from G. E. Bath, Forester, at Algeria, Clanwilliam.

from Alice Pfohl, Education Department.

Removal of the lepers from Robben Island.

from H. E. Hoal, widow of the late Wm. T. Hoal, late Postmaster-General of the Union.

Re losses through the confiscation of stock during the Anglo-Boer war.

Re a railway in the North-Western districts of the Orange Free State (three petitions).

from W. A. Newby, foreman-in-charge, Letjesbosch, Cape.

from A. MacNay, mechanical engineer, Railway Department.

from P. A. Russouw, who taught in Oudtshoorn, and studied at Victoria College, Stellenbosch.

as Chairman, brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the first report of the Select Committee on Waste Landis, reporting certain resolutions.

moved, seconded by Mr. J. H. Schoeman (Oudtshoorn), that the resolutions be adopted.

Agreed to.

showing (1) All new lines of railway authorised by the respective Parliaments of the different Colonies; (2) the various Acts of Parliament by which the lines are authorised; (3) the financial provision; (4) which lines are in course of construction; and (5) why those lines not now being constructed are left in abeyance.

moved that the second reading be set down for Monday.

seconded.

suggested that the second reading be postponed for a fortnight in order that members might consult their constituents.

said that he moved Monday simply in order to facilitate the business of the House, because it might be that on Monday there would not be sufficient to do. The present Bill was merely to tide them over between now and next session.

hoped that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Robinson) would not offer any objection, because the Bill was highly necessary.

The motion was agreed to.

asked whether the Bill had been published; if so, how was it that members had not been placed in possession of it?

There was no answer.

said that under ordinary circumstances he did not think that anyone on that side of the House would have intervened, and after the discussion, which had taken place in public, the Speaker would have left the chair without any further discussion; but after the very provocative speech which had been made by the Minister of Finance and the misrepresentations he had indulged in, he (Mr. Walton) thought it necessary, before the House went into committee, that certain matters should be straightened out. (Opposition cheers.) He would leave hon. members to deal with their own points, and he had only to bring a few points before the House. He had noticed that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) resented any criticism coming from him, because he had offered a compliment to the Minister after his speech. Well, that was a lesson: “Never help a lame dog over a stile.” (Laughter.) Whether the hon. member fully understood the statement he had made on Wednesday, he (Mr. Walton) did not know; he was in serious doubt. (Opposition cheers.) He thought most of them must be in serious doubt in listening to the second attempt of the Minister of Finance to try to restore order out of the chaos into which he had plunged them a fortnight ago. They could have forgiven that, but when the Minister attempted to conceal his ignorance by misrepresentation and by reckless misstatements, he thought they could not allow that to pass. The Minister had used a certain amount of dexterity in burking the questions which had been put to him from the Opposition side of the House, but it was a legal maxim that when you had no case, abuse the plaintiff’s attorney. (Hear, hear.) In this case the Opposition represented the plaintiff—the public of the country—for it was the public moneys which were being dealt with. They who were there to represent the “plaintiffs” were there to protect the public; and it was their duty to examine the figures given by the Minister of Finance before they went into Committee of Supply, and to know what the exact position was. It was not only the duty of hon. members on the Opposition side of the House, but on the Ministerial side as well. As a sample of the Minister’s reckless misstatements, there was one about the figures not being regularly published while he (Mr. Walton) was in the Treasury. There was a regulation of the Cape Treasury, which had never been broken, that these statements were published regularly every month, for which he did not take any credit—it was simply the custom to do so. He remembered no occasion on which the figures had not been so published. He would ask his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) to bring forward a single instance.

Oh, I will bring them; here they are (pointing to a bundle of papers at his side).

did not see the force of his hon. friend coming to that House and making statements about the publication of financial returns which were not correct. Instead he relied on some haphazard report, and came down to the House in an endeavour to make a point. They had got some of the figures from his hon. friend after a good deal of prompting, and he would repeat some of them, because it was essential they should get them in their minds. The Treasurer had told them that the balance he received amounted to £2,161,000. That was the surplus from the colonies on May 31. The Treasurer had showed that he had this amount of £2,161,000 intact. He also had a balance from the loan fund of £447,000. Let him deal for a moment with this amount of two millions odd, and what the Treasurer proposed to do with it. He said he intended to redeem debt. Now, in his first statement the Treasurer told the House that these balances were not free or floating balances, because the amounts had been ear-marked for certain public works. Therefore, according to that statement, those balances were not free, seeing that they were ear-marked against public works. How he reconciled those statements the Treasurer did not stop to tell the House. Those items—those public works—were included in the Estimates of Expenditure at present before the House. Against these previous items of expenditure there were certain revenue items. They were asked to pay for the completion of these works. The public had already voted and paid the money for these works, and now he wanted fresh money to pay for works that had already been paid for. He did not know what the feeling of the House was on the subject, but he (Mr. Walton) thought it would be wiser to use money set aside for the purpose for the completion of these works.

What do you want to do?

I want to use the money we have in hand for the purpose for which it has been set aside by the Parliaments concerned. Continuing, he said that his hon. friend wanted to get this money twice over, and he hoped later on they would be able to test the feeling of the House on this question. The speaker went on to refer to the purchase of Treasury bills.

interjected a remark.

said that money had to be asked for to pay for these bills. His hon. friend must get out of the idea that the House was the Magistrate’s Court He ventured to put it to the House that the Treasury was putting this loan money to a purpose for which it had not been borrowed. There were the Public Offices at Pretoria and all sorts of public works which had to be gone on with, and for which money would have to be found, and if the present balances were used now for paying off these other debts, the Government would have to raise other loans to complete these works. That was clear. What other sources were there? Reference had been made to a parochial or Provincial spirit. Well, he entirely agreed that they should all try to appreciate the fact that they were now a united country, and one people; but if they were going to take public money in this way and spend it in certain areas, they were inviting protest from the rest of the country. The people of the Cape Province, for instance, understood fully that out of an expenditure of nearly three-quarters of a million, there was only £30,000 for the Cape Province, and they would naturally say the Government had no right to go in for fresh taxation to pay for works for which the Cape Province had already paid its share, and had got nothing. It was no use talking about putting an end to parochial or Provincial feeling unless they did something to remove the cause of that feeling. There was no justification for the Government asking for fresh funds for old expenditure which had already been provided for.

said he wished again to appeal to the Government to abolish the poll tax in Natal. It had now been made clear that there was a large surplus, and he hoped the Government would see its way to devoting a part of it to the abolition of this iniquitous tax. The late Government of Natal had repealed the income tax, which made the wealthy pay their share, but they had allowed the poll tax on the wage-earning classes to remain. The Government had no need of the miserable sum which the tax yielded, and he hoped to have an assurance from the Minister of Finance that it would immediately be abolished.

said he thought that if the Minister of Finance had confined himself, as had been the custom of Treasurers in the past, in replying on the debate to clearing up a few points which were not understood, the probability was that the House would now have been in committee on the Estimates. As a matter of fact, the reply of the Minister had left them in a bigger fog than ever. It was true they had now ascertained what the balances were, but they did not know yet what was to be done with the balances. As to the revenue balances of £2,161,000, the Minister of Finance had told them in his reply that this money was to be used to pay off debt; but in the first place he told the House that he intended to use it for the completion of certain public works which had been authorised and voted by the late Parliaments. Which story was the House to believe? Continuing, Mr. dagger said he had turned up the Estimates of Expenditure in the Transvaal Parliament for the year 1909-1910, and found that in Parliament there was voted for public works and bridges £625,000 under the heading of extraordinary expenditure, besides the amount of £211,000 on the votes Among the works which were voted for Out of the accumulated balances under-, the heading of extraordinary expenditure—the accumulated revenue balances at that time amounted to £1,341,000. He wanted hon. members to compare a few of these votes for which this money had been voted already in the Transvaal. Vote 32 of the votes for extraordinary expenditure: under the heading of Agriculture there was, “Additions and extensions to Potchefstroom Experimental Farm, £21,000.” They had spent £3,233, so that there was clearly a surplus of over £16,000. Now they proposed to vote on the Estimates for the identical thing, £15,419. Take the next item, “Erection of creameries and plant at Middelburg and Standerton, £15,000.” Not one penny of that was spent. Now, it was proposed to ask for a vote of £22,968, although they had £15,000 unspent. Take the Johannesburg College. The vote was for £45,000. They spent. £7,650, leaving something like £38,000 as a surplus. They now came to the House and asked them to vote £50,000 for the same purpose. For the Government Buildings and Courthouse at Standerton they voted £18,000, and had spent in the year, according to the Estimates he had, £640, leaving over £17,000. Now they came and asked them to vote £15,359 for this work. Where was the money voted last year? It was the same with the Government Buildings at Barberton. There was £10,000 voted, but nothing had been spent, and now the Government asked for £10,000 again. He had only mentioned a few of the items. The House had a right to ask where this money which had been voted by the Transvaal Parliament was now. It was there in the Treasury—an accumulated balance of £1,050,000. The Treasurer had not spent it, but had brought it forward. Now the Treasurer asked them to divert it, and asked them to vote fresh money for the purposes it had been voted for. He (Mr. Jagger) had been charged with being parochial, but, to his mind, the position was perfectly clear. He considered that every colony had every right to spend all its unused balances in their Treasuries. The Transvaal had £1,050,000. No one could say one word if that had been spent in the Transvaal. But what they did say was that this money should not be diverted from the purposes for which it was intended by the Transvaal Parliament. Then they came down to this House and asked them to re-vote money for these purposes— money not got from the Transvaal alone but from the whole of South Africa. That was the position. Look what it meant. To-day the Minister of Finance had to starve the other parts of South Africa. If he had this money and spent it on the works intended, he would not now have had to come for new votes. To make up the money which he had diverted from other purposes, he had got to keep on taxation and had to starve the other parts of South Africa; and, furthermore, had to keep on largely unjust taxation—the poll tax in the Transvaal and the transfer duty and other taxes in the Cape Colony. He would like to ask if that was a fair course to follow? Was it not perfectly fair that money that belonged to one colony must be spent in that colony?

No.

When I say money, I mean balances of expenditure. Proceeding, he said that the surplus balances brought into the Union should each be appropriated by the colony which had supplied it. Money afterwards raised by the taxation of the whole of South Africa should be used for the whole of South Africa. That was the position he took up.

It is dead against the Cape.

No, it is not. Proceeding, he said the Minister of Finance had said he was going to fund the whole debt. They understood he was going to fund, not the accumulated deficits of the Cape, but the total debt. The Minister of Finance then proposed to fund the whole of the total debt. Was there any sense in paying off these enormous sums in one year? £1,600,000 had been redeemed in Treasury bills, and he said he would devote the revenue balance to the same purpose, making a total reduction of £3,811,000. He (Mar. Jagger) was for reduction of debt, but the proper course to pursue was to devote a certain amount every year to that purpose, and to devote the balance to public works. As to educational expenditure, not a single sixpence was provided in the Cape Estimates for new school buildings, whereas £267,000 was set aside for new schools in the Transvaal out of money drawn from the whole of South Africa. It was grossly unjust to take money gathered from all parts of South Africa, to spend in this way. Why was not the expenditure distributed fairly over the four Provinces? The Treasurer had stated that he (Mr. Jagger) had asserted that the Transvaal Government illegally had held shares in the National Bank. He (Mr. Jagger) had said nothing of the kind. What he did say was, that the Transvaal Treasury had invested pension funds in the purchase of 13,000 shares in the National Bank. This was entirely illegal.

What have we to do with it?

The Treasurer made certain statements, which I am showing was not in accordance with facts. When I accused him of an illegal transaction I was absolutely correct.

We have nothing to do with that.

I daresay it is not very pleasant; but these things must be brought out for the good of the community. Continuing, Mr. Jagger referred to the Transvaal Auditor-General’s report. He did not know in what way the Transvaal Government was in the habit of treating the Auditor-General; but down here they were accustomed to treat their Auditor-General with the utmost respect, and whenever anything appeared in his report they took it as correct. The Treasurer had stated that the illegal issues referred to by the Auditor-General had been referred to the Transvaal Public Accounts Committee, and that a satisfactory explanation had been given of the matter. But that report had never been before the Select Committee.

Are you dealing with the £69,000?

I am dealing with this report, by which I stand. A Public Accounts Committee was never appointed in the last session of the Transvaal Parliament, so consequently this report has never been before the Public Accounts Committee. What importance can you attach to the Treasurer’s words under these circumstances? I have been charged with wishing to besmirch the Transvaal. Such a charge is absolutely unfounded and ridiculous, but what I do consider it my duty to do when I am elected to this House is to see how the money has been spent. In conclusion, Mr. Jagger said that what struck him in the report of the Auditor-General of the Transvaal were the frequent transgressions of the law by the late Transvaal Government. (Opposition cheers.)

said that he also thought that it would not be necessary for him at that stage to make another speech, but the Treasurer had seen fit to misrepresent what he had said in the grossest fashion, and it was necessary for him to refute what he had said. In the first place, he wished to say how pleased he was to see that the Treasurer took a piece of advice which he (the speaker) offered him, namely, that, if he had funds to spare, instead of funding floating debt as he proposed to do, he should use some of these sums for reducing it. He (Mr. Phillips) said that although there were funds they were not there, and that had been shown to be the case. There were funds, but they were allocated, and they found from the Treasurer himself that they were not to be devoted to the purposes for which they were allocated, but the money was to come out of the fresh Estimates. It was regrettable that on the first occasion the Treasurer spoke he did not make this matter perfectly clear. The Treasurer had also regaled the House with an extraordinary doctrine of finance which he assumed he (the speaker) possessed. The Treasurer said he wondered what he (the speaker) would say if he borrowed money at 3½ per cent, when he could have the money at 3 per cent. Well, he never suggested any such transaction. Well, what he (Mr. Phillips) did say was that the Treasurer talked about converting existing loans, and for his utterance on that matter was taken to task, and very properly too, by, he supposed, the most competent financier in the House, the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). It was owing to that that he (the speaker) uttered the opinion that it was undesirable to borrow too cheap, and as his words had been misunderstood he would explain them a little further. There were moments when they might take money on very cheap terms. There might be a moment when the Treasury would be able to convert the existing loan at a very low irate of interest. He (the speaker) could only say that when advantage was taken of these moments the sequel very often were moments of considerable repentance. He would quote a case in Great Britain, namely, the reduction of the rate of interest on Consols. Practically ever since then the capital value of Consols had been falling. If the capital value of their securities fell in the eyes of the world, and they wanted to borrow more money, the world looked askance at them. That was the disadvantage of borrowing at a price which he called too cheap. Many a Treasurer in the past had suffered from doing it, and he hoped that example would not be followed by gentlemen who endorsed the position of Treasurer of the Union. He also ventured to say that the Treasurer was too sanguine in his expectations. He would not repeat the arguments that had been advanced on the first occasion, but there were a series of arguments not one of which the Treasurer had met. He simply described the Customs returns as a barometer of the state of the country. He (the speaker) drew attention to the Treasurer’s extremely sanguine hopes being based upon very recent importations of machinery and other things. It was quite possible that the Treasurer might get the revenue which he had estimated, but he had laid the foundation on a wrong basis, and he wished to mention that in view of the fact that they would soon have another set of Estimates. He hoped that the next set of Estimates was going to be constructed upon another basis. As to the distinction made between Treasury bills being redeemed or bought, he thought it was a distinction without great difference, and he thought it would be more satisfactory if the Treasurer should have redeemed them than if he had bought them. He thought that his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Merriman) and his hon. friends on that side of the House had been perfectly justified in their criticisms.

congratulated the Treasurer on the large surplus, and hoped that now something would be done to relieve Natal Province of its poll tax, which pressed unequally upon poor and rich.

said that when the matter of the Natal poll tax had been dealt with before, the Treasurer had said that it was impossible at that stage to go into the matter of equalisation of taxation; but now that they had his figures before them, they saw that he had made some endeavour to equalise taxation for he had released the people of the Cape Province of the income tax. Which brought in a quarter of a million, while he had seen fit again to impose the poll tax on the Europeans of Natal, which only brought in £26,000. The people of Natal were not going to receive that quietly, and the Treasurer was going to have serious trouble if he attempted to collect the poll tax.

I do took think the hon. member is in order in debating this subject at all. I see that this matter was dealt with at an earlier part of the session, and was disposed of. Consequently, the hon. member is not in order in debating it again.

Am I not entitled to make an appeal in this matter?

replied in the negative.

suggested that the Treasurer should endeavour to meet the grievances of the people of Natal, so that the burden of taxation should not fall on certain sections of the community and not on others. The Treasurer was going to press a gold law and base metals’ tax on people who were already groaning under taxation.

thought, that the Minister of Finance must be satisfied from the course the debate had taken that although he had given them some information the previous day, he had not given them a true picture of the financial condition of the country, so that they could not say what financial policy they would urge on the Government when the Budget was brought in next year. He thought that the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) had clearly shown the somewhat haphazard way in which the Minister of Finance had dealt with the balances of the Transvaal on May 51, The Minister had said in the Transvaal Parliament that what he would actually hand over to the Union Treasury was £690,000, and that the money allocated would be spent on public works in the Transvaal. Continuing, the hon. member said that no money had been allocated for the Union Buildings, although they knew that money was being spent there. They wanted enlightenment on the point. But there was another point on which he thought the House should get some information, and that was: the present position of the repatriation funds. He thought that in order that there should be no mistake, he should go into the history of the matter. In 1909 the Hon. the Minister told them in the Transvaal House that the advances were £1,988,000, from which had to be deducted £326,000, which was equal to 25 per cent, of the advances that were made. In addition to the reduction of £326,000, he said there were certain debtors who paid off their money in full, and in consequence of the reduction of 25 per cent., they were entitled to refund amounting to about £16,000. Then there was a further commission appointed by the Government—a live-stock and inquiry commission —and they were instructed to inquire in regard to the allowances that should be made in respect of animals sold to repatriation debtors—animals which had died after they were sold. Later, the Hon. the Minister told the hon. member for Heidelberg that he understood that if a sum of £100,000 were put down, it would be a generous amount. That year, in dealing with the matter, he told them that he had not yet got the report of the Commission. Continuing, he pointed out that the first instalment of the amount fell due in 1909, and that the Hon. the Treasurer said he expected to get the report of the further Commission in three or four months’ time, and that one-third of the repayments would be made in December of this year. They had not yet got the report of the Commission, and they did not know whether the amount recommended by the Commission was to be written off. They did Lot know whether interest had been paid on the amount outstanding; they did not know whether the Government were to get the expected one third of the balances outstanding. The House should know how much had been or would be written off, whether interest had been paid on the outstandings, and when the Government expected the one third of the outstandings would be paid. He thought that the House should have this information, because a recent speech of the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that further time would have to be given, and that some reduction would have to be made for cattle slaughtered in consequence of East Coast fever. The Hon. the Minister of Finance had not given the House a clear statement of the financial position of the country as well as the position an which they stood so far as these repatriation funds were concerned,

said that if anybody had besmirched the name of the Transvaal it was the hon. members who sat on the other side of the House. He thought that the Minister of Justice would have made a more straightforward statement regarding the finances of the country than the Hon. the Minister of Finance. If his hon. friend had made a perfectly clear statement with regard to the balances, they would not have had such a prolonged debate on the subject. He could quite understand why this earmarking had not been taken out of revenue balances, because if that had been done they would have been in the extraordinary position of having a surplus, and then there would have been no necessity for re-imposing the income tax and the poll tax. They, therefore, drew the earmarkings that had been made from the current revenue of the year. The speaker said that the Hon. the Minister of Finance had not dealt with the figures which he supplied, for the reason that he knew these were substantially correct. He believed that, having regard to the earmarkings, hon. members opposite would find that the Government after all would be compelled to go into the market. He thought the Treasurer should have made a clear statement of the financial position rather than that he should have cast suspicion upon the whole of the financial transactions of the Transvaal, suspicion which, co far as he (Sir G. Farrar) knew, was undeserved, for he regarded the Transvaal’s transactions as fair and above board.

who was received with sympathetic cheers, said he recognised that this was not the time to enter into a criticism of the Budget speech, but as the only man in the House directly concerned in mining, and representing the mining community of the Cape Province, there were one or two observations he would like to make. When he applauded the statement of the Treasurer that he intended to bring all the mining companies into line, and to put them on one basis, he did so because he recognised that it would be unfair to put the whole burden of taxation on the mines of the Transvaal without taxing the mines of the Cape Province, an admission on his part that the mining community of the Cape was prepared, as it always had been prepared, to pay its fair share to the revenue of the country. (Hear, hear.) Of course, what a fair share was, was a matter of opinion. At present he thought the mining companies of the country were paying more than their fair share, because if other companies, such as banking, brewery, and shipping companies, were taxed on their profits in the same way as the mining companies were taxed, then, of course, the latter would pay less than they now had to pay. He saw no reason why these companies should not be taxed similarly. For one thing, there were fewer risks in industrial concerns than there were in mining. Then the Treasurer was not right when he claimed that, by his present proposals he was bringing the mining companies into line, because the diamond mining companies were paying more than the gold mining companies. He did not mean by this that he wished the tax on the gold mines to be increased, for in his opinion they were already too heavily taxed. But it must be remembered that the gold mines produced an article of stable value, whereas diamonds were of variable value, subject to all sorts of Influences. He thought it was unfair to place a heavier burden on a company producing an article of variable value than upon a company which produced something of a standard value. Personally, he believed the fairest kind of tax was an income tax; but he was afraid that a tax levied upon mining companies was so easily and cheaply collected that it rather tempted a Treasurer, whenever he wanted a little money, to increase that sort of tax. He wished the tax on mining companies were as expensive to collect as a tax on other companies. He thought it was wrong to tax certain companies, and allow others to go free. He would remind the House that diamond mining companies were not always prosperous. There were mining companies which had never paid a dividend at all, as, for example, the mines in the Orange Free State. There were seventeen members from the Free State in that House, and not one of them had raised a voice on behalf of the diamond mining companies in that Province—companies which had been of great assistance to the State. He would refer to the Koffyfontein Diamond Mining Company in the Free State, for instance. That company had been struggling for existence for fifteen years, and now, just when it was on the point of making a profit, and paying a dividend, the Treasurer pounced down upon it, and proposed to take 10 per cent. of its profits. He appealed on behalf of this company especially, because no Free State member had raised his voice on its behalf. He would have some further remarks when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means; but he must say he would like to see all limited liability companies taxed on their dividends. He did not think it right that banks, breweries, and shipping companies should go free, while mining companies were heavily taxed. He had heard it said that if they taxed dividends, companies would pay very few dividends, but he did not believe that would be the case. The Treasurer had a great taxable reserve, without injuring anybody. Why not draw upon that reserve? He could then relieve Natal, and remedy the grievance from which thus early in the Union that Province suffered. (Applause.)

said he desired to point out the difficulty he and other members had experienced in following the discussion on the Budget speech, in that they had not been furnished with an official copy of the speech by the Minister of Finance. He desired in this regard to refer the Minister to the practice which prevailed in Natal, which, he ventured to suggest, might with convenience be copied by this House. In Natal the Budget speech was printed, and furnished to hon. members. It would be of considerable advantage if the Minister of Finance, in introducing the new speech, which they ought to have, he understood, next year, would reduce it to writing, so that he might be quite sure of what he said—(Opposition laughter)—when he addressed the House. (Applause.)

said he rose for the purpose of disassociating himself from the remarks made by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) (regarding the Hon. the Minister of Finance. Also of disassociating himself from his remarks that there was any intention of initiating any movement in Natal for preventing the payment of the poll tax. (Government cheers.) They in Natal were quite prepared to help the Minister of Finance, and were quite satisfied they would get the consideration from him they expected. (Government Cheers.)

said he was sorry that, owing to something he did or said the previous day, the House had been inflicted again with several speeches from the financial experts opposite—(Government laughter)—and he understood from his hon. friend, who was the leader of the financial experts on the other side of the House, that none of those speeches would have been inflicted on hon. members if he (Mr. Hull) had not made a provocative speech the day before. Well, if he made a provocative speech the day before he would apologise. He had no idea he was making if. He had only one idea in his mind, and that was to answer the criticisms of the Opposition. Whenever they criticised and used unfair criticisms and unfair arguments he would always make speeches, whether provocative or not. Another thing he had to apologise for—his hon. friend said he misrepresented things the day previously. Well, he would admit quite candidly he made one grave mistake. He described some of his friends as financial experts. (Government laughter.) He would formally withdraw. (Government laughter.) Well, these ex-financial experts were again in disagreement. Two of them said that day that after the statement the day before they were more befogged than ever. His hon. friend for Germiston (Mr. Drummond Chaplin), who could not be accused of paying compliments, had admitted quite candidly that he had obtained some information from the speech. That was much appreciated. His hon. and classical friend for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar) made a very gallant effort the other day to explain his (Mr. Hull’s) meaning, and used precisely the same figures as he (Mr. Hull)had. He succeeded so well that the hon. gentleman who sat before him went fast asleep. (Laughter.) There were just one or two points which he desired to clear up, because he did not think it was right that there should be any misapprehensions with regard to some of the things dealt with by him. First of all, with regard to the statements made by his hon. friend for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) regarding financial statements when he was Treasurer of the Cape. If hon. members would turn to the Votes and Proceedings of this House they would find that on November 8 the hon. member asked the Minister of Finance “whether he would supply a statement of revenue and expenditure of the Union since May 31, and, if so, when?” On page 23 of the same Votes and Proceedings would be found his (Mr. Hull’s) answer. He informed his friend that on November 4 the first of these financial statements had appeared in the “Government Gazette.” These were the statements he had in his mind when he addressed the House the previous day. If his hon. friend would come to his office, he would show him the “Gazettes.” During the period he (Mr. Walton) was in office, these statements were only published on the occasions he had indicated. There was not very much in the point, for it was not part of the hon. member’s business as Treasurer to see that these things were done. That was the duty of the clerical staff, which might have been negligent. Then his hon. friend (Mr. Walton) had reproached him, and said he was discourteous. He (Mr. Hull) could not understand that, unless he (Mr. Walton) meant when he and others rose to points of order. He (Mr. Hull) was perfectly within his rights in continuing his speech and in not giving way to hon. members opposite. Therefore, he must disclaim all guilt in connection with that charge. It did seem to him that some great financial experts, when one got into close quarters with them, seemed to have forgotten—or never to have known—the ABC of Parliamentary control. He had always been taught to regard the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), as one of the great financial authorities in South Africa. But he thought the hon. member sometimes spoke so rapidly that his tongue went too fast for his thoughts. (Laughter.) He understood the hon. member to say that when Parliament voted a sum of money for the service of the year, and the whole of it was not spent during that year that money must be kept and spent next year for the service for which it was intended.

No, I was quoting from a Transvaal report, which explained why certain expenditure was called extraordinary expenditure.

said the hon. member had asked if the money were to be used for the purpose for which Parliament voted it. If he would look on vote 40, page 206 of the Estimates, he would see a vast number of cases of votes representing works sanctioned—not only in the Transvaal, but all over South Africa some of them two or three years ago. Portions of the sums voted had been spent, but the remainder had to be re-voted. That was why they were on the Estimates. That was the only effective way in which they could exercise control by Parliament.

Why don’t you bring the balances forward?

The balances are brought forward. Every year Parliament has to re-vote sums not spent during the previous year. (Hear, hear.) There is another point on which there seems to be some misapprehension, namely, the £600,000 used by me for the purpose —not of buying Treasury bills—but for paying off Treasury bills which fell due.

I gave you credit for that.

The £1,650,000 which I used from my loan balances for the purpose of paying off Treasury bills must be refunded.

You never said so.

One must assume that hon. members opposite have reasonable intelligences. (Laughter.) I used these loan balances for paying off Treasury bills, but it is my duty to see that it is refunded, and in the Loan Bill provision will have to be made for the refunding of it.

It is still on open credit; you have no need to provide for it.

said he would deal with another matter which he saw that one of the local papers had taken up that morning. The other day his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) quoted from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General of the Transvaal for the year 1908-09. He quoted from page 25. On that page there appeared a number of items totalling £69,000, which he was charged with having drawn from the Exchequer without the authority or consent of Parliament.

That is so.

So that charge is repeated to-day?

Yes.

As I said yesterday, if my hon. friend, before making a reckless charge of that kind, had come to me, I would have put him right at once, and he would have seen at once that there was no truth or value in the charge. Proceeding, he said that if his hon. friend would look on that page he would find that there were four items, totalling over £30,000, represented moneys which had been spent by departments in excess of the authority of Parliament, and the ordinary Parliamentary practice was that these amounts, which occurred in every colony in the world—they occurred even in the Cape Colony—(Mr. JAGGER: “Yes; you are quite right”)—were usually reported to the House, and the latter usually passed a Supplementary Bill.

An Additional Appropriation Bill.

Yes; an Additional Appropriation Bill.

You mean an Unauthorised Expenditure Bill.

Yes. Proceeding, he said that if his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had come to him, he would have told him that if he referred to Act No. 5 of 1910, passed by the Transvaal Parliament—

That’s later than this (the Controller and Auditor-General’s report).

Precisely. That is my grievance against my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger). He quotes from a document which received Parliamentary sanction months after. That is my grievance. If he had come to me I would have referred him to Act No. 5, to show that these four items, amounting is over £30,000, received Parliamentary sanction under an Additional Appropriation Bill, bringing up the total to £69,000. The remainder of the items, proceeded the speaker, dealt with other matters—

said that his grievance was that the Minister spent the money without a Governor’s warrant.

said that all these things had been dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee in the Transvaal, and the Transvaal Parliament. He was very sorry that matters which had taken place anterior to May 31 should be sprung upon the floor of that House, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) seemed to be anxious to show the public that be had read all kinds of financial literature—tout he did not read it enough. (Laughter.) He did not see what possible good could toe done by digging up all these ancient things. These things could, if he desired, toe raised against the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) too, who, he had been informed, had raised money at very extravagant rates.

But he did it legally.

was proceeding to deal with the question of the poll tax in Natal, when

said: The poll tax is out of order.

The hon. member is quite in order.

said that he did not for one moment justify or approve of that poll tax, which had, however, been imposed by the Natal representatives in their own Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He did not see why Natal should be singled out, of all the Provinces, for preferential treatment. Their friends in the Orange Free State and the Cape Province were groaning under a 4 per cent, transfer duty tax, and their claims were equally as strong as those of Natal. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members said: Why not take it off? Well, he would like to take off all taxation if he could, and after having bad some lessons from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips) he would perhaps be able to do so. (Laughter.): He would like to tell the hon. member for Maritaburg (Mr. Orr) what he was prepared to do with regard to the poll tax. The Government was anxious to appoint very shortly a Financial Arrangements Commission, and he was willing to draw the attention of the Commissioners, not only to the Natal poll tax, but to other inequalities of taxation— (cheers)—and he was also prepared to ask the Commissioners to make their recommendations as soon as possible, and by means of an interim report, if necessary. Very strong appeals had also been made to him in regard to school buildings in the Cape Province, and attention had been directed to the fact that lees money was being spent on school buildings in the Gape Province than in any other of the Provinces. Hon. members who made that complaint ought to recollect that the Government could only administer the laws as it found them. Under the laws at present in force, the whole of education in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, and to a great extent also in Natal, was paid for by a central authority, but there was a totally different law in the Cape Province; and until they repealed that it was not possible for them to reform the system. But to satisfy the demands which had been made on him, he might say that before the session was over he intended to submit a Loan Bill in which he proposed to make provision—he hoped very substantial provision—for the creation of a future fund, or for the raising of a further sum of money of probably £200,000. He thought that ardent friends of education like the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) would be satisfied with the provisions made by the Government for meeting these urgent requirements. (Hear, hear.)

The motion that the Speaker leave the chair was then agreed to, and the House went into committee.

asked a question regarding the scale of increments which figured on the Estimates.

pointed out that in the various Provinces there were different scales in operation, and what they had done was to maintain existing scales. Regarding the vote for travel ling and entertainment, he explained that the increase was owing to the fact that in the past in the Free State and the Transvaal it had not been the custom to charge at least travelling expenses on the Este mates. That had to be done now because the Act stated that the railways should be paid for any services that might be rendered.

In reply to a further question by Mr. E. H. WALTON (Port Elizabeth, Central),

said that the House in accepting the Estimates would not be committing itself to the scales in force in one or the other of the Provinces. It was hoped that in the future a uniform scale would operate in the Union.

said he wished to know where these scales stopped. In the Cape the scale only affected the lower paid men.

said that all these officials were Union officials, and it was essential that they should be treated on the same basis. He pointed out the difference that existed between the scale in the Cape and the scale in the Transvaal, and said that a difference in the treatment of officials in this regard would certainly lead to discontent. He thought that the Public Service Commission should report upon this matter. He did not raise the point from a party point of view, but be thought all were desirous of fixing a basis, so that in the matter of increases the officials of one Province would not have cause for discontent, because of the scale adopted in regard to officials of another Province.

said that these officials were not officials of the Union in respect to pensions and increments, because they were working on the basis that was in operation in each particular Province. Until an Act was passed they could not alter the status of these men. They were maintaining the rights and privileges of the officials of the different Provinces until such time as the Commission reported and recommended what should be done.

referred to some instances in the Estimates to show the difference in the scale off increases that were in operation. The Minister of Finance stated yesterday that although a few increases had been given, every man who had received an increase had been told that the increase was subject to the confirmation of Parliament. He hoped that the Minister would make it clear to men who were given increases that they were only temporary, and would last only until the Public Service Commission had reported, or while the House sanctioned them It was understood by the cape Parliament that once an Appropriation Bill was passed in which an officer’s salary was provided for at a certain figure, that figure could not be reduced except by reason of any misconduct or something of that sort. It should be made clear to officers that any increases given were only temporary.

said that there was no Pension Law for the Union, so that the question of salaries of Civil Servants was not complicated by that. Next year, when the Estimates came on again, Parliament could reduce any Civil Servant’s salary if it thought fit. The Pension Fund of the Cape Colony had complicated the position there in the past, but the Union Parliament was not hampered by any considerations of that sort.

said the point just mentioned by the Minister for Justice (General Hertzog) was a very serious one. If it went abroad that the House accepted that principle in regard to the Civil Service, they would have consternation in the Service. (Opposition cheers.) It had always been recognised that the Civil Servants had certain rights, but the Minister of Justice had said that Parliament might at any time alter their position.

No; only with regard to the increases we grant now.

said it had always been maintained in the Cape Parliament that if a Civil Servant’s salary were once voted on the Estimates it could only be reduced by Act of Parliament, and they had understood that under the Act of Union the Pension Law and all the rights of the Civil Servants of the various colonies were taken over by the Union Government. Indeed, it was understood that under Union the Civil Servant would have, If anything, greater protection than he had in the colonies. Let them take a case. A. held a position in the Civil Service of, say, the Transvaal or Natal, at a salary of £500 a year, while B. held a position in the late Civil Service of the Cape at the same salary. A. was perhaps removed to the Province of the Cape, and B. was removed from the Cape to Natal. At the expiration of twelve months, A. was entitled to an increase of, say, £25 or £50 a year, B., under the old Cape Civil Service Regulations, was not entitled to any such increase of salary. What he would point out was that when framing his Estimates for the ensuing year, as both these men were in the one service and were doing the same duty, it would be necessary for the Treasurer to see that some arrangement was made as quickly as possible that they all would be treated on the same basis. He could assure the Minister that if he would give the House an assurance that that was one of the things the Government would go into, so that they would be dealt with in the ensuing Estimates, it would gave great contentment to Civil Servants. They would and must have the greatest dissatisfaction—nothing could cause more dissatisfaction than when two men had the same work, but were treated on different scales.

said the position of Civil Servants under the various colonies was safeguarded and guaranteed in the South Africa Act. With the establishment of Union they had created another service, and: that was the service of the Union. (Hear, hear.) For that service there was no pension law and no Civil Service law. What had been done was this. A Civil Servant had been taken, perhaps, from Cape Town to Pretoria, and an additional allowance had been made to him. His rights and salary remained the same, and subject to the pension law of the colony from which he had been taken over. That was his position, but with regard to these allowances, that was a temporary matter. His Provincial claims as a Civil Servant were protected and guaranteed by the Union. That could not be affected.

said it was not at all clear that the Minister for Justice (General Hertzog) was right. He said there was now a new Union Civil Service created. He also said that Civil Servants were subject to no pension or Civil Service Act. There he (Mr. Long) disagreed with him. Supposing at that moment a Civil Servant retired. Did he mean to say he had no pension?

Yes, his Provincial rights.

said that then any increase that was granted to him at this moment came, as far as his pension rights were concerned, under the law which affected his Provincial pension rights If at that moment a Civil Servant should retire-----

No pension.

The rights created under these Estimates become a right under the Provincial law. Continuing, he thought it would be well to consider that subject, and introduce into the Bill a provision that any increase granted under the Estimates would be merely temporary, and would confer no pension rights on those to whom it applied. Regarding the question of next year’s Estimates, he understood that, even if they were not yet in the printers’ hands, they were prepared.

They have not even been submitted to me.

said that clause 35 of the South Africa Act provided that existing laws in force shall remain so. The Minister of justice had dwelt on the words, “existing rights,” but had not noticed the words “accruing rights.” They must mean something more than accruing rights. If they gave a man an increase on the Estimates, it seemed to him they were giving him an accruing right. (Opposition cheers.) The point came to this: that if a man got an increase on these Estimates, and then decided to retire from the Service, undoubtedly they had to treat him as to pension rights on the new salary, and not on the Provincial salary. He understood that the Minister for Justice said that these increases would not entitle a man to anything more than they would have if they had remained Civil Servants under the Provinces. The South Africa Act distinctly stated that they took their pension on the higher salary. Section 144 stated that when a man retired, he did so under circumstances as if there had been no Union. A number of serious anomalies had taken place. A number of senior men had trained juniors, who had gone to other parts of the Union, and had received salaries far in excess of those paid to their seniors who had remained in the Cape. Some of these juniors had now returned to Cape Town, and it was an anomaly that they should be drawing larger salaries than the men who had trained them.

said that all this difficulty arose over a misuse of terms. Civil Servants had no pension rights on account of special allowances.

said that, supposing an officer drawing £1,000 a year in Cape Town was transferred to Pretoria on May 31, and given a salary of £1,500, if he were retired on May 31 next, would his pension be calc dated on the basis of £1,000 a year for the last three years, or on the basis of £1,500 for one year and £1,000 for two years, and, an average struck? The House was not wasting time in considering this matter, because enormous interests were involved. He understood that certain officers had been sent to Pretoria and given substantial increase of pay. Were those increases purely local allowances? Did they carry pension rights, and was the matter open for reconsideration?

They are not increases.

In reply to Mr. T. ORR (Pietermaritzburg North).

stated that the only permanent appointment was that of Controller and Auditor-General. All the rest were acting appointments.

observed that an appointment might be an acting one, but if an increased salary for a certain official were put on the Estimates that became his salary.

said the Government had been perfectly clear on the matter. If an officer went to Pretoria and was given an extra allowance, that allowance was purely local, carrying no pension rights whatever.

No; there is a misunderstanding. There are increases which we had decided to gave in the Cape. These are substantive increases of salaries, and in respect of them these officers are entitled to them from May 31 last. If these officers are retired they are entitled for pension purposes to take the increase. There is the case of taking a man from here to the Transvaal, and on account of the increased cost of living making him an allowance of 33⅓ percent, if his salary were under £500, and 25 percent if over that amount.

asked if acting appointments lasted until the Civil Service Commission sent in its report.

No; they can be upset to-day.

asked if it were correct that on the temporary salaries granted, the Pension Fund contributions were actually being deducted,

said that he would inquire into that matter.

suggested that the question should be allowed to stand over.

said that it was not what the Minister of Finance thought, but what was the law of the country. (Hear, hear.) He would like the Minister to tell him, in a case where men had been moved, whether they had been given extra salary or an allowance? They did not want to take any rights away from these people, but they wanted to know the exact position in which they were placed,

said that it was a matter which affected pretty well every vote, and surely it would be much better for the Minister to let the matter stand over and consult the legal advisers of the Government, so as to present a clear position to the House. He could not see how, if the Minister gave a man an acting position, he could force that man to take his old appointment. Either the man could go back to his old appointment or retire; but if he retired he must get his pension on the higher salary?

asked whether the Prime Minister could not report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The Public Accounts Committee sat the following morning.

said that he would like to make the position clear. They had three classes of Civil Servants in these Estimates; first of all, those who got their ordinary scale increases and increments under the Provincial Acts under which they stood. That applied to thousands of men right through the services of the whole of the Union. They paid contributions towards the Pension Fund, each in their own Province. These men had their old salary and their increments. The second class consisted of some individuals who had been taken to Pretoria, and who got a local allowance while there. If their salary was up to £500 they got a local allowance of 33⅓ per cent., and their salary remained the same.

Does that appear on the Estimates?

Yes; in the footnotes. When they get back to the Cape they lose the allowance. It is a local allowance only. They do not pay any contribution to the Pension Fund on that allowance. This second class consists of a few hundred men. Then there is the third class, consisting of five or six heads of departments, who were taken from other parts of the Union to Pretoria and given acting appointments as heads of departments. To gave you one instance, there is the secretary to the Minister of the Interior, who was taken from the Transvaal, who draws the same salary to-day as he drew in the Transvaal; and nothing more. To gave you another instance: There is the Secretary of Native Affairs, who was taken from the Cape. When he was appointed Acting Secretary of Native Affairs he was given a higher salary. At the present moment he pays a contribution to the Pension Fund on the whole—on his old salary, plus this increase he gets as Acting Secretary for Native Affairs. If they are retired, proceeded Mr. Malan, they would be paid pensions according to the laws of their Provinces. He hoped that he had made the position perfectly clear, and the minds of hon. members were at rest.

said that that was exactly what hon. members on his side of the House had been saying all along, though it was not what the Minister of Finance had told them. In fact, even in regard to his Budget statement that afternoon he had placed an interpretation upon figures that hon. members on that side of the House could not place upon those same figures.

said there had been a lot of talk about those officials who had been transferred from the coast to inland towns; what about those who had been transferred from inland towns to the coast? Would their salaries be reduced? (Cries of “No.”)

The vote was agreed to.

said that, in again referring to the question of Ministerial salaries, he hoped that the Prime Minister would not think that he was making it a personal matter. They on that side of the House considered the salaries that were being paid to Ministers as excessive. In the Cape Colony—he would like to make some comparisons—under the old regime the Prime Minister was paid a salary of £1,500 a year; the Prime Minister of Great Britain got £5,000 a year; in Canada, the Prime Minister got £2,400; the State Secretary of the United States was paid £2,400 a year; and the Chancellor of the German Empire got £1,800 a year, and also a small entertainment allowance. The Minister of the Interior had referred to the salaries of Ministers in England, but he (Mr. Jagger) would like to point out that that was an unfair comparison, seeing the difference in the countries that were governed. In England they dealt with a revenue of £152,000,000 as opposed to, exclusive of the revenue from the railways, about £13,000,000 in this country. He pointed out that all the Imperial Ministers did not receive £5,000 a year. The Minister for the Interior had said something about fixing the salaries for years, but he (Mr. Jagger) thought that that was a very queer argument to advance. He wanted he strike an average for a period of about 50 years, and he took good care that the average was well on the right side. Continuing, Mr. Jagger said that in the Cape Cabinet Ministers had been, generally speaking, poor; and he thought that the Ministry should depend on the character of the men who held portfolios rather than the point as to whether they were rich or poor. He thought that all the arguments of the Minister of the Interior would fall to the ground on examination. Paying these excessive salaries was a strong temptation to a man to retain his billet as a Minister after there had been a violation of his principles by his colleagues. Then comparisons had been made of the salaries of Ministers with salaries paid by some private companies, such as mining companies, to their officials. Well, he would say to that argument that in no part of the world do they pay Ministers on a commercial basis. A man aspired to the post of a Minister because of the honour, and not because of the money attached to it. If Ministers were paid on a commercial basis, what would Mr. Asquith— the Prime Minister of Great Britain—be paid? Mr. Asquith could earn many times as much at the Bar as he received as a Minister. These excessive salaries also injured the status of Ministers, because people outside would say they were more than amply paid, and there was not that respect among the people for Ministers which there would be otherwise. In other words, the acceptance of position as Ministers would be put down to other motives than that they took office for the honour of the posts. The point was, that salaries were fixed on the Johannesburg basis. Well, he did not think it was fair to take the Johannesburg conditions as a criterion. The bulk of the people of this country had to make their livelihood out of the soil, and they were not wealthy people. Then hon. members must know perfectly well that these salaries would set the pace, not only for the Civil Service of the country, but to some extent in social life. It would set a tone of extravagance generally throughout the country. He hoped the Ministers would reconsider the position, and agree to accept salaries more in accordance with the circumstances of the country. (Opposition cheers.) No doubt a good deal of feeling would be shown by hon. members on the Government side of the House with regard to this; but he was convinced that if hon. members were perfectly free to vote by ballot, and without party considerations, there was not the slightest doubt that the motion he was about to propose would be carried. He moved that the salary of the Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture be reduced by £1,000.

In reply to Mr. H. E. S. FREMANTLE (Uitenhage),

said his intention was that the Prime Minister should receive a salary of £3,000 a year, and the other Ministers salaries of £2,000 a year each.

said that as one who contributed very largely to the revenue of the country, as all hon. members in the interior did, he would say he did not think the salaries of the Ministers of the Union were too high. (Ministerial cheers.) He knew of gentlemen of much less ability who received far higher salaries as secretaries to companies, mine managers, consulting engineers, and others, who occupied similar positions in the Transvaal. He wondered at a proposal of this kind coming from a Cape Town member, for they must take into consideration that there were two capitals, and by nature Cape Town was destined to be the capital of the Union; and if they did not gave Ministers adequate salaries to pay for the expense of removing themselves and their families, and of maintaining two establishments they might possibly endanger the capital of the Union being at Gape Town.

said he thought the motion went too far. He had been under the impression that there were house allowances for Ministers, but it had been made clear now that there were no house allowances. That certainly made a large difference to his mind. It appeared to him that the whole question before the House was what salaries it was necessary to pay in order to secure the services of the best men. He had altered his personal views, but he agreed entirely with the hon. member fox Beaconsfield (Colonel Harris) that those of them who lived in the Gape must in these matters consider the position of the men who lived up-country. He thought that the House was in an unfortunate position in regard to lawyers up-country; he felt the House was greatly impoverished because lawyers upcountry could not afford to leave their practices to spend several months of the year in Parliament, Supposing they were lawyers of Ministerial rank, they would hold office for a few years, and in the meantime their practice ceased, and when they left office they had to build their practice up afresh. Surely under those circumstances it was an enormous sacrifice a man was asked to make, from a pecuniary point of view? It was not so in the Cape Parliament.

Why not?

Because in the Cape Parliament— I mean the old Gape Parliament—it is only quite recently the Attorney-General practised while on the Cabinet. Proceeding, he said that when Dr. Jameson formed his Ministry, he revived the practice, and gave the Attorney-General a further allowance of £1,000, which brought his salary up to £2,500. (Ministerial applause.) Was it possible for anyone to maintain that £3,000 a year paid to a Minister who had got two capitals to live in received more than a man who had £2,500 a year and had one capital, and that one at the seat of the Law Courts? He would like to indicate a point regarding English salaries, because it was most important that they should realise the tendency of things. There was a tendency in England to raise the salaries of Ministers. Several had been raised of late, and the tendency was to raise them to the full £5,000. The opinion seemed to be that they should pay the full £5,000, so as to get the best men to govern the country. It appeared to him that there was this point to consider. If they took a salary of £1,500, it was quite sufficient temptation to professional politicians, a class they did not want; but, on the other hand, they had to consider the position of a professional man with a practice up-country. It seemed to him that Mr. Jagger was going too far. A salary of £2,500 might be sufficient, but he had to confess that, after talking the matter over with some of his friends who put to him the position of professional men up-country, and when he found that many of them, who appeared to have a brilliant Parliamentary career before them, were not sitting in the House, he thought it was a very great pity and a great danger. Under the circumstances, and considering that there were no allowances, he thought the proposal made by the Minister was more reasonable than the one made by Mr. Jagger.

contended that the same principle applied to-day as in the old Cape Parliament. What about the attorneys who had to leave their practices up-country and come to Cape Town? It was the same for the man who had to leave Port Elizabeth or Pretoria to come to Cape Town. The difficulties which prevented the man practising at the bar at Graham’s Town or Kimberley from coming to the Cape Parliament were the same as now hindered the man from Pretoria. Regarding the Attorney-General of the late Cape Progressive Government, we had the salary of Attorney-General raised from £1,500 to £2,500, but he only actually drew £500 of the £1,000 increase, i.e., £2,000 in all, and gave up his private practice. Mr. Burton, while drawing only £1,500, kept up his private practice, which would be worth a good deal more than £500 a year. Undoubtedly, it meant a considerable sacrifice for any professional man to enter Parliament if he had a practice. He did not support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) because of any antagonism to the Government, but thought the salaries were far too high.

said the Minister for the Interior (General Smuts) volunteered a statement that there were no allowances of any description whatever, and no houses were allowed for an Cape Town or Pretoria. That had not been borne out. He had been told that one of the Ministers in another place got what was called a sustentation allowance at the rate of £1,000 a year or thereabouts—£5 5s. per day, he thought. They had looked through the Estimates, but could find no provision for it. If they had an assurance that there were no sustentation allowances, no travelling allowances, and no house allowances, that would clear up the matter.

The House suspended business at six o’clock.

said he was in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town. He considered the present Ministerial salaries should be reduced. The question, to his mind, was whether they had the right to take from the pockets of the taxpayers of the country more than was absolutely necessary for the support of the Ministers who were conducting the administration of the country. The average taxpayer in South Africa was the working farmer in the country, and the working-man in the towns. Those, on the whole, were men who were not too well off, and who had a constant struggle to clothe and feed their families. It had been said if they wanted good men they must pay them adequately. He had had some little experience himself, and he thought everyone would agree with him that in the Cape Colony there was never any lack of candidates for Ministerial appointments, and Ministers were perfectly satisfied with £1,500 a year. He admitted that some of their Ministers in the past did not live on that amount, but they could have done so. That salary was enough to support a poor man adequately, and it was quite enough to enable him to live decently and to support the position he held. It was argued that Ministerial expenses were much heavier owing to part of the year having to be spent in Cape Town and part in Pretoria, and that in the latter place the cost of living was considerably higher than an Cape Town. He was prepared to make an allowance on that account. He thought they should take the late Cape Colony basis of £1,500, and add £500 on account of additional expenses at Pretoria. In Canada, where there were 7,000,000 white people, and where a tremendous revenue was administered, the Prime Minister was paid £2,400 a year, and other Ministers something like £1,500 and £1,600. Comparing the two, what right had they in South Africa to go before the world and say they were going to pay their Ministers far more than was paid in Canada? Were they justified by the wealth of their population in doing that? Were they justified by the position of the poor people who had to pay the money? They were not going to get all the money out of Johannesburg or Kimberley, or out of the rich towns. The poor man had also to pay his share. The poor man had always to pay his share; he always bore his share of Customs duties and other taxation. He (Mr. Walton) maintained they had no right to impose a heavier burden on the poor man than it was absolutely necessary he should bear. And if the members of the Ministry were paid higher than anywhere else in the world, then it would also follow that they would have to pay the lower officials on a similar scale. The argument that Ministers must be paid higher salaries because of the high cost of living applied equally to other officials. They did not, however, on those grounds pay their railway porters more; why, then, should the Ministers be paid more? He was prepared to make an exception in the case of the Attorney-General, for a special reason. In England the Attorney-General received £8,000 a year, and, in addition, certain fees of office, which brought up his income to £10,000 or £12,000 a year. The Attorney-General, however, was generally a man who had been making £15,000 a year at bar, and perhaps more. He was taken away from his practice, and put into office, but he could not, when he left office, go straight back to his practice and draw the income which he had formerly enjoyed at the bar. For that reason, he was prepared to make an exception in the case of the Attorney-General. Proceeding, Mir. Walton said that men took Ministerial positions for the honour of serving the public, and they did not look to the pay they were getting as a remuneration for their services.

They are not going to save a shilling out of it.

said it was a great honour, and one that men made sacrifices for all over the world. It had been said that this had been made a party question. He very much regretted it.

No, certainly not.

I do not mean on the part of my right hon. friend at my side. I have been told it is. I have been informed that hon. members on the other side of the House are going to vote on this question from the party point of view. I very much regret it, and will say that if hon. members opposite are going to vote on this question as their constituents wish them to vote, and as they have asked them to vote, then I am sure the amendment of my hon. friend will be carried.

said he believed in Civil Servants and Ministers of the Crown being paid well. He came from a place where they paid well, and they had always been successful with their servants. He thought it was a mistake to quibble over the salaries of their Ministers. Several of the Ministers who occupied the Treasury benches received exactly the same salaries when Ministers of the Transvaal, and now that they had undertaken the additional responsibility of the Cape, Natal, and the Orange Free State, they could not expect them to reduce them. (Government applause.) He hoped the House would not vote to reduce their salaries. The arguments of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) regarding the Attorney-General also held good for all members. They also would have to go back to their professions if they go from power, and would suffer the same inconvenience. He intended to vote to allow the salaries to remain as they are. He felt that if a referendum were taken on the matter, the result would be to allow the salaries to remain as they are. A motion to reduce them only tended to create, perhaps, a little unkind feeling towards that side of the House. Let them criticise fairly and squarely. If Ministers did not carry out their work properly, let them be criticised. (Government applause.)

said that when it came to a question of public money and positions they should draw a line as between what was for mercenary purposes and what was for public services. If they were going to follow the example set by the Government they would have to consider the possibility of the Provincial Estimates being increased. Members of the Provincial Council were only voting themselves £380 and £120, or £500 a year. That was one-sixth of what the Ministers were receiving. The strongest objection to the salaries voted to the Ministers was that it was an introduction of high salaries for men who were going to hold Government positions, and would permeate through them to the Provincial Councils, and to Divisional Councils, School Boards, and Municipal Councils. Men would hold up as their example the fact that the Government was paying high salaries. Surely they had sufficient patriotism in South Africa that men would sacrifice themselves for the benefit of their country. He did not say the amounts were too much for the services performed, for he dared say all were sacrificing something. The point was that if they were going to have a pure public life, and were not going to make politics a profession, then they should make the salaries just sufficient to pay ordinary expenses. Professional politicians were very undesirable in South Africa. As they had done in the past under the old Cape Colony, with a little addition of, say, £500, would be quite sufficient and he trusted that the Government would look at it from that point of view. They had the interests of the country at heart, and so should let the consideration of the Estimates commence with themselves. But show some patriotism for the new Union. (Applause.)

hoped the question would not be allowed to be a party one. He hoped they would arrive at some solution that would commend itself to the House and the country. They might be able to come to some understanding that would be accepted by the Ministers, so as to avoid the regrettable necessity of having to vote on a question of this sort. He considered that his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) should withdraw his amendment for the purpose of his moving that £500 a year be deducted: that was to say that this vote be reduced by £500. and the corresponding votes would be reduced by the same amount. (Cries of “No, no. ”) That would allow the Prime Minister to draw £3,500, and the other Ministers £2,500. It was stated the other day by the Minister of Finance that Ministers were paying rent for their houses, and that houses would be put at the disposal of Ministers either at Pretoria or here, owing to the fact of the necessity of their having two residences in connection with the dual capital. He recognised that it cost a certain amount. He gathered from what the Minister of Finance had said that some expenditure had been incurred in that connection, For instance, he noticed a vote for alterations and repairs. The hon. member said that he saw another item above that: a payment to Sir James Rose-Innes and Sir William Solomon, under an agreement with the late Transvaal Government for residences at Pretoria, he presumed in connection with furniture; and could not that furniture be leased to Ministers? He would like to hear an explanation from the Minister of Finance as to that vote. He was perfectly convinced that his proposal was acceptable to the country, for the matter had been very earnestly discussed throughout various parts of the country, and while there was a feeling to pay Ministers an adequate salary, yet, as far as the Cape Province was concerned. There was a feeling that the Ministerial salaries were excessive He did not think that the proposal would be any reflection on the Government; and it was a matter on which they ought to come to a compromise.

said that with regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. member, it was not a question of furniture at all. When these two houses had been constructed those two gentlemen asked that the cost might be increased by a certain amount on which they would pay interest.

said that he was very sorry that the Minister of Railways and Harbours had not accepted the proposal of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt). As he had not, he was afraid they would have to go to the vote on that very unpleasant matter. He would like to say that no answer had been given by Ministers to the argument of the “comparative” salaries of Ministers of other parts of the Empire, and the salaries to be paid to the Ministers of the Union. They, on his side of the House, recognised that there was a difficulty in the Union with the dual capitals which there had not been in the old Colony, and that consequently there was more expense to bear. But that would be covered, and the amendment was a most reasonable one. He saw that the Prime Minister was absent, and he had hoped that some other Minister might have thought of meeting them, so as to avoid a division. He knew several hon. members of the House who were determined to go to a division. If hon. members on his side of the House were not met, they must, he was afraid, go to a division.

spoke in favour of the Ministerial salaries remaining as they were, saying that they assumed that a Minister would strip himself of everything in the way of private interest when he became a Minister; and so he should be adequately paid. He did not think the present salaries were excessive, and would, therefore, vote against the amendment. As to the comparison with the other colonies, he did not think there was any real comparison, because the cost of living here was very much higher than in Canada and Australia.

said that he wished to take the responsibility on himself to say that his refusal to pair was based on the fact that at the recent elections that matter of Ministerial salaries was, as far as he was concerned, and as far as the members for the Peninsula were concerned, made a serious matter for every candidate who had stood. He would vote in favour of the amendment, and he thought that in doing so he was clearly representing the views of his constituents on that matter. (Opposition cheers.)

withdrew his amendment in favour of that of Dr. Smartt (Fort Beaufort.)

said that surely his friend the hon. member for Durban (Mr. Maydon) did not think that the Prime Minister, with £3,500 a year, and Ministers with £2,500, would not be able to maintain themselves adequately, as they will be able to get each a house at Pretoria for what he believed would be a very reasonable expenditure. He knew something about the cost of living in this country and he did not think there was any Minister on the Treasury bench who would say that he could not keep up his position on the amounts he (Dr. Smartt) had proposed. It was not for Ministers to set up an extravagant system of living in the country, and in these circumstances, it was inadvisable that Ministers should endeavour to set up such a scale of high remuneration. He believed that the country would endorse his amendment. (Hear, hear.)

said if his hon. friend (Dr. Jameson) had proposed that Hon. Ministers should not receive any salary at all, then there would have been a great deal to say for the proposal. But when he came to the House and wanted to reduce Ministerial salaries by a paltry £500, he thought the proposal ridiculous.

It is the example and not the amount.

said he did not want to repeat his arguments, but he maintained that, the traditions of public life in this country should be as high as possible. In England it was customary that Ministers should, resign all public directorships and chairmanships, and rely entirely on what they received as Ministers of the Crown. He had been told that in the Cape Colony some had not done that. There had been Ministers who had received salaries as Ministers, and had at the same time received fees as directors of companies. It seemed to him far better to pay a fair wage, even if it were fairly high, rather than make a Minister dependent upon subsidiary sources of income, and so making him amenable to subsidiary influence. (Hear, hear.)

said his hon. friend (General Smuts) had spoken of the reduction of salaries. He (Dr. Jameson) denied that they were reducing at all. They were fixing them for all time to come. With regard to the insinuation— which was intended for one or two of the Cape Colony Governments—that Ministers were receiving salaries and also emoluments as directors of companies, he was entitled to state that this was not the case. Again, it had been stated that £50 was a paltry sum, but he (Dr. Jameson) maintained that it was not a paltry sum, and it was certainly not an insult to seek to reduce the salaries by that amount.

A colleague of the hon. member (General Smuts) is a director of a company, and is receiving fees.

said the principle was that every man should be paid according to the qualify of his work. Mention had been made of the Prime Minister of Australia. All he (Dr. Haggar) wished to say was that if any Minister in Australia got £2,400, he ought to get double in this colony, because the expense of living in South Africa was quite double that of Australia.

advocated fair salaries for Ministers because they required two residences, and had a position to keep up. (The remainder of the hon. member’s speech was inaudible.)

said there were two facts that had to be considered in this contemplation of Ministers’ salaries, these were the value of the services rendered to the State, and the capacity displayed by the Minister in carrying out these services. It appeared to him that the hon. Ministers who had spoken upon this matter have valued their services at £3,000, and hon. members opposite have valued their services at £2,500 if they were Ministers. It was purely a matter of valuation. (Laughter.) In his opinion they should pay their Ministers such sums as would enable them to keep up their position. He would support the proposal that the salaries remain as they were.

put the question, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

asked the Prime Minister for information on the question of the Repatriation Fund, which the hon. member said involved about a million pounds.

said the House was entitled to all information regarding the Repatriation Fund, and he could assure the House that it would get all the information. He was in communication with Pretoria with a view to getting the exact position, because if he did not get the exact figures some hon. members would say that he was misleading them.

proposed that the items be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

asked what was the policy of the Government in regard to the allocation of a certain amount of agricultural business to the Provincial Councils, as provided for in clause 85 of the South Africa Act.

replied that the Government considered it advisable to hold the matter over until after the contemplated re-organisation of the Agricultural Department. Schemes were now being drafted, and the problem in question would be tabled in connection therewith. Personally sneaking, he trusted that matters agricultural would remain as much as possible under one chief, because if a process of disintegration of administration began, it would ultimately be to the detriment of the best interests of agriculture. He was not in favour of the existing tendency to entrust the Provincial Councils with the extirpation of cattle disease. If that tendency were allowed to prevail, scab would be carried from one Province to another. One Province would have to raise up barriers against the agricultural produce of another, and what would become of Union? He trusted all hon. members would co-operate towards making the Department a truly progressive one.

said that stock diseases such as those mentioned by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister could not be dealt with save by one central administration. He hoped in the future they would have no more of what had hitherto been known as “sympathetic administration,” which meant that people were allowed to break the law and spread diseases broadcast through the country. He trusted, on the contrary, the law would be administered in the most vigorous manner possible. He thought a certain amount of local administration in connection with agriculture should be placed in the hands of the Provincial Councils, as there were certain agricultural interests in the one Province which did not exist in the other Provinces. In America there was a central agricultural bureau of the Government, but in every State there existed local agricultural administration, and these did not clash with one another. He hoped when the House met again, and when the new Estimates were before the House, the Prime Minister would be prepared to lay down the policy it was proposed to follow in regard to agricultural administration, and that it would then be seen that the Government were prepared to gave a certain amount of Dower to the Provincial Councils. On page 24 there was provision for £18,000 as grants in aid to agricultural societies and associations. He would be glad if the Prime Minister would tell the House on what basis it was proposed to allocate that money.

said: With regard to grants to agricultural societies, these will be £ for £ towards permanent improvements, and towards other purposes 5s. for every £ raised by the society. Other societies holding shows, such as horticultural and industrial societies, will be entitled to similar grants. The maximum grants towards permanent improvements will be £1,000 in one year, and for other purposes £500. Bodies which do not hold shows, like farmers’ associations, will receive a grant of 10s. for £1 up to £25. Representative societies like Agricultural Unions. Horticultural Boards, Farmers’ Central Association, will receive £ for £ up to £500. Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will receive 10s for every £ raised by the society, not exceeding £200 for one year.

said that the trade in vines and grapes in and about Graaff-Reinet had been severely hampered by the restrictions placed on the industry with the view of stamping out plasmopara viticola. It was perfectly right, when the disease was first discovered, to place restrictions on them, but people denied that, it was a new disease at all. They been told that the trade from the North had been very seriously injured. It meant not only that the producer was being handicapped, but the people in Johannesburg were being affected also. It was a very serious matter, and he hoped the Government would take it into consideration. A great mistake was being made in one direction, and that was that experts were being put to work on things which they should never do, and were being taken from the work they should do. Experts were necessary, but it was no use bringing them to this country, and then putting them on clerical work in connection with the administration of an Act.

moved a reduction of £18,000 in the £24,000, purchase and working of steam ploughs, Natal. The hon. member said that the position as regards steam ploughs in Natal was that some years ago two of these ploughs had been purchased, and it was an open question whether these were not enough for the whole of the Natal Province. In spite of the fact that the last Natal Parliament had refused to vote any money for any more steam ploughs, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Deane) had taken the opportunity on the eve of Union of spending £18,000 in six working days while he was in England, for the purchase of more steam ploughs. After he had done that he had gone to the Continent to see them working. (Laughter.) As far as these wonderful road tractors were concerned, they had only found work for one out of the seven in Natal, which was used by a wattle bark company, which was well able to pay for a machine itself. Even if all these machines were needed, and he did not think so, they would benefit only one section of the community, while the whole community had to pay. The hon. member contended that the late Minister of Agriculture of Natal (Mr. Deane) should pay for these machines himself, as the purchase had, he said, been illegal, and had been in defiance of the Natal Parliament. It had been said with reference to the poll tax that the Natal Parliament had agreed to it, but the Natal Parliament had not given the authority for the purchase of these ploughs. The whole thing was a disgrace, and in direct defiance of the Natal Parliament. The present Government was responsible for assisting them.

said he saw that, under the Bill, it was the intention to levy a tax upon the totalisator in the Transvaal. It was estimated that a sum of £10,000 would be realised in this way. He trusted that the Government would take into consideration the proposal to earmark the money received from this source for the purpose of encouraging horse-breeding in the country. The question had been raised in the Transvaal Parliament in 1909, and the then Minister, who had charge of the Bill, said he had great sympathy with the proposal, but under the terms of the Act of Union it would be impossible for the Transvaal Parliament to allocate the money in the way Suggested, and the Union Parliament would have to deal with it. The hon. member (proceeding) said that horse-breeding in this country had been conducted in a haphazard sort of way; but there was no reason why it should not be improved. The simplest way, he believed, would be for the Government to procure a certain number of stallions, which would be at the service of the farmers. Prizes could also be offered for stallions, mares, or young stock. The hon. member went on to point out that what he proposed was done with very beneficial results in France, Canada, and Hungary. He saw no reason why this £10,000 should not be increased by the removal of the restrictions against the totalisator in Cape Colony. If betting was to be allowed, there was no reason why the totalisator should not be allowed as well as the bookmakers, and the totalisator was certainly the lesser of the two evils.

said that what the hon. member for Weenen had said was almost incredible. Surely an official who had spent such sums without Parliamentary sanction was no longer in the service!

asked whether the pedigree stock purchased by the Government would be at the service of all Provinces.

said the ploughs were bought by a Minister of the Crown.

Without authority?

I am not quite so sure about that.

That is what I want to know.

A Minister of the Crown went across a few days before Union and bought a plough. He was sent by his Government, and it is not for the Union Government to question an administrative act of that kind. He is responsible to his own Parliament, which ceased to exist on May 31, and no Parliament can now be made responsible. What are we to do?

Surcharge him with the amount.

We are bound to find the money. As to the policy of buying the plough, that is another question. This is altogether an extraordinary state of affairs. The only Parliament which could have called him to book if anything was wrong—which I don’t say there is—was the late Parliament of Natal. All we can do now is to pay, and that is what Government propose to do. Proceeding, Mr. Malan said the Natal Government bought some ploughs two years ago, and he was informed that they did excellent work in Zululand. On the whole, he thought that with careful management, they need not lead to a loss to the Government. As to the totalisator he did not know what that had to do with agriculture. It bad better be left over to a more opportune time, and he had no doubt that a Totalisator Bill would be introduced. As to pedigree stock, they would be for the whole of the Union.

said if a vote had been taken as to the advisability of importing steam ploughs, he would say that if a good case had been shown, it would have been a proposition worthy of discussion. He recognised that in Germany and other parts of Europe immense development of agricultural industries was due to steam ploughs. But that was not the question before the House. The point was that, notwithstanding the refusal of the late Natal Parliament to vote money for steam ploughs, a late Minister of that colony proceeded to Europe, and on his own authority, or on the authority of himself and his fellow-Ministers, bought those instruments. It was useless for the Hon. Minister (Mr. Malan) to say that the Union Government could not take any steps in the matter. If the act complained of had really been carried out, it was the duty of the Government to proceed against the responsible Minister and his colleagues, and recover the money from them. The law had been deliberately broken, and if people were allowed to break the law to the extent of a matter of £18,000, there might come a time when a Minister would break the law to the extent of £180,000. It was the duty of the Union Government to see that only legitimate legislative acts were carried out, and no other acts. Supposing some Minister in Natal had committed his colony by an illegal act to an expenditure of a million of money, would the hon. member have got up and said the existing Government and this House were responsible for making the State pay for an illegal transaction of that sort? The Hon. Minister recognised that those instruments were purchased in absolute and entire opposition to the decision of the Natal Parliament.

No.

The Hon. Minister said “No.” Well, he would ask him to state definitely to the committee whether the statement of the hon. member for Weenen: that the Parliament of Natal refused to sanction that expenditure, was or was not correct, and whether it was or was not correct that notwithstanding that refusal, a Minister of the late Natal Government purchased those instruments on his own responsibility, and on the responsibility of his Cabinet, and put the decision of Parliament behind him? Seeing that such a statement had been made, it was the duty of the Minister in charge of the vote to say whether it was a correct statement or not. If that statement was incorrect, then he (Dr. Smartt) would say: pay the money straight away. If, however, the statement was correct, then the Union Parliament should set its face against any Minister of the Crown deliberately going behind Parliament, and committing the country and the taxpayers of the country to an expenditure which was not approved by their representatives.

said that when this matter was before the Natal House, it was shown that the two ploughs already working in Natal were working at a loss, on an average, of £1,229 per annum, giving a total loss for the six of something like £5,000. Also, they were deteriorating. The Minister of Education said it might have been done in view of Union, but he would say if it was it was nothing but a sharp practice on the part of the Minister responsible. There was no question of illegality. The Auditor-General of Natal, who was now the hon. member for Maritzburg North (Mr. Orr), stated that it was an illegal act, and the Government should have made the Minister pay for the ploughs himself. That statement had been made by Mr. Orr in the House, and it had not been challenged. Although two of the ploughs were doing excellent work, there was not room for them all, and after they had been working for 12 months they would find they were hung up. Therefore he asked the House to help him against such illegalities and sharp practices.

said he was in the Natal Parliament when the first two ploughs were bought. They were bought by the Minister without authority, and Parliament on three separate occasions absolutely refused to vote the money. Then they were told that they were sent to Zululand. That was throwing dust in the eyes of the Ministry. One was sent to the Hon. Marshall Campbell at Mount Edgecombe, very close to Durban, and the other was sent to Mr. Parker, at Ladysmith. It was a long, long time before they went anywhere near Zululand. He hoped the Minister would demand clear information, so that they might know where they were. He knew nothing of the second case, but, as in the first case Mr. Deane acted so recklessly, he could imagine that he acted the same in the second.

said that, if he regretted the action of the hon. member for Weenen in bringing up this matter once more, he still more regretted the backing that hon. member had received from so old a Parliamentary hand as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Did they wish the Union Government to act the detective, and to summon the Natal Government? If hon. members imagined for a moment that the Union Government were going to take in hand jobs of that sort, they would soon find out their mistake. If it was felt that there was a just grievance, why did not hon. members take the matter to Court, as had been done in the Transvaal? It was by no means the Union Government’s duty to approve or disapprove of the actions of its predecessors The ploughs were bought before Union, and it was not the business of the Government to trouble itself about the ethics of the transaction. But, apart from all this, it was rather remarkable that the hon. member for Weenen should stand up and complain so loudly about the purchase of am article that had benefited the people of Natal so largely. It had materially aided its development, for when East Coast fever denuded Natal of its cattle, and the farmers were helpless, the steam ploughs enabled them to make a living once more. Would the hon. member to face his constituents and take up the position he now took up in Parliament? It was the Government’s duty to assist Natal in the matter, even though there might be a small loss to the Exchequer. The Agent-General for Natal in London had taken delivery of the ploughs, and the Government would have to pay up, in terms of the Constitution, which held it liable for the debts contracted by the colonies. Unless the amount were paid summonses would assuredly be issued, and he did not think there was a Judge on the South African bench who would let off the Government. As a matter of fact, this was but one of the Opposition’s many dodges. He thought the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet had been too severe in his comments on the regulations governing the importation of grapes into the Transvaal. The regulations existed, not in order to kill the grape trade, but for its protection. Large vineyards had been established in the Transvaal after the war, and when the Agricultural Department of that colony was informed that a serious disease was ravaging the Cape vineyards, no further importation was allowed, in order to guard against infection. The regulations affected the Western Province just as much as they affected Graaff-Reinet. He trusted he would soon be able to re-admit Cape grapes into the Transvaal. In order to build up agriculture, it was necessary, however, to take stringent measures from time to time regarding both animal and vegetable diseases.

hoped the Government would endeavour to secure as many Catalonian donkey stallions as possible, because it was essential that the stock of mules should be increased and improved.

said it was not really the question of losing money. It was the fact that an illegal act had been committed. The hon. gentleman, the Minister of Education, said the Natal Parliament should have taken action, but no Natal Parliament was sitting when these transactions took place. Then who were the parties responsible—the Union Parliament. If the gentleman, instead of buying the ploughs had murdered his mother, the Union Government would have taken steps to punish him. He thought his hon. friend (Mr. Meyler) should withdraw his motion, as be agreed with the Prime Minister that they could not get the money back.

said that in bringing the matter forward he had the majority of the people of Natal behind him, but as the subject had been threshed out, and no good could be done by taking the matter to a division, he would withdraw the motion.

The motion was then withdrawn.

said the question of the purchase of pedigree stock was a most important one to farmers. He suggested that a sum should be earmarked for the purpose.

said the matter could be dealt with when the totalisator was discussed.

In reply to the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Meyer),

said that auction sales of pedigree stock were held at the experimental farms, such as those at Potchefstroom and Tweespruit, and it was impossible to send the cattle all over the country. If farmers did not care to make the sacrifice to attend these sales, he did not think that the stock would be of much use to them.

said there was a considerable reduction in the total grant in aid of agricultural societies. That was a bad symptom, because those societies contributed enormously to the development of the country. Proceeding, the hon. member expatiated on the importance of the Bloemfontein Society, and the excellence of the shows it held. It deserved a considerable amount of support, and he wanted to know what the Government intended doing.

doubted whether the system of selling pedigree stock by auction was the best method of using it to advantage. The very people on whose behalf Government should import and distribute pedigree cattle were those who would be unable to outbid wealthy farmers at auctions. It would be much better to put a price on the cattle, and then draw lots for its apportionment among tenderers at that price, for this would equalise chances for all men desirous of improving their herds.

drew attention to the fact that, after the recess, a new set of Estimates would be presented, so that attempts to right all wrongs at the present juncture were somewhat premature. Bloemfontein had no cause for complaint, for, whereas no other town could get more than £1,000 a yean, Bloemfontein obtained a subsidy of £1,200, by special enactment. The raffling of pedigree stook had many objectionable features. As a rule, the number of cattle sold at auctions was very small, and it would not do to raffle 25 young bills among thousands of applicants. Auction sales were the only practical way of disposing of them.

said that this amount of 5s. in the £ would be all right for large shows, but insufficient for small shows. He thought that a good deal of the money spent in other and less important ways might have been devoted to this purpose.

supported the last speaker. He felt certain that there would be great disappointment if this amount was not increased.

said the regulations regarding agricultural society grants were drawn up only after careful consideration with those concerned. The 5s. in the £ grant would work out better for the Cape societies than the old grants did.

said the Cape grants were cut down in 1908 when the financial state of the Colony was bad. Now that the country was prosperous these grants should not be reduced. The small societies would practically be exterminated under the new scale.

also thought the smaller societies would suffer.

said he was glad that the Government were going to import pedigree stock, and he hoped they would only import the very best animals, irrespective of their cost. Very often rubbish was imported, and instead of doing good to the country, this did the greatest harm.

Sub-vote A was agreed to.

On sub-vote B, veterinary,

said he remembered the Minister for Education making a speech a couple of years ago on the Scab Act, which he heartily applauded. It was a speech full of enthusiasm, and determination to do all he could to improve the pastoral industry of the country. A little later the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) spoke of administering the Act in a sympathetic manner. The result had been that people had been allowed to break the law, and a case against a man for allowing his neighbour’s flocks to be endangered was withdrawn on orders from Cape Town. He wanted to ask the Prime Minister if the Government intended to administer the Scab Act in a sympathetic manner or stringently. It was useless spending thousands yearly on the Act if it was not administered stringently. They did not wish to vote that money and find that the Scab Act was going to be administered in the future as it had been in the past. They desired to know whether the Prime Minister was going to do all he possibly could to prevent irregularities such as those which had taken place in the past, from continuing in the future?

said that his Government was accustomed, when a Law was passed, to carry it out. (Hear, hear.) He asked whether the discussion on scab, East Coast fever, and other cattle diseases could not be postponed until the whole matter came up—when legislation was introduced. That would be better than discussing it now.

said he would like his right hon. friend (General Botha) to tell them something about the East Coast fever. He need not tell them to-night, of course.

pointed out that there was a reduction in sheep and scab inspectors by 17 men, and the only reduction in expenditure was £426.

replied that there had not really been a reduction in the number of inspectors, but a number had been transferred.

said there was a great dissatisfaction in the Transvaal country districts, because the administration of the Sheep and Scab Act was under the control of the Field-cornets. One Field cornet did not report the presence of East Coast fever, although it had been in his district for some months.

moved, as an amendment, to delete the item £5,522 for Transkei border guards.

asked whether the Government were going to abolish these men.

replied that since East Coast fever had broken out on both sides of the border line, it was no use keeping on the guards.

added that the border guards between Marico and Fourteen Streams, as well as in the Drakensberg, had likewise been removed. In reply to the hon. member for Georgetown, he pointed out that cattle inspectors in the Transvaal were not subordinates of the Field-comets. The latter acted as cattle inspectors, whereas the assistant inspectors were appointed by his (the speaker’s) department. If the present system had been adopted at an earlier date, scab would have been a thing of the past, as far as the Transvaal was concerned. Veterinary surgeons could not do so much as they ought to do, because they lacked influence among the people. The Transvaal Scab Act was working satisfactorily, and whenever a Field-cornet committed a dereliction of duty he was punished.

said that, though he was not a scab expert, he represented a constituency where the farmers owned many sheep. The disease was rampant under the old system, because the inspectors knew nothing about it, but since the duties had been taken over by the Field-cornets scab was decidedly on the decrease. It was necessary for officials to be in sympathy with the country population, and, in spite of the carping criticism directed towards Field-cornets in the Transvaal, those men were able to carry out the law, because the people believed in them.

The amendments were agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again the following day.