened at the time it had, the hon. member proceeded to say that he did not think Parliament ought to be broken up by a long interval, because it really meant Parliament was going to have two sessions, and there was always a hanging-back at the beginning of a session. After the holiday, they would have the whole process over again. It was very important for hon. members not to be too long away from the constituents they represented, and he did not think the experience they had passed through now would be repeated. There was much to be said for future Parliaments sitting in January, on the precedent of the British Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He thought that they might follow that precedent still further and convene Parliament in future in January, so that March 31 would not be an inconvenient date for the termination of the financial year, and it would be possible for the Government to pass the Budget or take a vote on account. If that were followed, he thought that the remarks of the hon. member, which would otherwise be appropriate, would fall to the ground, and it would be possible to have the session of Parliament so arranged and to fall in with the financial year which the Government proposed. If that were done, he thought no further criticism would be necessary. Another question that had been raised, and one of considerable delicacy, was that regarding Ministerial salaries. It should, however, be discussed openly, because it was a matter of public interest. He pointed out that the present Government had only arrived at these salaries after considerable consideration, and perhaps it was only fair that it should be debated in the House. He went on to refer to the salaries that had prevailed in the colonies, from £900 in Natal to £3,000 in the Transvaal He also referred to what had been paid in the Cape Colony, and said that when £1,500 was set as a figure it was a time when, perhaps, £1,500 was worth £3,000. These salaries in the Cape had stood from time immemorial. They had a more modern and fairer instance to guide them. In 1902 they made a dean start in the Transvaal. He pointed out that then the situation was faced by impartial (men—(laughter)—who could deal with the merits of the question, and who were not trammelled by Parliamentary considerations. They laid these salaries down because they thought they were fair. (Laughter.) He went on to argue that if less salaries were paid judges and such like, people would stick to the dignity of the bench rather than participate in the turmoil and strife of Parliament, and the country would be deprived of the services of its best man. Those were, therefore, the considerations that guided them. There was another consideration which he thought should weigh with the House, and that was the example that was set by Great Britain. If they wanted to follow a good precedent, let them follow the British precedent; if they wanted to keep politics pure and maintain the dignity of their Bench they should not object to paying these salaries. He remembered discussing the question of Ministerial salaries on the Continent with a gentleman who had to do with one of the great Empires there, and he had said that when a ministry was formed the first question was not a man’s ability, but his private income. If such a consideration was to weigh here he thought it would be a sorry day for this country, and Governments would have to be formed from among the rich men. He appealed to members on both sides to stand by the resolution that had been adopted by the Ministry, because it was only what was considered a fair wage, and one by which they could attract the best talent to the service of this country. Of course, there was the additional consideration, which was very important, that they had fixed on a constitutional arrangement with regard to the capital, and the poor Minister had now, if he was to do his duty, to keep up two establishments. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) said, “What about this allowance and that allowance?” He spoke as if Ministers were helping themselves to far beyond the salaries allowed them. He could assure him (Mr. Jagger) that there was nothing in it.

What about the official residences?

There are none.

What about the amounts on the Estimates?

said the position on that point was this: the Crown Colony, after the war, built a number of Houses for official residences, and some of the Ministers had hired some of them from the Public Works Department. He thought Mr. Jagger might take it from him that there was nothing in it. The only thing was that Ministers had life passes over the railways; but that was not their fault. He had often wondered why members of the Executive Council should have that privilege. It was certainly a convenience, but there was much to be said on both sides. He did not think he need labour that point any more. It was a matter for the fair consideration of the House—it was not a party question—and for equitable and fair conclusion in the interests of the country. He now came to another point. They were charged with extravagance, not only with regard to their own salaries, but with regard to the administration of the country as it appeared on the Estimates, and the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) said they were almost as bad, if not worse, than a federation. That was a matter of great importance, and a matter which the House would have to consider very fully before they came to any conclusion. And he wished to put before the House some of the considerations that were pertinent to the point. The position was that they took over the country on May 51, and found Civil Services in four colonies. What could they do? Should they retrench some of them? It was perfectly clear that large numbers of men would become redundant. They had departments with large numbers of men who were no longer necessary. They had, for instance, the Statistical Bureau, which kept the statistics of the four colonies. Well, that was of no further use, and a large number of officials became redundant. What, were they to do? The gentlemen who sat on the National Convention solved that difficulty, for they provided that there should be a Public Service Commission, and one of the first acts of the Government was to appoint that Commission, and one of the instructions to that Commission was to find what men were redundant in the various departments, and whether places could be found for them elsewhere, so that the great evil of retrenchment could be avoided. The result had been, so fair, that the Government had avoided as far as possible all drastic forms of retrenchment. It would have been very easy for them to retrench hundreds of men.

There are many forms of retrenchment without dismissing men.

I will come to those forms later on. It was quite possible for the Government to take the bull by the horns and retrench hundreds of men; but we took this Public Service Commission as a guide, so as not to inflict undue hardships on a certain class of the community simply because South Africa had been unified, for that would have penalised a certain class for the general good of the races. Continuing, he said they had to face that position. In the Transvaal some years ago, during the bad times it appeared that the Civil Service was unduly large, and the Crown Colony Government appointed a Commission, with a view to making some inquiry as to what could be done. A report was issued, and a gentleman was appointed to carry out its suggestions, and retrench those who were redundant. When they took office as the first Responsible Government of the Transvaal, they had that gentleman just commencing his work with the pruning knife, they could have stopped him but did not, and the result was that hundreds of men were dismissed. Shortly after a great change took place in South Africa, and the Government had to start re-appointing men. Then they had the cry against them that the policy was not merely of retrenchment, but of the retrenchment of Englishmen. He thought it would be found that with the prosperity that was before them and the good times ahead, they would be able to absorb all the energies that were with them in their Civil Service, and if that was so it would not be necessary to have undue retrenchment at this stage. Of course, it was possible to follow out a policy of retrenchment and comply with the cry for undue economy. Still, he was certain that if they were careful it would not be necessary to go too far with the policy of retrenchment at the initial stages of the Union. The position was that the establishment they had to-day was the establishments of the late colonies. As the functions of the Union Government expanded it would be‘ necessary to expand the Civil Service in proportion, but in a short number of years the Service which to-day was too large would not be too large for the expansion of the Union. His advice in a matter of this kind was to go slowly, because he had seen in the Transvaal that it was possible, almost in a panic, to go too far, to out down their Service too much, and to find afterwards that it was necessary to expand again, Then the hon. member (Mr. dagger) had referred to the inflation of expenditure in other ways, and had pointed with great indignation to the £1,200 for the salary of the chief of the Tobacco Division, to the salaries of officials in connection with cotton and items of that kind. Now, he (General Smuts) wished to tell his hon. friend that these were the things which delighted his heart. He agreed with his hon. friend that the administration of the country should always be on an economical basis and that too much administration, especially too expensive administration, was one of the greatest curses a country could have; but when they came to expenditure not for ordinary administrations, but for the development of the country, the question took an entirely different form, and he (General Smuts) held emphatically that, as regarded expenditure for development, they should not in future follow Cape lines in the Union of South Africa. On the contrary, he hoped that they would find the Parliament of South Africa willing to go to the greatest lengths in order to develop the great resources they had, and that it would stint at nothing in order to push the country forward in every possible way. (Cheers.) Now, as to what his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) said concerning the expenditure on tobacco experts, had he looked at the figure the Government of Rhodesia was paying their tobacco expert; and was he aware that the late Government of the Transvaal had failed to get this gentleman for the Transvaal, because they could not pay him the figure he wanted? The hon. member would find that there were great tobacco companies which paid as much as £10,000 a year to an expert for his advice, yet the hon. member objected to the Government paying this £1,200 a year. He feared the hon. member’s horizon was still limited by Table Mountain. South Africa was larger, they had to adapt themselves to the changed situation, and they had to recognise the enormous possibilities in front of this country. Nothing was more remarkable than to see the reversal of judgment which had taken place during the last ten years or so. Many parts of South Africa they used to look upon as worthless were now, upon mature consideration, regarded as among the most valuable parts of the country, such as Calvinia, the Kalahari, the bushveld of the Transvaal, and Zululand. When men came to him, and told him that too much money was being spent on this sort of development work, then he would tell them they did not know what was good for the future of South Africa. Let them open more of these areas, let them spend money in opening these areas, and let them push forward the agricultural interests of South Africa. Then they would realise the ideal of his friend the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar), who explained on Friday that the Government of this country was resting too much on minerals, and said that the agricultural resources should be developed. He perfectly agreed with the hon. member, but it would cost money, and it would have to be the firm, set policy of the Government to go on with it. And it would be the policy of the Government. (Ministerial cheers.) Too long had they been studying excessively the interests of the few large urban centres in South Africa. If they wanted South Africa to move forward, if they wanted to realise this vision of a larger South Africa, and a prosperous South Africa, then they must spend money in developing these undeveloped parts of the country. Our mistake in the past had been that we had wasted the energies of the people, and ’that Parliaments had been fighting over dead issues. Surely the time had come for us to develop the resources of our country, and to make South Africa one of the most prosperous parts of the Empire within the next generation. (Ministerial cheers.) As long as money was poured forth in that direction, he hoped no hon. member would object. He knew that the Cape’s policy had been different. His hon. friend opposite (Mr. Walton) had been criticised for making an experiment in co-operation, which did not prove a success. All honour to him. (Cheers.) At a time of depression, when everything seemed to be going to the bad, his hon. friend did not stint a small sum of money to help the farmers. The experiment failed, not because of any mistakes his hon. friend had made, but because of the system. But one failure should not discourage us from moving on. More and more money would be asked for the development of he country’s resources. Their policy was to push the country forward. Mistakes had been made and no doubt would be made, but they were determined to see that justice was done to the agricultural and industrial development of South Africa, (Cheers.) He was very sorry (proceeded General Smuts) to hear another kind of argument used by the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger). The hon. member had said that they were spending too much money on the Transvaal, and had made a general attack on the general conduct of the late Transvaal Administration. The hon. member looked at him (General Smuts) as if he were an Oriental despot. (Laughter.) He hoped the hon. member would not continue to draw these invidious distinctions. (Ministerial cheers.) With the hon. member’s talent for figures, if he was to calculate what benefits the Cape Colony had derived from Union, he would be astonished. (Ministerial cheers.) No one had benefitted more from Union than this dear old Cape Colony of ours. Why these invidious distinctions? The cry would be raised, if that continued, to Spend in the Transvaal what was raised in the Transvaal. That was a sort of argument that he would fight to the last ditch. (Cheers.) But the hon. member raised this cry by the insular—the Peninsula—view he took. (Laughter.) Let us leave all this. We were no longer Provinces, and we had not to think Provincially, but South Africally. (Cheers.) He hoped the hon. member would no longer criticise what little money was spent on the Transvaal, for it was entirely unjustified. On the Estimates there were sums for education in the Cape which had not been heard of for a long number of years. The Estimates did not raise any large point of policy, but were simply for the purpose of carrying on the administration, and he hoped the House would come to the end of them as soon as possible. (Cheers.)

said he was sure that no one on the Opposition side of the House would say a word against the development of South Africa. He could not help being struck by the skilful way in which the Minister of the Interior had diverted attention from the main points of the Estimates. The hon. member had not dealt with the large question of increased expenditure in the Estimates. Criticism had been devoted principally to the extravagance disclosed in the Budget, and the paucity of information given in the Estimates regarding the details of expenditure. He agreed that it was a great mistake to raise the parochial question. Nothing but harm could result from that, and he hoped they would hear nothing more of the old divisions. (Cheers.) Now, of all the speeches which had been made, the most scathing indictment was delivered by his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Merriman). He could understand that the Minister of Finance would forgive him for “dissembling his love,” but they might not be surprised if he asked pointedly: “Why did you kick me downstairs?” He had accused the Minister (Mr. Hull) of having some millions of money up his sleeve. Now, that seemed to him to be a grave accusation, and savoured rather of having aces under the candlesticks on the table when they were playing “cards, and he thought hon. members had some right to express their regret at the fact that the Treasurer, when he made his speech, did not enlighten them a little more clearly upon the condition of the finances of the country. He, for one, had listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance with profound misgivings, because, on the one hand, he had large commitments, and, on the other hand, he did not analyse the position of the country at all. There was a sort of reckless optimism about his speech, but there was no foundation for it upon the basis of a clear and careful examination of the affairs of South Africa. The Minister had said as his excuse that this was hardly the occasion upon which the financial policy of the Union Government should be considered. Well, he (the speaker) agreed with the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir Geo. Farrar) that it might be impossible, or at any rate inadvisable, to-day to have in detail a fully considered financial policy, but they all knew that the essence of the Parliamentary system was the control of the purse, and they might have had from the Treasurer first of all a more detailed statement of expenditure, and in the second place a more fully expressed reason for the optimism which he had indulged in. For instance, the Treasurer had permitted the Administrators of the Provinces to increase their Budgets by a sum of no less than £609,000, and they must remember that the Administrators had not yet called their Executive Councils together. They had simply sat down and framed their Budgets upon much more expensive lines than before, intending to try to follow this big South Africa, and it was obviously necessary that Parliament should have the Estimates before them in order that they might be examined in the light of day. The Minister of Finance had said that it was physically impossible to give details. But why? They must have details. If they had not, all he could say was that they must have guessed at the amount of money they required, and he hoped that by the time the measure reached the committee stage they would have all details and guesses. Let him say that as regards agricultural development and education, these were matters of the utmost importance to South Africa. No money that was required for productive agricultural work would, he was sure, ever he refused by that House, but what they would resist would be the spending of money in the shape of doles. One item which had not been mentioned was the £97,000, £27,000 more than the last estimate for the Forestry Department. Nothing was more important than the preservation of forests. Afforestation was a vital matter to South Africa, and he wished to refer to the imports of wood in various forms. For the ten months under review they imported £870,000 worth of wood in various forms, an excess of £470,000 upon the previous ten months. That was an enormous amount, and showed the field they had for afforestation in South Africa. In speaking of comparisons, let him say that he could not understand why the ten months previous to the ten months they were now considering were chosen. Why shouldn’t they have taken the corresponding ten months? In regard to the relief of the floating debt, he only wished to say that in the matter of unproductive debts it was better to spend a reasonable sum in the reduction of the debt than to give relief to the taxpayers. The argument did not hold good that if they left the money in the hands of the taxpayers they would invest it in reproductive works. Taxpayers were inclined to spend the money instead of saving it, and as long as they had debts they ought to redeem them as soon as they could. South African credit was ranged somewhere between 3½ and 3¾ per cent, on the market, which included about 40 millions of money guaranteed by Great Britain, and therefore that 3 per cent, loan would stand somewhat higher than if it had stood on their credit alone. They, as a State, should not borrow at too cheap a rate, because if they did, he thought that their credit would suffer for it in future. Do not let them be afraid of paying a reasonable rate of interest for any money they would have to borrow, and he hoped that they would borrow for productive works in the country—they need never be afraid of that. The expenditure, as it appeared on those Estimates, seemed to grow at a lavish rate; whether they would be able to stem it or reduce it to any considerable extent remained to be seen. But growing expenditure in the State was like growths on the body which were described as malignant. He did think there was serious ground for caution, and he did think that, the Treasurer was over-sanguine. He thought it was the hon. member for Uitenhage who had said that he could not understand why the imports had grown so much, but the Minister of Finance had interpolated that it was due to three years of good government. He was afraid the Treasurer had been framing his Budget on a boom year; and he would not be surprised to hear that the next year was not so good as the present. The imports had to be paid for by exports, and if their exports were not sufficient they owed a balance of money. If their imports exceeded their exports it was a good sign of progress, and meant that people from other parts of the world were investing their money.

said that it was the other way about.

proceeded to discuss the exports. During the past year he said they had exported £226,000 worth of wool, for which they had got 40 per cent. more money, there being 20 per cent. more quantity. With regard to greased wool, the exports had amounted to £284,000, receiving 7½ per cent. more money, but had exported 5 per cent. less in quantity. As to Angora hair, £768,000 was exported, 16 per cent. more money being received, but the; quantity being about the same as for the previous twelvemonth. In regard to corn and meal they had got 14 per cent, more money, and exported 30 per cent. more in quantity, so that in that case there was less ground for congratulation. Last year they; had exported diamonds in excess of the previous year to the amount of £2,354,000; and they had received 50 per cent. more in value. He thought that the Minister of Finance had been extremely over-sanguine. In gold they had exported 2½ per cent, more Turning to imports, the hon. member, alluding to the large amount imported, said that he thought it was due to stocks being replenished, now that the better times; had come. The speaker went on to refer to other increases in the imports, touched upon the increase in agricultural implements and in mining and electrical machinery. Upon the latter two classes of goods he laid particular stress, and remarked upon the fact that the importation of mining machinery had risen by 50 per cent.— £2,250,000—which was a very large increase on the total of the preceding ten months. If they added to that the cost of transfer, the amount would run into something like three millions; but what he wished to point out was that they could not expect such a state of affairs to continue. He wished to say that if they were going to frame a Budget on such abnormal increases as these the country would be disappointed in the end; and, so far as being a bear, as the hon. member for Uitenhage had called the Treasurer, he (the speaker) thought him the most pronounced bull in that House. Continuing, he said he would like to make a few remarks with regard to the mining industry itself, and he thought in passing that they might expect some sympathy from those who had nothing to do with the industry. If they did get a holiday that session, he hoped that hon. members on the opposite side would take the opportunity of visiting the Witwatersrand. He could assure them that they would be heartily welcomed, and that he would see that they should see all that it was possible of the great industry. They had not up there the beauty of the Peninsula, but they would be able to show them something wonderful and something that would enrich their imaginations. The industry was of great importance, and when they realised that diamonds and gold counted for something like forty million pounds a year of the exports, and that between 25 and 30 millions of that sum remained in the country and was frittered through commerce and industries, they could realise that it should be given any assistance that might be necessary. But the crux of the mining industry was labour, and he would like to say one word with regard to what his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) had said. In passing, he might mention that if they were asked if they wanted the Chinese back, he thought he could answer for the mining industry, and say that they would not have them back. For one thing a very large sum was spent in bringing them here and taking them back, and in addition so much odium was attached to them that he did not think that anybody would venture to bring them back. At the time they were introduced there was a state of grievous depression. But there was a great deal of misapprehension and misrepresentation about the matter, and in the end it became a sort of heinous offence to employ Chinese. But while they were in this country they served an extremely good purpose, and but for the Chinese they would not be enjoying the present state of prosperity. He added that they did no skilled work, and as far as those who employed the Chinese were concerned, they were all sincere in taking the precaution of seeing that the Chinese did not encroach on the white man’s sphere. He only mentioned the question because it would be folly to ignore the work they had done. He had merely presented this preamble to give them a basis for the incontrovertible evidence which he was now going to produce with regard to the increased efficiency on the mines. If they took the position in the mines for September, 1909, they would find that the efficiency, that was to say, that the tons hoisted per white man were 106. Take the period of September last. The efficiency had fallen from 106 tons to 103 tons per white man, and in regard to the coloured people the same tale had to be told. In September, 1909, there were hoisted per coloured man 13.6 tons, and in last September 12.7 tons That would convey very little in its present form to some of the hon. members opposite, but he had taken the trouble to have an investigation made in the mines in which he was particularly interested. They represented fully two-fifths of the whole mining industry. For the ten months ending September of this year they dealt with 5,621,300 tons of rock, and got 32s. per ton. The cost of working was 18s. 3d. per ton, and the profit made was £3,929,600. In the previous ten months there were 5,318 600 tons worked with a yield of 32s. 6d., at a cost of 17s. 4d. per ton, and the profit made amounted to £4,330,400.

What is the value of the rock?

In each case, 32s. 1d. and 32s. 6d. Continuing, he said that less rock was dealt with, with a smaller profit, and the working cost increased by 11d. per ton. That was not a very grave matter, but it showed the direction in which things were going at present, and it seemed to him that the Treasurer was over-sanguine if he expected to get the same from the mining industry this year as he did during the last ten months, on which he was basing his Estimates. As a matter of fact, the native labour regulated the output. In time he believed they would get enough efficient native labour in this country to work the industry, but it was a matter of time, and they must not expect quite the same results until they had thoroughly taught the native to work. The shortfall of native labour could not be made up in the mines by the employment of white labour. The class of man who was ready to engage in that class of employment was not a very reliable class. That had been his experience, and he was sure, the experience of the Minister for Railways; that was to say, that many of the white men employed on the railways were not particularly reliable. They had lost the habit of labour, and that constituted a serious problem. To think of employing reliable white men to make up the shortfall of natives would be impossible, because it would be too costly. He would turn from that subject to express the belief that it is possible to employ a greater number of white men, both in mining and on the land. Such men were being trained for the work in industrial colleges and agricultural schools, and he thought they would find that they would be able to employ a vastly increased number of white men in South Africa. There were one or two other subjects he might deal with. He believed there is a great field for local industries in such things as leather manufacturies. They had now up-country that most important of all things, cheat) motive power. They had a vast quantity of leather in the country, and it did seem a pity that they had to import such large quantities of leather goods as they did. In canned and dried fruits there were possibilities which, he thought, were entirely hopeful, if they went the right way to work. He believed the Treasurer had not yet taken the trouble of studying such matters from the proper standpoint he should have in framing his Estimates. For instance, he had dropped the income tax in the Cape. Well, he might be wise, but, personally, he thought it was not a bad tax, especially if used moderately. It could be relied on in case of an emergency. But he was more surprised that the Treasurer should have done it, because he had put a tax on diamonds, and his hon. friend (Colonel Harris), who, he noticed, was not present, applauded it. He applauded it, he thought, because he would have to pay more than he did before, but in stopping the income tax the Treasurer had relieved some of his friends on the other side, who were making enormous incomes out of ostriches. They had to broaden the basis of their taxation, and it was his belief that they were too dependent upon the taxation of mineral wealth. With regard to land taxation, he was not one of those who believed they could at once put a sweeping tax on land. But where there was good land in the neighbourhood of railways, the tax gatherer should have an eye on it if it was not properly developed. Any reasonable scheme to make everybody pay something according to his means would have his (the hon. member’s) support. (Hear, hear.) He believed that if they could get the tax gatherer’s eye upon that suitable land which was near the railways, it was not going to be very long before we should have closer settlement in this country. He would ask every hon. member of that House to read chapters VI. and VII. of John Stuart Mills’s “Principles of Political Economy,” referring to peasant proprietorship. If they would do so, he thought they would be surprised, and would be converted to a new system dealing with the land in this country. (Hear, hear.) As to the subject of State insurance and old-age pensions, he did not for one moment propose to detain the House with any discussion on the question generally, but in order to educate himself a little, he had had a translation made of the German Act, which, he could assure them, was a monumental document, and one that might be called a triumph of actuarial skill. He believed it was possible to introduce an Act of that description in this country, which would be of the utmost benefit, without being any serious burden upon the State. He, for one, would fight to the last ditch any proposition to bring in so clumsy an Act as they had thought fit to bring in in England; but the German scheme was quite another matter, and he believed they could tack on to it a scheme that would be of benefit to the working classes in regard to that fearful scourge that they had in the North, viz., miners’ phthisis. He objected to miners’ phthisis being placed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He hoped that the Treasurer would give some consideration to this question, and that they would hear something from him about it when he came to give that belated address upon the financial policy of the Government of the Union. The Treasurer might also give them his ideas on one other matter and that was on the very vexed question in this country or free trade and fair trade. A grievous fault of the Treasurer’s speech was that it was so unenlightening as to details and as to any question of policy. His Budget was too lavish, and it was in consequence of his not having taken into consideration, as he should have done the trade of this country. If he had any policy, he had concealed it with great skill.

said that with a great deal of what had been said on the subject of Ministers’ salaries, one felt very largely in agreement, but he also felt entirely with the Minister of the Interior that this country would not do itself a good service by stinting such salaries as would secure the best men. But he felt most emphatically that where there was hardly a living wage given at one end of the Government scale, there should not be a superfluity at the other. They were in sympathy on that subject with the members of the front Opposition bench, but where they were in doubt was whether the front On position bench would be prepared to follow that out to a logical conclusion, so that the fruits of industry should be more evenly distributed. The Treasurer had given them his speech, and they found that the same old policy was to be carried out, the same old policy which had in the past re suited in alternate booms, followed by periods of very unpleasant depression. He thought the Treasurer had overlooked the fact that the last two years had been years of distinct boom. There had been years during which a large portion of our imports had been paid for by the large expenditure which had been going on the Witwatersrand. They had masked the real tendencies. In the two years up to the middle of 1908, the actual wages’ income of the white men working on the Witwatersrand had decreased to the extent of £600,000 a year. In the following eighteen months, when the period of boom began, they had immense capital expenditure on the Rand, which found its reflection again in the raising of the wages’ income of the white workers. But they could not go on living for ever on other people’s capital. That capital expenditure was coming to an end, and they would find that unemployment would gradually increase on the Rand. They had, furthermore, adopted a labour system which continually tended to hedge out the white man, and they would have to pray the penalty. He warned the Minister of Finance, and he warned the House, that if the present system were followed it would produce on the Rand the same phenomenon they saw at Kimberley—a dwindling commerce and dwindling market, instead of having in the Witwatersrand an ever increasing centre of prosperity. As to the Government’s plans for raising revenue, one of the principal proposals was the extension of the principle of a profit tax on the mines. Now, he wanted to point out that in this way the Government was identifying itself with the interests, not of those who were producing the wealth, but of those who were reaping the wealth. There were higher considerations than the amount of profit derived from the mimes. They might enjoy huge profits at the cost of creating in the Witwatersrand a huge compound of men living in a state of semi-servility, and while that was going on they would have the Treasurer standing up in that House congratulating the country upon having received such a large part of the profits won at such a sacrifice. He thought a much better system than a tax on the profits was the system which prevailed in Rhodesia of raising revenue by means of a royalty on the actual minerals produced. He regarded with the gravest distrust this identification of the Treasury with the interests of the mine owners Proceeding, Mr. Creswell referred to the question of miners’ phthisis, and said he intended to move a motion to the effect that the House should defer going into the Estimates until a definite assurance was received from the Government that it would this session introduce legislation to secure adequate compensation to miners on the Witwatersrand who have contracted miners’ phthisis, such legislation to contain a provision making it retrospective to the date of the opening of Parliament. Continuing, he said that the revenue which the Government anticipated to receive from the tax on the mineral profits did not represent a tax on the real profits of the industry because it only took account of the working cost which appeared in cash, and did not take account of what the country lost in the health of its manhood working underground. The hon. member referred to the work of the Commissions in the Transvaal as a result of which regulations, were framed, but no appreciable results had followed. The scourge was a frightful one, and the fact that the average life of the miners was only 35 years demanded the most careful attention. At the last election it was freely admitted on the election platforms on the Rand that this state of affairs could not be allowed to go on. He had some of the election literature of the Treasurer, in which that hon. gentleman promised to deal with the question of miners’ phthisis. He wished, proceeded Mr. Creswell, to deal with the method of prevention. The matter had been discussed for ten years, and what was required now was legislation. To deal with it by regulation was futile An army of policemen would be required to see that the regulations were carried out. The only effectual way of dealing with the matter was to make those who reaped the profit of the labours of the men who died in their work pay compensation, and so find a reflection of this loss of life on their working costs. Legislation should be introduced making the payment of compensation compulsory, and that legislation should be made retrospective to the date of the opening of the Union Parliament. His object in bringing forward his amendment was to put a stop to this state of “serious consideration,” and to see some measure enacted which would secure to those men, who were constantly contracting the disease, some measure of compensation. Proceeding, he quoted extracts from a letter of a victim, who described the state of affairs on the Rand, and appealed for assistance. He said that was one of the voices which had been crying for help for the last ten years. It was time the matter was attended to. He thought it would be a shame and a disgrace to South Africa if this, the first session of the first Parliament of the Union, were allowed to close without the matter being adequately dealt with. He considered that compensation should not be doled out when a man was almost in his grave, but should be paid when there were evidences of contraction of the disease. He asked hon. members on both sides of the House to support him in getting an assurance from the Government that they would put a stop to what was nothing else than a crying Scandal. He then moved, as an amendment, after “House” to omit “go” and substitute “defer going,” and to add at the end: “until a definite assurance is received from the Government that it will this session introduce legislation securing adequate compensation to miners on the Witwatersrand who have contracted miner’s phthisis, and that such legislation will contain provisions making it retrospective to the date of the opening of this Parliament.”

seconded.

said that he would like to add his congratulations to those which the Minister of Finance had already received. Of all the statements which the Minister had made, none would be received with greater satisfaction than that every one of the Provinces had entered the Union with a substantial surplus. As the Minister had said, it was essential that it should be known what the exact position of the Union was on May 31—they wanted to know the exact amount the Union inherited, and what liability, if any, there was in respect of their inheritance. The Minister had given his statement, he thought, in two forms, firstly, in the Budget Speech, and, secondly, he had given them a statement in a paper (A2 of 1910), which had been laid on the table, and which gave the accounts of the four Provinces on the date on which they had entered Union. A comparison of the two statements showed that they agreed as closely as statements of that sort could agree. Proceeding, the hon. member, having dealt with some of the figures quoted by the Minister in the Budget Speech, said that if he had summarised his statements correctly, the position was that there was a revenue surplus of £631,000, and a balance on loan account of £2,091,000, or £2,728,000 altogether, on November 28. Well, what did the published figures show? That, if they included the accruals, they had a balance of £4,438,053, which were the figures he got from that paper (A2 of 1910’) with regard to Natal and the Transvaal from the “Government Gazette” of July 29 for the Orange Free State, and with regard to the Cape more or less from the Estimates. Without the accruals, the amount would be £2,255,000. He did hope that before that debate ended, or at some period before the financial measures passed out of the House, the Minister would see his way clear to telling the House exactly what he proposed to do with these balances. (Opposition cheers.) It was not an unreasonable request to make, and he might go further and say that it was the duty of the House to know; but if hon. members opposite would allow him to say so, he could not for the life of him see what all that extraordinary mystery was about. Every hon. member on the Opposition was going on the assumption that the Minister of Finance was keeping some financial secret from the House. He thought that the Minister had no desire whatever to do so, but he should be extremely glad if the hon. member would lay a statement on the table showing what his commitments were. He presumed that the hon. gentleman would tell them perfectly simply that he proposed to balance the revenue surplus, amounting to £531,000, by paying off more Treasury bills when they fell due, and that he proposed to devote the loan balance to the objects for which the various Provinces had enacted that they should be devoted. That seemed to him to be the hon. gentleman’s secret— that he was going to devote his surplus to the purposes for which every Province had allocated them. It would be to the advantage of the House to have that statement. The hon. gentleman who represented Georgetown had sent a cold shiver down his back when he said they would not find money where they had hoped to find some. He thought that before the debate had gone very far they would get the information that they required. They required to know if this money that was being talked about had been allocated to a Province or Provinces, and if it had been, to what Province or Provinces, and if for works, to what works it had been earmarked. Because the only earmarkings they could recognise were the acts of the various Provinces. What they wished to know was how much, if any, of that surplus was included in the present Estimates of revenue. He put it that that was not an unreasonable request on the part of the House. The hon. member for Georgetown had sent another shiver down the backs of members of that House when he said that the amount of £2,500,000, said to be in the hands of the Railway Board, had been earmarked, and that they were not going to see any of it. And he told them how it had been earmarked. Well when he gave those details he (the speaker) thought that the details seemed familiar, that he had heard of them before. He found that the Hon. the Commissioner had used the very figures, and had earmarked them not against the surplus, but against the working costs of the year. He had taken the same figures as the Commissioner had taken in the Estimates that had been laid before that House.

said that he had only quoted an example to show how the money had been voted.

said that that explanation did not take the House very much further. His hon. friend had said with regard to the £2,500,000 that £850,000 had been earmarked for depreciation, and £750,000 for betterment, and his hon. friend the Commissioner had given similar figures not against the £2,500,000, but against working expenses. They could not allow either the Government or the Railway Board to debit both the deposit fund and working expenses with these amounts. Continuing, he said he did think it was inconvenient to ask the House to go into Committee of Supply with only a half or three-quarters of the Budget, and it would be very much better if in the future the two Budget Speeches—if two had to be delivered—could be made one immediately after the other so that they would not have a double debate. Continuing, he criticised the hon. member for Georgetown in regard to statements he had made dealing with settlements on the land. Did he forget that for four years the hon. member for Albany (Dr. Jameson) was the leader in the Cape Colony, and borrowed eleven millions of money, and he must say that the hon. member’s leader must have been surprised to be told by his lieutenant that he had done nothing in this direction. Who supplied most of the food to Johannesburg? Was the hon. member aware that during 1909 the Cape sent nearly three millions in foodstuffs to Johannesburg? They had done more in the Cape Colony in regard to land settlement than in any other part of the country. Continuing, he said that Union had started under the happiest of financial auspices, and he; was sorry to see the Estimates so swollen. He did say that more might have been done in the way of economy, though he thought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth unreasonable when he said that revenue should have been balanced with expenditure on this occasion. Something could have been done in this direction had the Estimates been properly prepared. He was sorry the Treasurer had not seen his way clear to reduce 1908 taxation, which was levied in the Cape to meet a period of extraordinary depression. He thought that the transfer duty in the Cape Province might, have been reduced. (Hear, hear.) They in the Cape Province had that 2 per cent. imposed to meet a very trying set of conditions, and he did think, under any circumstances, they should have been allowed that privilege, and been put back in the position they were in; and also in regard to the stamp duties which were imposed. (Hear, hear.) He recognised at once the onerous task imposed on the Government of preparing the Estimates. It was a gigantic task to consolidate the Estimates of four Provinces, but it must have been doubly difficult to do so amidst the turmoil of a General Election, and he thought that great credit was due to all engaged in that work, and especially the first lieutenant of the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of Finance. But when that service was acknowledged, the hon. gentleman himself must confess that the Estimates were defective in very many respects, and he was also quite sure that, from the point of view of the House, and of true and proper control, the Estimates were scarcely worth the paper they were printed on. (Applause.) He thought that the Minister of Finance had gone out of his way to look for trouble, by looking for a new end for the financial year. He had selected the financial year of Great Britain.

Replying to the Minister of the Interior,

said the speech made by that gentleman had put a new complexion on the matter altogether. If Parliament met during January, it would be satisfactory if the financial year ended in March. To fix March 31 as the end of the financial year, and to summon Parliament during the end of October or early in November was really to hand over the control of finance to a Government which, for all they knew, might not enjoy the confidence of the country for months and months. Personally, he wished to see December 31 the end of the financial year, but he was prepared to accept March 31. When the Customs year and the railway year were the same as the calendar year, it was a pity not to have the end of their financial year at the end of the calendar year. (Applause.) The Minister of Finance had put them in a further difficulty by putting in the parallel columns the Cape’s expenditure. The result was that in the two months of June and July they had a large expenditure, and as June was the end of the ordinary financial year, there was a great deal of sweeping up to be done, and consequently the two parallel columns were of no value at all. When they came to go into and examine the other colonies in the Estimates, they found themselves in a veritable bog. (Hear, hear.) The Minister’s warning with regard to the personnel of the public service of the country came in good time. They had a definite and positive assurance from the Government that the personnel was not increased, and was actually decreased. Yet, in spite of the fact that the establishment of Government House and Parliament was reduced by 63, and in spite of the fact that the Minister of Finance himself had reduced his Ministerial establishment by 23 officials, and in spite of the fact that the Treasurer had added to his department what he might call the Administrator, the Estimates showed an increase of the personnel of the public service, outside of the Railway Department, of no less than 827 men. He accepted the Minister’s assurance and the Government’s statement that the personnel had not been increased, but the point he wished to put to his hon. friend the Treasurer was this: Is it fair or reasonable to ask this House, as the custodian of the public purse, to sanction the salaries of 827 additional public servants, when, according to the statements of the occupants of the Treasury benches, they do not exist? And let him remind the House what those men cost. It amounted to no less than £291,352. In addition to that there was a large amount for the annual increments for the junior members of the Civil Service. When the Minister went to the trouble of preparing the Estimates and came down to the House to ask for Parliamentary sanction of all that expenditure, why did he go out of his way to make it so difficult for a private member to know exactly what it meant? (Applause.) He would remind the House that the increase of the personnel of the public service which did not exist, or only existed in the Estimates, was exclusive of the Natal Provincial Council. It did seem a weird position to take up, to take from the public purse salaries for 827 men who were hanging between heaven and earth, seemingly. He would like to draw the attention of the House to the expenditure for salaries alone. In the Estimates the House was asked to vote for ten months’ salaries alone, and exclusive of the Natal Provincial Council, amounting to £4,476,912, or for the 12 months, £5,373,000. He would remind the House that the body of gentlemen who drew that money were what were called in his constituency pension trekkers. He asked the House to bear in mind the proportion spent by this country in salaries, as compared with what were called on the Estimates, services and establishment. They found that out of an expenditure of 10¼ millions in ten months, 4½ millions went in salaries, and 5¾ millions on the services. In other words, for every 26s. they spent, they paid men £1 to spend it. There was another point which, he thought, was unfair to this country. In the railway estimates they found that every officer who was going to get an increase was marked with that increase, but in the Estimates now before the House there was nothing to show when they were voting salaries whether they were voting an increase or not. He would ask the Minister for Finance whether it was satisfactory to come and ask that House to vote all this money under the heading of “incidental expenses”—£11,000 a month. There was one item he thought that House would never vote, and that was a globular sum of £15,000 under the heading of “miscellaneous.” Proceeding, he said he hoped with all his heart that the Treasurer’s forecasts of revenue would be reached, and more than reached, but that was in the lap of the gods. But the control of the expenditure was in the hands of that House, and it was their bounden duty to see that that expenditure was properly controlled. Unless they did their duty in that respect they would not retain their prestige or their power.

said they quite agreed on that side of the House that the Minister of Finance could not be expected in so short a time to bring forward estimates affecting a complete reorganisation of the Service of the country, or which would reflect the settled policy of the Government, but at the same time, they expected the Budget statement to reflect to the fullest extent the financial position of th9 country. Their complaint was that this Budget statement did not do this. They were told that certain balances were taken over by the Union Government from the different colonies, but they were not told in the least to what extent these balances were available. These balances had been allocated by the Parliaments of the colonies for certain expenditure. They were not quarrelling with the allocations, and they were not saying that the allocations should now be disturbed, but they were asking that they should be told what these allocations were, and they wanted information as to what funds and what liabilities were taken over. They wanted to know also what loan funds were in hand, and to what extent those funds had been allocated. They knew the Transvaal had made large advances before Union to the Orange River Colony and to Natal. They were not told whether these advances had been repaid before the date of Union, or what funds were to be allocated for the expenditure the amounts of these advances were intended to meet in case they had not been recovered. The House should have been furnished with a complete statement, showing what loan expenditure was authorised in the various colonies, and what loan funds were in hand. Then, in regard to the railway funds, it had been the practice in reference to the Central South African Railways to take a certain amount year by year from the railway revenue for the purpose not only of replacement of rolling stock and permanent way, but for betterment as well, so that replacement and betterment could be carried out without having to go into the market. Those yearly sums taken from revenue had been allowed to accumulate for the purpose, and he thought Parliament would be ill-advised if it attempted to divert those funds from the purpose for which they had been accumulated. The Budget had not disclosed the position of the country in that respect either. Then the Minister of Finance had congratulated himself upon having restored financial equilibrium. Well, the Minister had not restored equilibrium as he (Mr. Duncan) understood the meaning of the word. He bad achieved equilibrium by attaching one and a quarter millions from the railways, and by putting on fresh taxation to the extent of a quarter of a million, and he had achieved it also by omitting from his calculations of expenditure items which he should have reckoned as coming upon him in the near future. He did not think a Treasurer was justified in claiming that he had achieved equilibrium until he could show that his revenue, without fresh taxation, was such as to completely meet all expenditure that was likely to come upon him. The Treasurer had helped himself out by appropriating the railway surplus. Could he say that the receipts would be sufficient to fill the gap between revenue and expenditure? There was practically no provision in the Estimates for defence. (Opposition cheers.) He did not say that we should indulge in a lavish programme, but we must have some defence expenditure. Then there was the question of the sinking fund. The question of paying off the accumulated floating debt ought to receive the attention of the Treasurer, who ought to pay the debt off in the shortest possible time. (Hear, hear.) Another point that had been raised was, the equalisation of taxation. Was that to begin by grading up taxation, or by taking off some of the taxation that had been imposed in some Provinces and not in others? If the Minister of Finance did the former he would get little thanks from the people; if he did the latter, where was provision made for it in the forecast of revenue and expenditure? Then among other things, no provision had been made for agricultural and industrial development. If the Minister told them the Budget reflected a state of equilibrium, it was the most unstable state of equilibrium he (Mr. Duncan) had ever seen. (Hear, hear.) The Government was certainly in no easy position. The Opposition could show the Government every indulgence in the matter of the Estimates; but they asked the Government not to lead the people to suppose that the Estimates reflected a state of things which could encourage the Government to go on inflating the expenditure. A good deal had been said about Ministerial salaries, and he was personally interested in the matter, because he was told by the Minister of the Interior that he (Mr. Duncan) was somewhat responsible for this abnormal state of affairs. He thought there was a good; deal to be said on both sides of the question.

Your salary was our salary.

Very little of the Ministerial salaries comes to this side of the House. I agree with some of the critics that to pay Ministers £5,000 a year is excessive. (Opposition cheers.) At the same time, proceeded Mr. Duncan, he agreed with a good deal that had been said by the Minister of the Interior, that in a country where they had not too many people with leisure at their disposal, if they wished to draw men from the professional or business classes, they must enable them to take office without a great deal of sacrifice, while low salaries would attract only men who were no good at anything else. (Hear, hear.) The highest salary paid to a member of the Executive Council under Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal was £3,500, which was received by the Attorney-General.

Plus £500 from the Inter-Colonial Council.

As a Minister of the Transvaal, Sir Richard Solomon drew £3,500. The other payment was an accident dependent on the fact that he was the legal, member of the Government. To a certain extent the scale of salaries of Ministers under Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal was justified by the arguments brought forward by the Minister of the Interior; but he did say that South Africa could be run without the establishment of Ministers, which she now carried. With regard to the Civil Service, some important points had been advanced, and he should like to say that they might make too much of the view that Civil Servants and Government officials were nothing but encumbrances to the State, as suggested by the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). That, however, was a view which he did not share. They had to have Civil Servants, and if they wanted the business of the State properly conducted, they had to pay salaries for responsible work, as would bring the best men of the country to them. Therefore, he did not agree with the complaint about paying high salaries to men who undertook responsible work. But what he did not agree with was needless multiplication of these men. And in a matter of the appointment of Government officials, it should not become a matter of patronage. Posts should not be given as favours, but of necessity, and should not foe given except to the best men. There was one thing that was going to lead them into extravagance, and that was the habit which had been growing up of giving local authorities too much responsibility in regard to the expenditure of public money and the appointment of public officials. They were doing that in the Transvaal. They had given the School Board extensive powers to deal with local education, and in regard to the appointment teachers, but they had not got the responsibility of raising a cent of the money which had to be paid to these officials. He was not going to say whether or not a centralised system of education was the best system; but he did say that, where local bodies had practically the right to appoint teachers, they should have a very substantial amount of responsibility for meeting the cost of the schools, and then, if they would realise in the course of time that they were going to play with the appointment of teachers, they would have to pay for inefficiency. That state of affairs was had for education, and it was doubly bad when the people who made the appointments had no responsibility in the matter of raising the money. He thought they were going in the same direction with regard to a good deal of the expenditure in the Public Works Department. Of course, he was speaking of the Transvaal in this respect. They appointed inspectors to carry out the expenditure by local men all with the object of putting expenditure in local hands and giving as little as possible responsibility to local people for the raising of the money. By such a policy they would drift into hopeless extravagance and inefficiency. He was very glad to hear from the Minister of the Interior on the question of the Civil Service that, in his opinion, the retrenchment which had taken place in the Transvaal had gone too far. Many of them had said so at the time, but the Minister of the Interior was less willing to believe it then than he was now, and he (the speaker) thought that it was a wise policy for a policy of extensive retrenchment until they knew what their permanent requirements would be. He did not agree with the remarks made by the last speaker as to the amount of salaries which were disclosed in the Estimates being excessively high. They could not say, because they took £1 to spend £1 6s., that the salaries were too high.

said he never said that the salaries were too high. He said that the total amount paid was too high.

said that in Estimates such as these, that was a misleading criterion. He assured the Minister of the Interior that he would find as much support on his (the speaker’s) side or the House as on the other in regard to expenditure upon the agricultural development of the country. South Africa, as a country, wanted, needed, had cause for, and was going to pay enormous expenditure on agricultural development. He should have liked to have provision made for expenditure to combat some of the human diseases from which they suffered, as well as some of the stock diseases, and he could assure the Minister of Finance that he could find the money by cutting down unnecessary amounts at present on the Estimates. The hon. member said that more should be done to render the country habitable for man before they dealt with stock diseases, for if it were not fit for man to live there, it was no good eradicating stock diseases. It was quite clear that the resources of the country in many directions would never be developed as they could be developed without closer settlement. It was only in certain, and not all, parts of the country, however, that they could go in for that. There was an enormous industrial population in South Africa which they wanted to attach to the soil as much as the agricultural population. It was said that the former had no stake in the country, but what did we do to encourage them? It was a well-known fact that many mining men on the Rand had their families in other countries, and remitted part of their earnings to them. Those families ought to be brought to this country, and if a man could not bring his family here and live under decent conditions there was something wrong. (Hear, hoar.) He entirely agreed with the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) that miners’ phthisis was a scourge, and he hoped that the Government would take every step to deal with it. As to what the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) had said about the great wealth of the district between the Hex River and the sea, all he would like to say was that all that wealth would be undeveloped, had it not been for the fact that the large industrial population had provided the means and the markets, doming to the question of borrowing, the hon. member said that the loans should be for as short periods as possible, and paid off from the revenue. There was no doubt that the mining industry was subject to fluctuations, quite apart from the value of gold or diamonds, and therefore they ought to be doubly careful as to their expenditure, and to see that the revenue which they drew from these sources either went to a reduction of the debt or went to develop the permanent resources of the country. The industrial section had got command of the wealth and of the markets, and it should be the policy of the Government to get from these industrial sources the maximum amount of revenue, at the same time leaving them free to develop their resources to the greatest extent.

said that, as the Minister of the Interior had pointed out, a vast tract of country was suitable for closer settlement. The population, at present occupying that land, was worthy of the Government’s attention, and their first care should be to bore for water, for that was the first step towards converting it into agricultural ground. The sum on the Estimates was only £26,000, i.e., much less than was spent on boring the year before, and he trusted the Minister concerned would see his way to increase the vote. Agricultural and technical education would go a long way towards settling the poor whites question; it would therefore increase the productiveness of the country. The hon. member for Georgetown’s statement to the effect that the people in the settlements were unsuitable was incorrect. The settlers at Standerton, Potchefstroom and Delmas were capable farmers with a knowledge of local conditions. In Victoria and New Zealand the Minister of Finance was authorised by statute to invest half a million for settlement purposes every year. South Africa might follow that example without such a large sum being voted all at once. It was the duty of Government to put the present inhabitants of South Africa on the land before encouraging wholesale immigration. The attack on the road inspectors appointed by the late Transvaal Government was an unjust one. He mentioned some facts in connection with the work done by the “road engineers,” appointed by the Government of which the hon. member for Fordsburg was a member, in order to contrast the two methods.

resuming, said that the resent road inspectors in the Transvaal need not fear a comparison with their predecessors, so that members of the late Crown Colony Government might as well desist from criticising them. The allowance of £120 per annum to members of the Provincial Councils was inadequate. The work was approximately the same as that of members of Parliament, and no business man could afford to neglect his affairs during a large part of the year at such a slight remuneration. Most of the Transvaal constituencies were very large. Every member was obliged to hold two meetings a year in order to explain what had been done, etc. It was unjust not to compensate those whose ambition lay in a legislative direction for their time and trouble. In England public men chiefly belonged to the leisured classes. South Africa had no such class to draw upon. Reverting to land settlement he contended that, in order to succeed, the Government would have to select the best class of land, near railway lines and markets. Every settlement should be managed by a capable official, fully acquainted with agricultural and general conditions and able to advise the Government on all matters of importance.

said that two speeches delivered during the debate had impressed him very much. The first was the speech of the Minister of the Interior. The Hon. the Minister of the Interior presumably got up to defend the Budget of the Minister of Finance, and to explain to the House same of the difficulties that had been raised not only on his (Mr. Botha’s) side of the House, but also on the other side of the House. He must confess, however, that when the Hon. the Minister had finished it seemed to him that the speech had been the effort of a mere politician. In the course of that speech, the Hon. the Minister referred to the payment of Ministers, and the impression on his (Mr. Botha’s) mind after listening to the speech was that if the Minister of the Interior was not worth £3,000 a year as a Minister he was certainly worth £6,000 a year as a politician. (Laughter.) In connection with the Civil Service expenditure, the argument with regard to an inflated staff came not from his side of the House, but from the Ministerial side. The Hon. the Minister of the Interior had advanced the most extraordinary argument that the Budget must not be discussed because the money had been scent. It had not, however, been spent by the authority of Parliament. It was said that no Ministry should spend money without authority, and so they should not burke discussion. They were given a blank cheque, and they should have used it wisely and in the best interests of the country. He did not want to fully discuss the question of salaries, his hon. friend the Minister for the Interior had said that the Ministry had given the matter every consideration, and had put the position before the House. But his hon. friend had not caught the point that had been made from that side of the House. The point they wished to make was that at the present time such a large expenditure was not justified; they said that the country was not rich enough to incur that expenditure; in other words that the turnover did not justify the salaries that they were paying their Ministers in comparison with the turnover and the salaries in England. What did the Minister for the Interior say? He said they had carefully considered the question, especially from the Cape point of view. He said they thought that the salaries in the Cape were relics of the past, and then he went round and said they adopted the policy pursued in the Transvaal, and drew attention to the circumstances that prevailed there. But there was another colony where the circumstances were just as new, and where Ministers had also debated the size of the salaries they were going to pay themselves. Those Ministers also wished to adopt the Transvaal system, but the House protested, and the result was that these came off the Estimates. So that if the Transvaal was a case in point, why not the Orange Free State? He took exception to the extraordinary statement of the Minister of the Interior with regard to judges when they left the Bench. Continuing, he said that he had listened attentively to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Yeoville, who was accustomed to deal with finance. He brought to bear upon the question the broad view he was accustomed to bring upon questions of this sort. He agreed with that gentleman that in a country where they desired to see a large industrial population settled they should inaugurate a system of old age pensions. He did not think they could do better than adopt the policy of Germany—

And New Zealand.

And New Zealand. Continuing, he said he would not go into the details of the Budget because of the shadow of the pitfalls. It was because he was afraid of falling into these traps that he hesitated to go into all the points of the financial scheme. The Treasurer had said that he had succeeded in getting an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure, and he would show that it had been done at the expense of the hon. member for Boshof. The hon. member proceeded to refer to a newspaper report of the Budget speech, when

rose to a point of order.

ruled it out of order.

said that they were forced to go to newspaper reports, seeing that the Government had not been good enough to supply members with copies of the Budget speech. It had been said that the Orange Free State had a revenue balance of £250,000, instead of a debit balance of £118,000, and he contended that if any colony had had the right to use the proceeds of the National Bank for public works, it was the Orange Free State. That money had been devoted to public works, but after much search, he had only discovered £10,000—

said that the hon. member could not discuss anything which came within the compass of the motion which stood on the paper in his name.

on a point of order, asked if members were not justified in discussing the whole of these Estimates?

Outside any motion which appears on the paper.

said that the vote of £10,000 for agriculture was spent by the Free State. He could find no item of £4,000 for the erection of an industrial institute in the Orange Free State. The hon. member was referring to other items when

called him to order.

said he could find only the sum of £15,000 to be spent in the Free State.

again intervened, saying the hon. member was debarred from anticipating his motion.

I must do it in general terms.

The hon. member must make no reference to it.

said he was very sorry to have to drop that subject. The Minister of Finance had obtained a financial equilibrium simply by collaring the proceeds of the sale of the National Bank of the Orange Free State. (An HON. MEMBER: “Oh, no.”) Continuing, Mr. Botha said he was glad £5,000 had been put down for the erection of a museum at Bloemfontein. He asked if the amount set down for compensation to the disrated capitals was final? There appeared to him to be some strength in Bloemfontein’s contention that the Auditor-General, in arriving at the sum to be paid as compensation, erred too much on the side of stringency. The hon. member went on to say that Natal and the Free State in going in for Union, had suffered, and he suggested that they should receive a larger share of compensation. He hoped that the Union Government would maintain Government House at Bloemfontein.

said he did not wish to embarrass the Government or unnecessarily to prolong the debate, but it was only right that the House should be informed as to what the future policy of the Government was with regard to certain very important questions. If he were to neglect that opportunity of obtaining the information, he had no guarantee that when the House met after the recess, that Government would be informed as to the policy it intended to pursue. The Minister of Finance, in his speech, had been wandering about the Kalihari Desert, but not a word had been said about the agricultural policy of the Government with regard to the Cape and the Transvaal. (Hear, hear.) He was quite prepared to support the Government, but he would like to have its views on certain matters, especially agriculture. He thought it was a fair question to ask: who was going to decide the agricultural policy of the Railway Board?

Business principles.

The Board has a dual duty. Continuing, he said that when they came in the Estimates the Minister must have guidance as to the feeling of the House, so that when next year’s Estimates were brought up the Government might know what the feelings of the House were. The hon. member for Fords-burg (Mr. Duncan) had somewhat distorted historical fact that afternoon when he had implied that the development which had taken place in the country between the sea and the Hex River Mountains was due to the advantage that these people had reaped from the mines. These fine farms and dwellings had been there before there had been a mine in the country. The advantage of the mines was that agriculturists had a better market for their produce; but to say that the development of that district was due solely to the mines was wrong. The want of development which there had been at times was due to the restrictive legislation which they had to pass. Alluding to the Excise, he thought that he would not be doing his duty if he did not speak of the difficulties they had had with regard to that tax. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said that as a result of the reduction of the Excise on wine brandy, an additional sum of £40,000 had been collected. He defied the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) to show that although more liquor had been sold, there was any more drunkenness in the country. He hoped that the Government would consider the whole matter, so that when next they brought up the Estimates a definite policy would be laid before the House with regard to the Excise. Dealing with the brandy advances, and the brandy in stock, he hoped that the Government would inform them what it intended to do with it. If it were thrown on the market it would upset it, and considerably lower the prices. He advocated, it was understood, that the remaining brandy should be destroyed-—

Oh!

If that brandy is put on the market it will spoil the prices, and damage the merchants as much as the wine farmers.

Then pay the money back. The hon. member went on to speak of the prices of the brandy in question.

Where do you get your figures from?

Are they riot (correct? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Walton) paid £14 for the brandy, and stored it, you have had ullage and evaporation. The hon. gentleman borrowed money with which to pay it, and had to pay per cent. interest. Dr. De Jager proceeded to deal with the liquor restrictions in the Transvaal, which, he said, resulted in the prisons being filled with white people who had been convicted of illicit liquor selling. He hoped that the Government would take the whole matter of liquor legislation into serious consideration, and deal with it in a broad, and not a narrow, parochial spirit, but from the point of view of the whole of the Union.

said that as one who had heard the Minister of Finance make previous Budget statements, he thought it came as a disappointment that the statement which the Minister had put before the House was not more lucid. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merri-man) had complained that he could not make it all out, and his lieutenant, the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), had gone so far as to say that the Estimates were not worth the paper they were written on. Now, he thought there was no doubt that these Estimates failed in three respects. First of all, the ten months which the Minister of Finance had adopted was perfectly useless for the purpose of real comparison. Secondly, as the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) had pointed out, it was perfectly impossible to tell what the number of the personnel employed by Government was to-day, and, thirdly, he could not make out from the Minister of Finance’s speech what amount of money unallocated to definite work was inherited by the Union Government from the four colonies when Union came about. So far as the Transvaal was concerned, he did not think there was very much doubt. The information could be gathered from the speech delivered by the Minister of Finance in April last during the last session of the Transvaal Parliament. He then told them that he had a sum of £1,365,000, £690,000 of which was allocated to certain works which he felt certain this Parliament would sanction; £297,000 was given as a contribution towards the guaranteed loan on account of repatriation debts. That left £377,000, which he handed over as the contribution towards the money required for the erection of the Union buildings. Now, that showed that the information which they wanted could be got. But they had not got in the Estimates the exact amount of money which the Minister of Finance had at his disposal, free, unencumbered, and unallocated. So far as the last contribution of £377,000 towards the construction of the Union buildings was concerned, he did not think that that was allocated by Parliament, and he could find no trace of it in the Estimates. As regards the £297,977, which was the contribution made to the guaranteed loan account, he thought they were entitled to ask the Minister for some explanation as to the present state of repatriation ac count. They were invited about a year ago to consider the advances made for repatriation purposes as good as cash, but they ventured to be sceptical. In April last the Minister told them that he had extended the time, and that the first repayments would be made on December 31 of this year. Proceeding, he referred to the special Commission which was appointed to consider the question of repatriation advances, and said that what they wanted to know at that time was what was the finding of that Commission, what amount of money had been remitted, and to what extent outstanding advances were to be regarded as good as cash. They were then told that the successors of the Transvaal Government, the Union Government, would have to see that time was granted for repayment. Now, he thought the House were entitled to know whether they were going to be asked to sanction a further extension of time, and it was high time that they had the report of the Commission, which he took was in the hands of the Government. There was no doubt that it would have been much more satisfactory if they had had a complete statement of the position of the railway finances. They had certain railways authorised, and certain sums of money allocated to the building of railways. They had been told that the sums allocated were not sufficient, and that further allocations would have to be made, and if they were to have a proper view of the financial policy of the country they should have the proper railway position placed before them, and they should know what sums were necessary to the building of mil ways. They wanted to know what; liability they had to meet, and what available money they had to meet their liability. Now, there, had been two main criticisms. The first was that the Minister had not given them any indication as to what was going to be the financial policy of the Government as to the future. Now he was not going to attack him. He admitted that it would have been difficult for him from the party point of view, but he did think that that made it all the more incumbent upon him to tell them exactly what was the financial position of the country to-day. The second criticism as offered by the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was that the Estimates showed great extravagance. Well, it was very hard to deal with the question satisfactorily, because it was impossible to make an effective comparison. He was not surprised to find that the expenses of administration were going to be considerable, but that was inevitable under the dual capital system. That was an evil, a misfortune to which they were all committed, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) as much as anybody else, by the findings of the National Convention. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) attacked the Civil Servants, and he (the speaker) did not think that he had any justification for doing so. He agreed with the hon. member for Fords-burg (Mr. Duncan), when he said that if they wanted to have an efficient Civil Service, the officials must be properly paid. He was delighted that the Minister of the Interior had come round to their view that they had carried retrenchment too far in the Transvaal. They were also delighted to find that members on the Ministerial side were criticising the Estimates, but he must say that he did not feel greatly alarmed at some of the criticisms which the right hon. gentleman had thought fit to offer. The right hon. gentleman had made a passing reference to the Ministers’ salaries. Well, they (the Opposition) agreed with him. They were going to take a vote on that matter, and they hoped to have his support. As regards the point that these salaries had been inherited from the Crown Colony Government, he thought it had been very well dealt with by the member for Fordsburg. Under Crown Colony Government it was necessary to get highly-skilled officials, and those who were employed deserved to be well paid, for the work was exceptional, and the cost of living unduly high at the time. Putting party prejudice aside, he believed that all would admit, that the work was well done, and few people would contend that the hon. member for Fordsburg did not earn every penny paid to him. He also expected the assistance of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) in regard to Field-cornets in the Transvaal. They saw no reason why the system of Field-cornets which obtained in the Transvaal should be perpetuated. He did not think that the system was suited to the present needs of the country. It was an antiquated system. The Field-cornets were not as efficient as they should be, and they were open in many cases to the charge of being the political agents of the hon. gentlemen on the Ministerial benches They would be delighted to have the support of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) in securing some economy when that vote came before them. The position was that they had to make up their minds to very considerable expenditure on objects of the greatest importance, such as those indicated by the hon. member for Fordsburg and others, the question of defence, for instance, and to heavy administrative expenditure. As things were to-day, it was no use disguising to themselves the fact that the Government was expected to do a great many things for the people of the country than were asked for before. They had now to meet the wants of a new order of things. The right hon. member had made up his mind that things were not as they seemed, between here and Stellenbosch—(laughter)— but the position was that they had a large, busy industrial population, which had needs of its own, and which insisted on Government doing many things for its protection which previous Governments did not do. All those things had to be attended to, and would cost money. Where were they to get that money?

Out of the mines.

The hon. member said out of the mines. Well, he would point out that the mines were already paying a good deal. It might, on the other hand, he said, take it out of the land; but land on the average paid a good deal. As far as he was concerned, he did not subscribe to one view or the other. The hon. member for Uitenhage said he was for a financial policy which did not interfere with business. He (Mr. Chaplin) thought the hon. member had made out a case for the reduction of the transfer duties in the Cape Colony. In his opinion, the transfer duties did interfere with business—(hear, hear)— and he agreed they should be taken off. Then the hon. member for Uitenhage went on to tell them that they ought to have a patriotic national system. That, he agreed, was an excellent sentiment, but still it was one which gave rise to a considerable difference of opinion. The hon. member would, no doubt, say that to put a tax on the mines would be patriotic; other hon. members would possibly say it would be patriotic to put a tax on and. In his (Mr. Chaplin’s) opinion, what they ought to do was to see how they could extend the number of people who were settled and living in South Africa. They ought also to see how they could develop the resources they already have in the country. It was clear there must be a concrete policy, not only for dealing with the people in South Africa, but a concrete policy for attracting more settlers to the country. He did not think the country had as yet shown any indication of being able to tackle the latter problem satisfactorily. He had been told that the present Minister of Lands had parcelled out a good deal of Crown land among settlers, but whether that was before he took over office under the present Government or not he could not say; and he was told a good many people were put on the land who did not live there, and who did not do any work. He was told that no proper examination was made to see whether those people were suitable to be placed on that land. If that was the case, it was a thing that should be stopped. Then there was the question of promoting mining in the outside districts. More facility should be given to prospectors. More encouragement should be given to men who were very often opening up very unhealthy country. He did not advocate that a man who took out a block of claims should be advanced money in the same way that a farmer was advanced money, as it was obvious the security that man could give was smaller than the security the farmer could furnish. At the same time, he thought something might be done in the way of remitting claim licences in outside districts during the time the holder was merely prospecting, so long as he was doing bona fide work on those claims. He hoped the Government would recognise the obligations of the Transvaal Government with regard to the completion of the Selati railway. It was nothing short of a scandal that that railway was not completed long ago. When they were allocating money for improvements, let them see that both the agricultural and the industrial side were treated fairly. He was sure there was no objection on the part of the industrial side to spending money on the development of the country districts. Referring to the amendment and miners’ phthisis, he said that those connected with mining were thoroughly alive to the ravages of the disease, and they would cooperate in any reasonable way to put a stop to the disease, and give what relief they could to these unfortunate people. He went on to say that one would imagine from what the hon. member for Jeppe Mr. Creswell) had said, that nothing had been done. This was not exactly the case. He went on to refer to the two Commissions that had dealt with the matter, and told the House how recommendations made had been carried out. With regard to compensation, there was not the slightest desire—and he was sure he was speaking on behalf of all who were connected with the mimes—to shirk responsibility, and pay their fair share of compensation. He thought his hon. friend would do better if he would co-operate, and get his friends to co-operate, with the mine owners, instead of criticising them, especially if they happened to be on his side of the House. There was the question of medical inspection; but he thought no good would be done by rushing the thing on men before they knew the logical consequences. He thought that the matter should be seriously discussed by every class of person affected, in order to see if any satisfactory solution of the difficulty could not be found. At the present time he could only say he was certain that the people in charge of the mines were just as anxious as anyone to minimise the spread of the disease, and there was no intention or wish on their part to shirk their fair responsibility.

said he was convinced: that the more appropriate time to discuss the fiscal policy was upon the Estimates for the ensuing year. It had been said that the country was over-judged; he thought the Minister of Finance had been both over-judged and prejudiced. Reference had been made to Ministerial salaries, but why should hon. gentlemen be penalised for submitting themselves to the will of the country? He had no doubt that, after the expiration of five years, the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) would be able to justify these salaries to his constituents. (A laugh.) Having expressed the hope that the railways would be run on strict business principles, and that any surplus would be used for railway extension, the hon. member maintained that railways would not be used as a means of raising taxation. If more money Were needed it should be obtained by increased duties on champagne, whisky, motor-cars, and other luxuries. (Hear, hear.) As to the Civil Servants, he was very glad that no drastic steps had been taken to effect a reduction of their numbers. If they retrenched at the top of the Service they would have to pay pensions, and then have the Service run by juniors. Incidentally, the hon. member maintained that pensions earned in this country should be spent in South Africa—(cheers)—under a reduction of 33 per cent. The Minister of Finance had shaken hands with himself on the large amount of exports as compared with imports; but too much hides and bark was being exported, instead of their manufacturing the leather in the country. He hoped that the import duties, which would be placed on manufactured leather would be such that that large importation would be stopped. They were exporting four times as much hides, etc., as they were importing leather. The Minister had said that the income tax would be done away with in the Cape Province; and he very much regretted that it was suggested that the income tax would be eliminated from the fiscal system of that country. If it were again introduced there should be a graduated income tax, and a difference should be made between earned and unearned incomes. The income tax under such circumstances was the fairest tax that could be imposed, and it was being paid in Britain without the slightest irritation. The hon. member proceeded to speak of closer settlement, saying that it was better first to settle their own people on the land, although he was not against the immigration of desirable settlers. In regard to miners’ phthisis, he hoped that the awakening would extend to the gold mines of the Rand, and that those in charge of the mines would awaken to their responsibilities, and if they did not the Government should take the necessary measures to safeguard the lives of these men. He would endorse most heartily what the hon. member for Rustenberg (Mr. Grobler) had said with regard to the salaries of the Provincial Councillors, and hoped that they would be increased, for they were too low in the case of men who had to represent and travel over very large constituencies. As to the Field-Cornetcies, he did not think they got too much salary, if they hook into account all they had done in regard to the eradication of tick fever.

said that if they had a uniform system of taxation, and expenditure was equally divided through the various Provinces, then it would be possible to look at the matter from a South African point of view. But if they looked at the matter from a parochial point of view, then the Minister of Finance was to blame, because he allowed taxation to rest unfairly upon one Province as against another. He referred to the income tax in the Cape, and said that the people of this Province had nothing to thank the Government for. They had no reason to thank the Minister of Finance because there was no income tax at present. The Prime Minister of the last Cape Parliament (Mr. Merriman) only introduced the tax for one year, and to have continued it the Minister of Finance would have had to introduce legislation. With regard to the cigarette tax, was it fair to charge a man who manufactured cigarettes down here a stamp duty in addition to the ordinary Customs duty on tobacco? That did not operate in the Transvaal, and he thought the extra tax might be removed in the case of the Cape. Again, there was the patent medicine stamp duty. He was extremely disappointed that the Minister did not see his way to remove from the Statute Book a duty that was in no way beneficial to the State. The State was losing more in Customs revenue by things coming through the ports than he was gathering from that duty. Continuing, he asked why people in this part should pay these duties which were not levied in other parts of the Union. He went on to refer to the compensation to the capitals and the position of Cape Town, which had made great sacrifices in the cause of Union. There was nothing on the Estimates to show that the Government would meet any claim for compensation in this direction. There were other irritating things that existed; they were irritating, though they did not bring in much revenue. These were the stamps on cheques, which was an irritating, though not a very lucrative, tax. Continuing, he asked why no notice had been taken of the amounts illegally paid to legislators of the late Transvaal Parliament. He pointed out that the Chief Justice of the Transvaal laid it down that it was an illegal payment, and that the proper place in which the grievance should be ventilated was the Union Parliament. Though both sides of the House originally agreed, once the decision of the Court was given responsibility only rested on one body, and that was the Government. He went on to refer in detail to the session for which this money was paid, and said it was sufficient for him that the Court had decided against the legality of the resolution. This nest-egg of £20,000 was waiting for the Minister of Finance whenever he wanted it. As to the Civil Servants, he regretted that the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Marriman) had made an attack upon them and their work. They should nor, be railed at for doing the work they had been appointed to carry out. Owing to the smallness of their pensions many of the Cape Civil Servants were compelled to go and live in England. He regretted that the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. De Jager) had introduced the wine and brandy question, and he (Mr. Alexander) hoped that the restrictions on the sale of liquor to natives would not be removed.

I did not suggest it.

said that although the salaries of Cape Cabinet Ministers had been doubled when they entered the Union Ministry, those of the Cape Civil Servants remained on the old scale. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that the Minister of Finance would give some indication, in his reply, that at an early date there would be uniformity of taxation throughout the Union.

said that he wished to tackle the Government on the parsimonious treatment of certain matters which were near his heart, but before doing so, he wished to reply to some of the statements which had been made by hon. members. The last speaker had said that the Cape Province had to pay more taxation than the rest of the Union, but it must not be forgotten that people who lived in inland towns had to pay heavy railway rates for all their goods. He hoped that there would not be a mixing up of the accounts, but that the railway accounts would be kept separate, so that it could be seen how much had been paid in railway rates. He wished to join with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) in hoping that something would be done to alleviate the condition of the miners, and to combat miners’ phthisis. He hoped that the Government would take some steps in that regard. With regard to field-cornets, he said that they assisted the Government in various ways. (Opposition laughter.) They did much work which was previously done by the police. He did not think, however, that they should mix themselves up in the elections. (Opposition hear, hear.) The hon. member for Uitenhage had also enunciated some opinions with which he could not agree. The hon. member said the control of the Railway Board should be abolished, and that all the money should go into the same pool. He (Mr. Neser) hoped that would never happen. The hon. member for Uitenhage further urged the advisability of applying all surpluses towards the reduction of the public debt. He (Mr. Neser) considered it should be the duty of the Treasurer, in the first place, to calculate his estimates of revenue and expenditure so as to as nearly as possible balance those estimates, and have no surplus. In the event of there being a surplus, he thought it would be quite fair and good finance to devote a certain definite percentage to the sinking fund, so as to extinguish the public debt in the course of time, but to apply all surpluses to that object, he thought, would be folly. Surpluses should be devoted to the development of the country —(hear, hear)—and to extending the taxable area. He objected to the high railway rates. They not only paid high rates over their own lines, but over the lines of the other colonies. They submitted to a high railway rate because with the money thus earned the country was developed, and they were enabled to extend railway communication all through the country. He had, however, very serious doubt as to what would become of the money now if they submitted to those high rates. Continuing, he said that it was time that these railway rates were reduced, and they would insist upon the railway being run on business lines, and not for the benefit of those who lived at the coast. The hon. member for the Paarl had also asked who was to decide the agricultural policy of the Railway Board. Well, the railways were first to be run on business lines, and then for the development of the country in general. The hon. gentleman also called attention to the Excise, and said that if the Excise could be reduced the profits would be greater; but he thought that brandy was a legitimate article for taxation, and that there should be no reduction. He took very strong exception to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). He (Mr. Neser) had yet to learn that hon. members on the Government side of the House were being bled for the benefit of the Transvaal. As a matter of fact, the increased expenditure on public institutions in the Cape was £46,000, against an increase of only £3,000 for public institutions in the Transvaal. He hoped in the future this provincial spirit would not be displayed so strongly. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had complained that 2½ millions were concealed in the pockets of the Railway Commissioners, and that same of the Provinces had borrowed money when they were bursting with riches. So far as the Transvaal was concerned, the loans were quite justified.

On the motion of Mr. J. A. NESER, seconded by Mr. M. W. MYBURGH,

The debate was adjourned until to-morrow, and given precedence after the questions.