from the Presbytery of Dutch Reformed Churches, praying for the amendment of the Solemnisation of Marriages Bill, so as to prohibit marriages between a widow with her deceased husband’s brother, between persons guilty of misconduct, between Europeans and coloured persons, and, further, in respect of the publication of banns.

Lease of Crown land on farm “Yzerfontein,” Malmesbury, to F. Rosenleft; application by H. C. Jenkins for a seaside resort site at the mouth of the Mtentu River, in the Baleni’s Location, district of Bizana; proposed grant of foreshore lands at Sea Point to the Town Council of Sea Point; proposed’ re-sale of Erven 7 and 8, Block X, Port Nolloth, Namaqualand; Gordon’s Bay Public Cemetery; application for church school site at Dube, King William’s Town, by Wesleyan Methodist Church; application for grant of Congregational Church site at Tamacha, King William’s Town; application by W. Roland for a seaside resort site at the mouth of the Ndumbi River, district of Ngqeleni; seaside resort, Langebaan, Division of Malmesbury; reservation of Elliotdale Commonage and a portion adjoining the commonage, as a commonage for the village of Elliotdale; transfer of lease of the Whaling Station at Schier Eiland, Malmesbury, from the Southern Whaling Company to Hans Ellefsen, Limited; transfer elf the lease of the Whaling Station at Plettenberg Bay, Knysna, from Southern Whaling Company to Hans Ellefsen, Limited; proposed letting of various Government lands and buildings, under section 6 of Cape Act No. 26 of 1891; proposed exchange of land between the Railway Department and the owners of “Grootfontein,” Division of Laingsburg; seaside resort, Herold’s Bay, Division of George; conditions of title in Fingo locations, Albany; lease of Beacon Islet, at the mouth of the Pisang River, Plettenberg Bay, Knysna, for whaling purposes, to P. Toplis; whaling and fishing sites at Walfish Bay; proposed sale of portions of farms “Keuken Draai,” “Stofkraal,” “Luisdraai,” and “Zeekoebaard,” Prieska, reserved for Buchuberg Irrigation scheme; garden sites at Butterworth, Nqamakwe, and Tsomo, for head teachers of Government-aided Mission schools; tennis court of Dry Erf 124A, Keimoes, Gordonia; trading station No. 21, called Empotulu, Glen Grey, occupied by Baptist Church; and proposed lease to Schreuder Brothers of foreshore and jetty site at Yzerfontein, Malmesbury Division.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Government Notice No. 399 of 1911, amending the Land Board Regulations (Transvaal).

resumed the debate on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1912. He said that he must congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the plain and lucid statement he had made of the finances of the country. It had enabled hon. members to get a true grip of what the state of the finances were. He quite agreed with the Minister of Finance that the balances which were brought into Union should be devoted to reducing the floating debt. It was a matter for congratulation that at the end of the first ten months of Union the Minister had a balance in hand of £478,000, and he did not agree that the whole of that amount, together with the £300,000 which he was going to get from the railways, should be diverted straight away to public work. Nor could he feel favourably impressed with the Minister’s idea in regard to the Sinking Fund. One felt that they were parting with assets which they should not dispose of. It was true that our total debt would be paid off, according to the Minister’s plans, in about 36 years; still he felt that in parting with their lands, and with windfalls which came to them, they were parting with mortgaged assets, which they had no right to alienate. It would be an enormous help, he thought, if they had a statement showing the Government buildings they had, and what they cost, and the true value of their assets to-day. One could not help feeling that this country should be self-supporting independently of the mines. Dealing with the remarks of Mr. Duncan, Mr. Watermeyer said that hon. members seemed to be ignorant of the agricultural conditions of the country. Else he would not talk in the way he had done about a land tax, and about the farmer not paying his fair share of the taxation of the country. He assured the hon. member that the wealth of the farmer was not to be judged by broad acres, but it was to be gauged by his happy adaptation to his surroundings and his contentment in living upon a small income at a, business which he understood. As to closer settlement, it must follow its natural course; they could not force closer settlement by artificial means. The only really satisfactory closer settlement would come in the same way as that in which the original settlers established themselves here. He agreed as to the necessity for increased enterprise in the matter of roads and bridges. In this connection he spoke of the need for affording better facilities for communication in the North-west. He especially emphasised the need for telephone and railway extension there. He must say that when they looked at the Estimates, and noticed the large number of highly-paid officials, it engendered serious feelings of alarm, for, looking at their resources outside the gold mines, it was doubtful whether they could keep up the pace. However, they relied on the good sense and caution of the Government to see that the expenditure did not exceed their capacity to bear. In conclusion, he said that he hoped that their confidence would be justified, and he thought it would be.

said that at a time like that, when they were discussing the Budget, it was the time of what he might call their annual stocktaking; they asked themselves how that country of theirs was getting on, and how their balance-sheet for the past twelve months stood. He thought that they were justified in thinking that there was something bright in their outlook, and that something had been accomplished during the past twelve months. There was a good deal to be thankful for in the progress of the country during the last year or the last few years. They might take the progress of the mineral industry, but let them look at their progress in other things; for not long ago they were paying twice as much as they were now for such things as eggs, butter, milk, cheese, cream, and a whole host of other things besides. These were very much cheaper, and better than they used to be. Australian butter used to come in by the 100 tons, but nowadays they hardly ever heard of it; and that was the result of the farmers here having fought their own battles. They saw the same steady progress in industries; and if the Government were wise, they would relist all demands to coddle these rising industries. They would find that these industries were going on very well, as they were to-day, without any such coddling. What he was afraid of was that the Government might give protection to things which to-day already enjoyed a certain measure of it; and he was afraid that if they had that additional protection they would have to pay far more for these goods than they were paying at the present time. With regard to the manufacturers of the country, they had been hampered by the uncertain tariff’s which they had; and in the Transvaal during fifteen short years they had had no less than seven different tariffs; and he hoped that the Government would get some sort of tariff which would last for a number of years. Manufacturers could not be expected to put down plant and spend money if they were almost certain that having done it to-day, in a year or two they would be up against a tariff which would upset them. As conditions were in South Africa at present, it was possible for the small man to start industries, but one of the evils of protection on a large scale was that it encouraged combines; and one thing which was necessary for a young country like theirs was that they should have a large number of small concerns scattered over the country, rather than a few large concerns. He hoped that the time would come, and he knew it was coming, when they were going to have a large number of small industries. The time must come, although it might be 100 or 150 years hence, when the mines would close down; and what would happen then? They must be prepared for that day. There was, unfortunately, no industrial education of the real kind—except a limited amount—in this country, and every other country in the world found it necessary not only to teach boys in the workshops, but to send them to schools in the evenings to get a knowledge of the theory of the subject they had learnt, in practice during the day. They had not a penny on the Estimates to provide for that purpose, and in the meantime they had 250,000 children coming on to manhood. Mr. Fremantle seemed to he very pleased with what the Government had done in the direction of equalisation of taxation; and he agreed that the people had reason to be thankful that their burdens had been lightened; but a tax which he thought should never have been taken off was the patent medicine tax. (Hear, hear.) Some of the things which had been taxed, and from which they proposed to take away the taxation, were nothing but common public swindles. Who were the people who were being swindled? The poor. It was the poor who were being taken in by these cure-alls. Mr. Quinn went on to say that he always tried to avoid either thinking or speaking provincially. He was afraid sometimes that he did not succeed. He could not help thinking: what about the Transvaal? What were they getting out of all this? He hoped no one would get up and taunt him with being provincial. Every part of the Union, except the Transvaal, was getting some sort of relief. Not only was the Transvaal not getting relief, but it was getting additional burdens. (Hear, hear.) Some one mentioned the Union buildings. He thought they ought to leave that sort of talk alone. If they went on taking a bit here and a bit there, they might “kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” They had a right to expect that the claims of the Transvaal to some remission of taxation would have been considered. There would be a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Transvaal. They were not too quick to call out. They were not the selfish, thoughtless, money-grabbing crowd they were sometimes thought to be. There were a great many men and women in the Transvaal who would measure favourably with the population of other parts of South Africa. These people had a right to be considered. There was no consideration whatsoever shown for them. What chance had the people of the Transvaal of establishing industries up there in the circumstances? How was it possible to use white labour to any extent when they made white labour so expensive? In this connection, Mr. Quinn quoted a statement in a brochure put out in furtherance of the printing trade in Cape Town, in which it was stated that wages in the Transvaal were 40 per cent, higher than they were in Cape Town. What, he asked, were they going to do with the 40,000 odd white children in the schools of the Transvaal if they had no industries? (A VOICE: Make ’em bakers.) (Laughter.) Yes, we will make good bakers of them, but they can’t all become bakers. (More laughter.) I don’t care tuppence for a man who does not care more for his own place than any other. I would put it to the Prime Minister, that if this policy is persisted in of driving out every industry in the Transvaal, what are we going to do with all the boys and girls who are growing up there? We ask that in rearranging these burdens the Treasurer will keep in mind that there is such a place as the Transvaal. Proceeding, Mr. Quinn said it was a shook to find that, when the four Budgets were joined together, if was going to cost considerably more to run the country than it did as separate concerns. One of the points on which he and others in the Transvaal urged the desirability of (Union was that there would be a reduction in the heavy charges imposed upon them, from year to year. Where was the reduction? They had imposed an additional burden, and that was not the end of it. What did cause him great uneasiness was this: that he, had to go back to this constituents in the Transvaal and tell them that there had been no reduction in taxation, that there had been a material increase in taxation, that they had not been relieved to the extent that other colonies had been, for some reason or other; that Ministers representing the Transvaal, in rearranging the burdens of taxation, had left out the people of the Transvaal, and that they had got to pay at least £150,000 a year in stamps. (A VOICE: Where? Where do you get it from?) It is not where do I get it from: it is where is the Treasurer going to get from? It is not that only, but we have been told that next year we must prepare ourselves for an income tax and a and tax. Well, from what I hear, the land tax has not got much of a chance. Proceeding, he said he did not think that the Treasurer had done his best. He (Mr. Quinn) did not take the gloomy view that they were now at the tap of the wave. His ideal Treasurer was not the man who deliberately over-estimated either revenue or expenditure, but the man who brought these two nearest together. All Mr. Hull’s Budgets, either here or in the Transvaal, had been the same—(he had never been without a surplus. In fact, so high were (Mr. Hull’s surpluses that he (Mr. Quinn) thought he deliberately hid portions of them away. There was no real reason to believe that we were in for a bad year, and therefore he hoped there would be no income tax, nor any fresh tax, proposed next year, but that the Treasurer would be able to come to the House and say he had a big surplus, and was able to wipe off some taxes, and would not think of imposing others. (Hear, hear.)

said that the Minister of Finance had made a lucid statement as to the finances of the country, and he could not agree with the criticisms which had been levelled at the Government, and which aimed at compelling the Government to economise, while hon. members who were now so critical had themselves been in some measure responsible for the present state of affairs. He strongly objected to cut down expenses in a hasty way which would have the most disastrous consequences. The Civil Service Commission, he continued, had not been appointed by that Government, but had been one which had been approved of by the Convention and the different Parliaments of the old colonies. Could he now go about hurriedly reorganising the Agricultural Department before that Commission had had time to deal with the whole matter? He would advise them to hasten slowly, and if they did not it would be a sad day for South Africa. It was a difficult task to reorganise that department, and they wanted something which satisfied the department itself, the public, and, he hoped, something which would also get the approval of Parliament. But it was said that the expenditure had increased to such an extent. It must not be forgotten that they had to deal with East Coast fever, if it was not to spread like wildfire—a very expensive business; and there was the appointment of veterinary surgeons in Natal, to replace men who had been retrenched prior to Union, owing to the depression. There was also the question of fencing in connection with East Coast fever, which ran away with a good deal of money. Must the farmers bear all that expense, or the State? He thought the State must hear it because the rest of the country benefited by that expenditure, seeing it was protected from the disease spreading. The right hon. member for Victoria West, in his capacity as Prime Minister of Cape Colony, had built a fence from the Drakensberg to the sea. Hundreds of guards were appointed at the taxpayers’ expense. The branding system had been extended in order to prevent animals from leaving infected districts. This, too, was expensive, but the owners could not be mulcted in the cost. One thing was certain, however, and that was that there had been no increase at all in these agricultural estimates since Union had been brought about, and the Government had simply to deal with the heritage it had received from the four previous, Governments; and with the exception of the money spent on East Coast fever there had, in fact, been a reduction. Before Union the four colonies had spent on agriculture a sum of £957,296, from which must be deducted the revenue received by the Agricultural Departments of £127,400, leaving a total of £829,895. He did not object to fair criticism, but the criticism which had been levelled against the Government was of the destructive type, which was of no use to the country, and merely misled the people. The total net expenditure now was £725,334. Was it reasonable, then, to accuse the Government of being wasteful of the taxpayers’ money when no less than £100,000 was being saved? More was certainly being spent on agricultural education, and he did not think that anybody could grumble against that. More was also being spent on fencing—most necessary work—and development—also most necessary—because without development there was stagnation. Not a word of appreciation of the department’s work had been said. It had had detractors only. (Hear, hear.) Another criticism levelled at the Government was that there was no system in the Agricultural Department—also a baseless charge. He was going to develop agriculture on the good system, on which he had begun, until the topmost level was reached. (Cheers.) The total was certainly a high one, but he felt it was going to be higher yet, and that was justified by past and present circumstances. No money was being wasted, but he refused to lengthen his blanket at the top by cutting a piece off the bottom! They could not do enough for agriculture in a country where agriculture was so important as it was in South Africa. He would make every endeavour to be economical, but there were two ways in which economies could be effected, and it would be no use merely cutting down in a haphazard way for the sake of cutting down, because more would be lost than would be gained in that way. They must, as a Government, come to the assistance of the agriculturists, because if they did not they would not be able to compete with other countries—where the Government did assist agriculturists; and they wanted to develop agriculture here, so that they would be better able to compete with other countries. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that mealies were still being imported into South Africa. Well, it appeared that a small quantity had been imported, but merely for seed purposes. (Hear, hear.) He went on to quote figures dealing with the rapid growth of the export trade of mealies from South Africa, and said that this showed the good which resulted if proper markets were found, and the Government assisted farmer in the right way. This would lead to a further increase in exports. He went on to deal with the increase in the exports of wool, mohair, ostrich feathers, and fruit, and said that this showed what great strides were being made by South Africa since 1906, as far as agriculture was concerned. Imports of butter and meat, on the other hand, had gone down very considerably since 1904; he quoted Statistics to bear that out, adding that if they made the same progress in the next six years, their position as an agricultural country, able to export to other countries, would be assured. (Cheers.) South Africa had been compared by one speaker with Holland, Denmark, and other old-established countries in Europe, but surely there was no proper comparison at all between a young country like South Africa, and old countries where living was so cheap. If they did make a comparison, let them take America, the Argentine, or Australia; and in those lands they found that the Government came to the assistance of the agriculturists. Many parts of South Africa were but sparsely populated, and there was something lacking; it might be water, or it might be something else, which kept the people away. It must be the endeavour of the Government to assist the people there, so that these districts could be opened up, and so that a large population could settle down there. If they wanted to have a prosperous, happy South Africa they must have a large, settled population in the country. At present the people living in those districts were leading a nomadic existence. There were no schools there, and the children grew up like savages. The country must be opened up by means of railways, and if the present tariff was too high, land interfered with the progress of agriculture, the rates must be reduced. (Hear, hear.) The speaker proceeded to deal with the desirability of spending money on investigations in regard to various cattle diseases, and said that it had been amply proved that the results quite justified that expenditure. If East Coast fever were not combated, he calculated that six or seven millions worth of cattle would be lost; and so it was necessary that every precaution should be taken, and their expert should be given a free hand to find a remedy against that terrible disease; he had every confidence in Dr. Theiler, who had already done much to combat horsesickness, bluetongue, and other diseases, which made it possible to go in for cattle-farming where it had been impossible in the past. There were several diseases still rampant, however, which would cost the country hundreds of thousands of pounds unless a remedy were discovered. In this connection he wished to warn the agitators in the Transkei that, unless they submitted to the stringent East Coast fever regulations, they would lose all their cattle. Touching on the criticisms on the agricultural vote, the right hon. gentleman said that the hon. member for Georgetown and the right hon. member for Victoria West, who had been prominent critics in the House, were on the Public Accounts Committee, and yet, although they had gone through these Estimates, amounting to over £700,000, all they had recommended was the following: “ In the opinion of your committee, it is desirable that the item, ‘Inquiries into fig drying in Asia Minor, and currant making in Greece, £750,’ should be withdrawn from the Estimates, spending further inquiry.” (Laughter.) The two industries in question could, so he had been told, be made a great success in the Western Province, for which reason he had wished to encourage them. As to the hon. member for Georgetown and his land tax scheme, he hoped he would publish his proposals shortly, so that everyone could react and see for himself. They must not make each other nervous with vague proposals. (Laughter.) What they must fight was the large land companies—these land monopolies which they had in the Transvaal. The land in such instances was not sold to white settlers, and was only farmed with natives. The Government would set its face against these land companies, because its desire was to have a large white population settled on the land. If the Government taxed band, they must not only go in one direction, but tax all land, and not merely that of farmers. Such a speech as that by the hon. member put one in mind of the desirability of a tax on claims. It also pitted the farming population and the mines against each other; and that was very regrettable, because the Government had only one cause in mind, and that was to have more cooperation between the two. (Hear, hear.) It was said that farmers did not pay taxation. Well, very few, if any, of them paid direct taxation; but as regards indirect taxation, the farmer had to pay just as much as anyone else, and would be able to pay his share, if an income tax were raised. (Hear, hear.) Then, hon. members had advocated that when a railway was built in country districts, the people of those districts should have to bear the cost. Well, he had never heard of anything more unreasonable. Many railways had been built in South Africa; lines to all the more important centres, and yet the country as a whole had had to bear the cost. Now, when places like the North-west—poor districts—wore crying out for a railway, they heard such an argument from the hon. member for Georgetown! He wondered how the people would like it if the hon. member were at the head of affairs. (Ministerial laughter.) Then some hon. members had made complaints in regard to the public officials; but he must reply that those officials had belonged to the four Colonial Governments; and the Union Government had had to take them over; they were an inheritance from the previous administration. The Government would treat all the officials fairly; and be must protest against attacks being made on their Civil Servants, who should be treated as hon. members would like to be treated themselves. (Cheers.)

said he would like to reply to one or two of the Prime Minister’s points, because he had made some curious blunders, which were misleading He (Colonel Crewe) thought they ought to congratulate the Agricultural Department on the admirable work by Dr. Theiler in the discovery of a cure of an animal disease which had done so much damage. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the Bacteriological Department would not be starved. He knew what happened in the Public Accounts Committee.

How much did we carry?

With our consent, oh yes. In the Public Accounts Committee the committee sit down with the Minister to try and make economies. What I do slay just now is that the Government are trying to bolster up extravagant expenditure. Hear, hear.) When the Public Accounts Committee sit down with the consent of the Government to carry out reductions, those reductions are carried out. If the Government sets its face sternly against reductions, reductions are not carried. Did anyone propose reductions in the committee?

Of course they did.

There is naturally a difference of opinion between the Treasurer, who stood in the way of economies, and the hon. member, who wished to make reductions, as I judge from his speech. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) sits there as a sort of Peri at the gates of Paradise. Last night he got into the gates of Paradise and sat at the side of the Treasurer—(laughter)—but they did not let him stay long. I want to go on with the point, but the hon. member seems somewhat disturbed by the criticism I am making. Proceeding, Colonel Crewe said that they had been asked to move a reduction of the Estimates. There had been a great deal of tin thunder—running a stick along the tins. (Laughter.) If they got up and moved a reduction of £500,000 they knew they could not carry it. In 1003 the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman), then sitting in the Opposition, attacked the Budget of the Prime Minister of that day with considerable force and great eloquence and logic. What did he do when it came to the vote? Did the right hon. gentleman vote to reduce the expenditure? His desire was to increase in At that time there was a little Railway Bill, which never passed Parliament, and which included a number of non-paying lines not a thousand miles way from Carnarvon or thereabouts, He said that the expenditure might pass if the Railway Bill passed through. He (Colonel Crewe) doubted whether they were going to get much assistance from that quarter. Now, the figures they had had placed before them by various Ministers were somewhat misleading. The Minister of Native Affairs had given them figures relating to his department hut one knew that there were services per formed for that department by other de partments which did not appear in those figures. The Prime Minister was much worse. As far as he (Colonel Crewe) understood, he took the sum total of the agricultural expenditure in a year before Union, and he took the same total now in the Estimates, and said there was a saving practically of £100,000. But what a change had taken place in this very Department of Agriculture! Let them take the figures for 1908-9. At that time agricultural education was under the Department of Agriculture. It was now under the Minister of Education.

I added that. Colonel C. P. CREWE (East London): Then I stand corrected on one item of £6,000. Then we have forests, £49,000.

That is not included.

It is now under the Minister of Lands.

I said I deducted all those figures.

I must confess that I did not catch that from the right hon. gentleman’s speech. But he does not show a saving even then He shows an increase. Taking the Estimates of last-year, there is an increase, roughly, of £20,000 now, and in the Estimates presented to this House in November and December last there is an increase of £84,000, so that since Union there is shown in the Estimates an increase of £100,000. Proceeding, Colonel Crewe said there was a desire on both sides of the House that this department should not be starved, but he did not think all was quite what it should be in the department. Take the Transkei. If instead of fencing and numerous other things, the Government had taken in hand dipping throughout the Transkei, there would not have been such a sad condition as there was at the present time. Pondoland was alight with East Coast fever, and so were the lower portions of the Transkei. The condition there was so serious that he doubted very much whether the Government could now stop the spread of the disease in that part of the country, and it was going to do an enormous amount of damage to what had been a fairly wealthy district. There was dissatisfaction on both sides of the House, but it would be a waste of time to attempt to make reductions in the Estimates. He trusted, however, that the Government between now and next session of Parliament would see that substantial reductions were made. At all events, he warned them that unless they did so the Opposition would use every possible means to force the reductions which the country considered necessary. He wished to remind the Government what occurred in the Gape Colony in 1902-3. The Government then was warned of their extravagance, but they refused to make reductions, and they met with disaster. He hoped the Union Government would take warning.

said that not only at the General Election, but at the time of Union, the Government got a mandate from the people of South Africa to see that the future fiscal policy of the country was established on strict business principles, and run on sound economic lines. (Opposition “Hear, hears.”) He wished, therefore, to urge upon the Government the desirability of abolishing the preferential rates at present existing between South Africa and England, and South Africa and the other British colonies. He pointed out that, in 1909 South Africa imported from Australia goods subject to preferential treatment to the amount of £1,486,642, whereas Australia imported from South Africa goods subject to similar treatment to the amount of £80,353. That meant that for every 20s. paid into the pockets of the producers of this country, they paid not to the Treasury of the Commonwealth, but to the manufacturers of Australia, the sum of £18 10s. In other words, Australia called the tune, and the South African taxpayer paid the piper. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) Now, why should that, be done? Why should the interests of South Africa always be sacrificed to other interests? As a proof of loyalty, he maintained that the loyalty of the South African was to be measured by a higher measure than that of pounds, shillings, and pence. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. Smartt) and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), in discussing the Union buildings the other day, talked eloquently about the rights of the taxpayer. Now, here was a splendid opportunity for them to put their theory in practice, and look after the interests of the South African taxpayer. As to the preference given to England, he said that the British people had not asked for preferential rates. These rates did not bring more trade to Great Britain, because if they looked up the figures they would see that the trade of England with the portions of the Empire which had Free-trade, such as Ceylon and India, was increasing very much faster, proportionately, than the trade with the self-governing colonies. The factories of England were not in their infancy, and why should they be protected? Why should South Africa pay £30,000 into the pockets, not of the Imperial Treasury but the British manufacturers, for every million pounds’ worth of railway material they imported into this country? Instead of doing that they should give an increased contribution to the British Navy, or build up and strengthen the coastal defences of this country. Proceeding, he said it was the duty of the Government lo find new and profitable markets for their products, and it was necessary for them to see that the doors of these markets were not closed against them by prejudices against foreign buyers. Scant sympathy was shown to South African produce when, two or three years ago the military authorities in England called for tenders for oats: the South African produce was deliberately excluded. There were other instances of this one-sided sort of Imperialism which had been going on. What South Africa wanted was more self-assertion;; they wanted to compel others to recognise their true position in the British Empire. They all loved the Mother Country, and they Would always find South Africans of both nationalities standing shoulder to shoulder in defence of the Homeland. The hon. member for Victoria West Mr. Merriman) had accused the Government of having done nothing to alleviate the sufferings of the poor. Yet at the same time the hon. member demanded drastic retrenchment in the Civil Service. Well, would not retrenchment accentuate the problem of their poor? It was true that the country was overstaffed, but it would be found that with the expansion going on there would be no necessity for retrenchment. As to the proposed readjustment of taxation, the Minister had foreshadowed the introduction of an income tax. Well, he (Mr. Nicholson) hoped that when the income tax was imposed incomes of under £400 would be exempted. He hoped also that the Government would differentiate between earned and unearned incomes. With regard to pensions, he hoped the Government in future would make a distinction between persons who remained here and people who went to live abroad after their retirement from the service.

said that from what, he gathered we were going a good deal too fast. He felt sorry we had not kept up our contributions to the Sinking Fund, and he was of opinion that more railways should be built. If the principle laid down in the Act of Union, however, that in the use of the railway surplus regard must be paid to the development of the interior, he afraid the money thus spent would go towards the cheapening of the cost of mining. If that meant simply increasing dividends, he did not feel so happy at the way in which the railway surplus was to be used. Now that a network of railways had been built to the Rand, they were told that where new lines were to be constructed that should be done only where the localities benefited contributed to the cost. That appeared to him to be rather a selfish policy. They had heard a great deal of how much the Transvaal had sacrificed in the cause of Union. He took it that this great sacrifice was to cease in a very short time, and just before Union the Transvaal entered into an agreement by which a large portion of its traffic would continue to come through a foreign port. But he was more concerned with the agricultural policy of the Government. The Cape Parliament had dealt very generously with agriculture. (Hear, hear.) His experience led him to think that the chief means of benefiting agriculture was by agricultural education, (Hear, hear.) He did not say it was necessary that young men should be educated in the very highest principles of agriculture, because that would take too long. An Agricultural College had been established at Middelburg. It was provided that after 1913 any student entering it must have matriculated. He was afraid that would have a very disastrous effect. (Hear, hear.) When he considered how many farmers there were who could affort to educate their sons up to matriculation standard, he thought the number of agricultural students would be unduly limited. Then the training of young men in other countries for following agriculture must be modified to suit South African conditions. Agricultural research in this country was yet in its infancy. He thought it would be a good thing for South Africa if they recognised their own limitations. It would, to his mind, be an exceedingly good thing if they could have one large central college, properly equipped and properly staffed, where these men could carry on their researches, and where they could train their future experts. He would also like to see dotted throughout the Union training schools, run on a modest basis, where practical instruction in agriculture would be given. In regard to East Coast fever, the Government appeared to have abandoned the policy of maintaining lines of defence against the disease. In the Transkei the disease had broken out in several places. From his knowledge of the native, he said that the policy of making a ring fence round the centres of infection was the policy best calculated to spread the disease rapidly. He suggested that the Government should fix a line, and send someone out to the farms to tell the people what the disease meant, and give them an assurance of assistance in the meantime from the Government to stamp out the disease.

said that the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) yesterday created somewhat of a shook. On that side of the House, he had been considered a very sensible and moderate man. He was afraid that after his speech the hon. member’s reputation had suffered very considerably. (Laughter.) His speech was a mixture of State Socialism, confiscation, and a cry of town versus country. (Laughter.) He had displayed a most lamentable lack of knowledge of the conditions of the country and the people of the country. He had stigmatised the farming community as indolent and easy-going. He had stated that large tracts of country remained bare, and that nothing had been done for the cultivation of the soil. Well, he (the speaker) would like to say that the farming community were thrifty and economical, and that if it had not been for that community, they would not be in the position they were to-day. He referred to the depression through which the country had passed, and said that the reason why the country had recuperated so soon was owing to the economy and thrift of the people on the land. They did not lose their heads, and go in for wild speculation, as the people in the big centres did. The farmer worked hard, and although he was not rich, he was economical and thrifty. Turning to the Budget, he said that the country was indebted to the Minister of Finance for the very clear and concise statement he had made. The Hon. the Minister was not too optimistic; he sounded a note of warning. There had not been a single word of approval from any of the financial experts in the House, but he wished to congratulate the Minister on his decision to vote the balances brought into Union in the reduction of the floating debt. By that he would save the country £25,000; but the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was not satisfied. In the past a most loose system had obtained in regard to the investment of trust funds, but the proposal of the Minister in that respect was a step in the right direction. The speech of the right hon. member for Victoria West was of a very destructive character. There was nothing constructive in his speech. He had given no hope, no guidance, and no inspiration for the future. He (the speaker) wished to protest against the sneering manner in which the right hon. gentleman had spoken of higher education. He admitted that the system was not perfect, hut with all its faults he was proud of it. In the past South Africans, who had availed themselves of higher education, had been able to do credit to the country in the Universities of the world. He was surprised to hear the hon. members opposite—the leaders of the Opposition—complain about the heavy expenditure on the Civil Servants. The Act of Union said that the Civil Servants, who were in the Service of the several Provinces before Union, should become servants of the Union. Their salaries and pension rights were protected, and he maintained it would be illegal and unconstitutional if the Government retrenched a single Civil Servant before the Civil Service Reorganisation Commission had reported. He also contended that the framers of the Act of Union—some of whom criticised the salaries paid to Civil Servants—contemplated that these Civil Servants should have such salaries. Moreover, the creation of two capitals was greatly responsible for the duplication of secretaries and undersecretaries, and the creation of Provincial Councils had also involved expenditure in salaries. How, then, could the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger), who was a party to all these arrangements, now attack the Government for expenditure of this sort, expenditure which was beyond their control? Speeches like those of Messrs. Merriman and Jagger, and Sir E. Walton and Sir George Farrar, were going to have the effect of stirring up feeling against Union, and of creating suspicion against Union. Why, the hon. member for Gape Town (Mr. Jagger) said, as he sat down: “I regret Union has come about.”

Oh, no, I didn’t say that.

Well, that was what I understood. Continuing, the hon. member expressed the hope that the Minister would endeavour to get the present Industries Commission to report early, so that legislation could be introduced next session to revise the Customs Tariff.

said that as far as Civil Service expenditure was concerned, there were two avenues of reduction open— the reduction of staff and a lower scale of pay for Civil Servants. But in both cases delay was inevitable. With regard to the special allowances given to officers removed from, the coast to inland centres, he thought the allowance of 53 per cent, was excessive in the case of highly-paid officials. Then officers in the inland centres transferred to the coast were given travelling expenses and allowances, and they thus appeared to be getting an advantage both ways. The Minister of Finance could effect very material reductions in this direction, and thus minimise the cost of maintaining two capitals. Turning to railways, Mr. Maydon said he did not agree with the new principle that districts to be served by new branch railways should specially be taxed. He would like particular attention paid to the working of branch lines, the management of which was overlaid with expenditure. It was quite unfair to lay on the branch line the exact proportion, in so far as standing administration charges were concerned, as was paid by the main line. The new branch lines added but little to the administrative charges. The system had grown up because there was no official whose duty it was specially to safeguard the interests of branch lines. The branch line traffic helped to swell the traffic of the main lines, thus creating a traffic which otherwise would never have arisen. He had listened yesterday with disapproval to the remarks of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), whose system of ethics with regard to the payment of dividends was a wrong one. The public, once a company was established, could not distinguish between vendors and subscribers’ shares, and if the hon. member’s suggestion were adopted investors would become frightened.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that in reference to the question of borrowing, everyone must observe that one never got 20s. for every £, even though they had security to offer of the most gilt-edged description. Unless, therefore, they considered well the inducements they had to offer, and showed the greatest prudence in safeguarding their resources, it was likely that every time they went, into the market, instead of getting something approaching £100 for £100 worth of scrip, they would find their price dropping. One could not fall in with the suggestion which had been put forward in certain quarters during the present debate, that it was entirely desirable to use their Sinking Fund straight away for the redemption of debt. He apprehended that the latest school of thought on this question of dealing with sinking funds had a great deal to recommend it, and that school of thought would, teach them that the proper use of the Sinking Fund was not so much to redeem the standing debt, unless the standing debt were of a character which made it desirable that they should extinguish it, but the prudent use of a Sinking Fund was to diminish one’s demand upon the market in future, rather than extinguish debt, where debt had been created on anything like reasonable terms. No doubt an opportunity would offer itself more directly when they came to deal with the Public Debt Act, but he should like the Treasurer to consider whether he did not bind the Commissioners rather too stringently in that Act. In connection with the near repeal of the poll tax in Natal, he believed it was understood on both sides that when the poll tax was removed from the native’s shoulders, he was not to be relieved from a liability for an equal contribution, and, if that were so, he thought an early opportunity should be taken, probably at the last collection of the poll tax, to inform them that they were not to be relieved from a contribution of an equal amount, and that the new contribution would be explained to them in due time. Mr. Maydon went on to refer to the Natal Act with regard to Sinking Fund on railways, and said that, inasmuch as that Act continued in operation until repealed, the Treasurer should consider whether he would not be violating the Constitution if he did not continue the payment to Sinking Fund under the Natal Act. He wished to comment upon the extreme prudence and wisdom of having a Sinking Fund in regard to the development of the country, and be could not help thinking that it was most wise and discreet that the railways should be asked to contribute to it. As to the ability of the railways and harbours to do so, there could be no reasonable doubt, and he thought the Government would be wise to set aside a certain part of the £791,000 as a definite Sinking Fund, which should, be removed from the control of the Minister of Railways and the Railway Commissioner. As to the Budget generally, he viewed the proposals of the Minister of Finance as being extremely satisfactory. He thought, however, the Minister could make a considerable saving on the expenditure, and he believed he would. He believed that the general effect of the Budget was good, not only so far as that country alone was concerned., but also as regards those who were watching what this young country was doing. He hoped that they would do more than keep in mind what satisfied those of Adderley-street, West-street, or Eloff-street; bear in mind that wider public; and if they did not, he was afraid they would have to pay an extremely heavy penalty in all those financial operations which were essential to their future wellbeing.

said that too much had been said about that being one of the best Budgets which had been before the House, and that the whole Union was treated alike. Such Estimates might do for a Federated State, but he did not think they did so well for a Union, such as South Africa was. In the Cape Province they had 75,000 European school children, and in the Transvaal they had 47,000; while there was £16,000 more on the Transvaal Provincial Estimates for education. Yet they were one under Union; and in the Cape the people had to pay more for education than the Transvaal public paid. There was a worse disproportion in connection with public works. The Cape only got a little put down for roads compared with the Transvaal, and he hoped that the Government would seriously take this matter of Provincial inequalities into consideration, and see that it was remedied before next year. The hon. member for Georgetown had spoken of a land tax, but he (Mr. Schoeman) knew how difficult it was to impose such a tax, and people rather paid £1 in indirect taxation than 10s. in direct taxation. He did not object to taxation which rested with equal fairness on all, but he was against a certain section—who were said to be rich men—being singled out for taxation, and others allowed to escape. He would like to point out that £200,000 was already paid by way of a land tax in the Cape Province. He thought that the Government could economise a good deal; and he did not see why in the Cape, where they had their Divisional Councils, they should also have the Provincial Council, although he would admit that the other Provinces were not in the same position. The Provincial Council cost a good deal of money, and he considered that much of it could be saved. The Prime Minister had alluded to the increase in the value of ostrich feathers exported. But what did the Government do for that industry, which he might say was a monopoly of the Union of South Africa? Was this important industry fostered and protected as it should be?

pointed out that there was a Bill before the House dealing with that matter.

I am not referring to that, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say that with regard to irrigation many promises had been made, but they wanted something done; and he need not dilate on the exceeding importance of irrigation to South Africa. They must not wait for a number of years, and then go in for a gigantic scheme, but make a start at once, and spend a huge amount of money regularly every year on irrigation schemes. If the finances of the country did not permit of these schemes being carried out let the Government impose mining taxation—which they would be quite willing to pay—but more irrigation they must have. He would like to point out that he was not saying all this to embarrass the Government, but he was trying to show what it could do to develop the country as it should be developed, and in favour of which the Prime Minister had so strongly pleaded.

said that several hon. members, in introducing their remarks, expressed regret that the practice which prevailed in England—the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne—did not apply, and he, too, regretted that such was the case. They did their best in the Transvaal Parliament, and they were defeated, as they were always defeated, in everything they attempted. It would save a great deal of time, and give the House an opportunity of considering the whole policy of the Government. He thought it was a very necessary thing, though he could quite understand how disagreeable and super fluous a thing it must be for a strong Government—such a Government liked to deal with these things as they arose in their own way. His complaint against the Government was that they had not got a clear declaration of policy, and that they did not get any. They had listened to the Prime Minister that evening, and heard a very interesting statement as to the development of the country. It was very clear and very interesting, but it was not a statement of policy, and would have done when the agricultural vote on the Estimates was reached. He complained that too little was done in Parliament, and too much in caucus. (Cries of “No, no.”) He knew that was going on. A Cabinet Minister told them that the Cabinet meetings were like cats in a bag. He dared say that that was true. They did not know what took place in the caucus, but when they came to the House the steamroller was put in motion. He had not yet made up his mind to pay the price of joining the caucus, and he would like to know what it involved. If it meant completely giving up one’s convictions, then he was out of the caucus, for a little time at any rate. But they should consider the scene last night, and the rather arbitrary way in which they were asked to go on, because his hon, friend made a reasonable request for an adjournment. It was Imperial Cesar.

Find faults.

No, I don’t find fault with my hon. friend. I may agree with him on one or two points yet. My hon. friend the Treasurer has listened to the hon. member for Uitenhage. If that didn’t fill him up, I don’t know what will. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that they had had criticism from the hon. member for Caledon— almost superfluous. What more admiration did he want? It would be nausating if he (Sir Percy) followed in the same strain. Besides which, they had voted with the Government on many occasions. They had supported the Government. What had they got for it? They had had independent criticism from the cross-benches that the Government and Opposition were in collusion, and some talk of backdoor influence. The other day the hon. member for Jeppe had taken him to account again. He Charged him. (Sir Percy) with perjury—a little thing. (Laughter.) He mentioned that he (Sir percy) gave evidence some years ago, and that it was false. His evidence was really a repetition, based on statements of the companies. So he searched for something that could be relied upon—the highest authority in the land. The hon. member went on to quote from documents dealing with mines and labour, and signed “F. H. P. Creswell.”

What private letters are you quoting from?

You had your turn; it’s my turn now.

rose to a point of order.

said there was no point of order.

The authenticity is guaranteed by the signature, “F. H. P. Creswell.” (Laughter.) The speaker went on to quote from the documents a remark that “machinery was stoked by Europeans at low wages.” “Good old white labour!” added the speaker, who said that he would leave the hon. member for Jeppe to wrestle with his conscience and his record. (Laughter.)

Who said so?

I don’t want to get annoyed, and I don’t want to annoy anybody else. The Minister of Native Affairs gave us an (assurance’—

He made a correction.

That the recommendations of this Commission are not going to be carried, out until Parliament has considered the matter? Is that so?

No.

Oh, well, we now come to pretty much the same position.

A very nasty way. (Hear, hear.)

well l, I take it that the hon. gentleman must have had no experience of “nasty ways,” if that is nasty.

We never had it, before.

I suppose that means Gape lines. It would do the hon, member good to go somewhere else, and see how dignified the proceedings were. Proceeding, Sir Percy said that if the hon. gentleman’s skin was too thin, he had better go and get massaged. (A laugh.)

We never suggested that.

That was the suggestion of the hon, member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle). Proceeding, he said he wanted to dear up this matter. One per cent, on the £75,000,000 debt was £750,000 per annum, and in putting that on the railway rates, he would ask hon. members, whether they lived in the great North-west, on the Rand, or down at the coast, where was their development to take place? It must take place inland. They could only build up the country by development inland. They must go inland and develop that which was developable. Very few people knew the immense resources of the country, and, beginning from: the seashore, they must go inland. Therefore, when they were raising railway charges and putting taxation upon railways, and adding anything to the railways, they were to that extent stopping the development of the developable parts. Suggestions had been made about broadening the basis of taxation—a land tax. Now his hon. friend the member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) had inspired a good number of hon. members opposite to speak who had not intended to speak at all. He quickened them into life. A land tax. (Laughter. ) He thought it would be an extremely unpopular thing to enforce a land tax, or even to attempt to enforce it, and he thought any Government that attempted to impose a land tax before the people thoroughly understood it, or before it had got the cordial support of the people, would be a very unwise Government. But it was a good thing to discuss it, because little by little hon. members who were interested in fanning would realise that there was a great deal in favour of it. It was the very same in regard to immigration. They wanted to increase the value of their land. The Prime Minister had said that Union would add £1 a morgen to the value of the farms. Well, in certain districts it had. For their own sake and for the sake of the country, they had got to have a population. It was the greatest possible mistake to suppose that immigration of a good class of people was contrary to the interests of the farmer. It was immensely in his favour. (A VOICE: “No.”) And so was a land tax, if it were a proper land tax, a tax upon those who did not use land. He came to another point. It was not in the direction of broadening the basis of taxation, but it had reference to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance about the Premier mine. He might be wrong, but he had understood the Minister to indicate that there was a possibility of revising the law when the question of uniform legislation came up.

It’s spicy.

said he did not refer to the matter again because it was spicy. Continuing, he referred to Michaelson, and said that the only good point to be said for him was that he was a supporter of the Government.

Let us have it again.

Are you a defender of Mr. Michaelson? Was there no Government department that could have effected the purchase? Would it not have been wiser to have declined to have dealt with Michaelson? Is no consideration given to the permanent staff? Have Civil Servants no feelings? They are the people who are blamed, and it is not fair. The heads of departments should make it their business to see that this class of people did not make any profit. Continuing, the hon. member went on to refer to the part of the farm that had been reserved, and said that Mr. De Klerck had said that he could get £3 a morgen for it. Of course, he could. Was there no other farm? Had the Government no other property? He strongly objected to all this business. This could have been done through the permanent officer, and made am official business. It was better to pay a higher price, and have it above suspicion than employ a person like that who made a profit through the Deeds Office. It went through the Deeds Office at £2, and then this man sold it to the Government at £2 10s.—a profit of 10s. a morgen for work that was done by the Deeds Office. The officer was the Master of the High Court. Mr. Michaelson got it at £2 a morgen, and handed it over to the Government, taking 10s. for work the Government department had done. Why should not the Government set that machinery in motion? Continuing, he said that Michaelson had made £l,500 out of the ground that the Union buildings were being built on in 48 hours.

Same man?

Yes, simple Simon Michaelson. (Laughter.) Continuing, be said that the matter required explanation. They paid sixpence each—every registered voter in South Africa—for work done by the Deeds Office, while Michaelson made the profit. How this state of affairs came about it was not his business to know. But the operations of Mr. Michaelson were known in Pretoria. There was a lot of gossip about the business there, and it was the business of the Government tb get at the bottom of it. Hon. members on the other side did not take the matter seriously, but he could assure them that there was a lot of talk, and this talk should be inquired into. Was that fair to the Civil Servants? Referring to imported labour. Sir Percy asked: “Did the hon. members on the cross-benches imagine that free labourers in England were such idiots as to come out to South Africa to hunt for work at 3s. a day?” Proceeding, he said that the development of South Africa was going to be hastened by the introduction of exotic grasses and winter grasses, which would completely change the whole of the high-veld farming. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, Sir Percy said every discussion in that House showed that the right lines of division had not been reached. Hon. members in the Ministry, who had sincerely at heart certain policies, had to surrender portions of them, paralysed by compromise and surrender, paralysed by what happened in the caucus or behind the scenes—. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) Yes. What was there improper in the suggestion? There were good points in the Government’s policy, and on those points he hoped they would get the hearty support of everyone on the Opposition side of the House. They would certainly always get his. On the other points, they would have to fight. They might be successful at first, bulb after a little time the country would require that the things the Opposition asked for now should be carried out. They were: a reasonable constructive policy and a clean and honest administration. (Opposition cheers.)

said he did not think anyone had made a larger number of false starts than the hon. member who had just spoken—(Ministerial cheers)—especially that evening. Although they had differed, he (General Hertzog) always had a great deal of respect for the hon. member. He regretted that he should have Started with a process of recrimination. As to his indictment against the Government he had nothing to complain of. He did think, however, that it was not exactly the Convention spirit in which the hon. member, for instance, attacked the hon. member for Jeppe that evening. At the same time; he did not say there was anything in the hon. member’s speech that an honourable man need be ashamed of. The first part of his speech was in the vein of a rehearsal of the past, of his conception why ten portfolios should have been created. He (General Hertzog) must say that he certainly never understood it in that way. Even if he had never said it, he did not think there was any man on that side of the House who would not to-day be glad to have his intentions carried out. But the hon. member himself could never have contemplated that these intentions could he fulfilled under all and every condition. The Dutch-speaking slide had never locked the door on the English-speaking side; they had differed very much in the first place because of the fundamental differences which existed prior to Union—differences so great that he was afraid that the hon. member himself could not overcome them, even after the accomplishment of Union. He would come later to what he might call the business part of the hon. member’s speech. He wanted in the meantime to turn his attention to the speeches of the hon. members for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar) and Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The first point was in regard to the Judges. The hon. member for Georgetown said, in his airy way, that there were too many Judges. With all deference to the hon. member for Georgetown, he said that no matter what subject he was an authority upon, the question as to whether more or fewer Judges were required to administer justice, he certainly was not an authority upon. Since Union—he did not speak of the Judges of Appeal—three vacancies had occurred. In Natal, no increase was made, but the number of Judges was reduced from five to four. He was satisfied that in the Cape they could not do with fewer Judges. The Cape had already resorted to the single Judge sitting, and, even with that, it was not able, and had not been able, to cope with the business on hand. In the Transvaal it might be said that, if they had that, they could do with fewer Judges. They might eventually, if they changed the three Judge system to a one Judge system, do with fewer Judges. To change that system they must first change the law. Hon. members opposite stood up here and criticised the Government constantly because they did not exercise economy; but things were totally different when their constituencies were affected. He intended that the High Court at Kimberley should be so changed that it would not be necessary for a Judge to sit there permanently, and he hoped that when he brought forward his measure next session hon. members who were strongly in favour of economy would give him their support. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) about a land tax, he must say he expected that the hon. member would give some reasons for advocating such a tax. His only reason was that it would be of benefit to the farmers. He said. “Tax yourselves, and through being taxed you will be all the happier.” (Laughters. Well, he (the speaker) must say that he expected a better reason than that. Sir George Farrar, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick and Mr. Duncan wanted to tax the land Why, he thought that there was no greater proof that they were a young country than these youthful and immature thoughts and expressions. He could understand that a man in Europe might speak about the State expropriating the land, but when they came to a new country, like South Africa, they wanted population. Sir George Farrar said he wanted population, and why did he want it? Because he wanted to tax them. (Laughter.) He wanted settlers because he wanted to tax them. Really, when he had heard that he could not help thinking of Alice in Wonderland and her friend the Walrus:

He brought the settlers oversea, and taxed them, one and all.

(Laughter.) They paid the settlers, added General Hertzog, to settle on the land, and then they wanted to tax them to fill the coffers of the State. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said he did not think that anybody who went thoroughly into the question could for a moment maintain there was any justice in it.

In Germany.

said that no hon. member, save the hon. member for Fordsburg, had had the courage to state what kind of tax. Let him ask him to define unearned increment. It was very easy to say this and that until they met the actual problem, and then they found how hard it was. There was no difference —a very little difference—between unearned increment and capital invested for a long period of years.

Same thing.

said that: hon. members on the cross-benches took abstract principles, and tried to build up State economy. He maintained that the only way of building up State economy was to take cognisance of social circumstances.

That is our doctrine.

said the hon. member for Fordsburg had talked of broad acres. Where was the unearned increment in regard to those broad acres? Was it no investment for the farmers on the Limpopo to have buried their forefathers in the fever-stricken districts? (Ministerial cheers.) Where was their unearned increment to commence?

That is earned increment.

The so-called unearned increment was sought for, but could not be found.

It is found in Germany.

said the reason for such taxation was based on the contention that anything in the nature of a natural monopoly, if it showed any increase in the value not attributable to the labour of man, should be taxed. (Hear, hear.)

That’s right.

said let them take diamond mines and gold trusts. Was there no unearned increment there? Did not the discovery of the gold fields cause a rise in the trade of Mr. Jagger? (Ministerial cheers.) Why should not the hon. member’s unearned increment be taxed?

Income tax.

Why not tax gold trusts as well as unearned increments? The hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) said that they must have settlers, and his reason was that the farms would immediately rise in value. Well, he submitted that under obtaining circumstances in South Africa nothing would be more fatal to settlers than to bring them here in large numbers to-day. It would not only be fatal to the settlers, but it would be a sin to the many poor whites and wage-earners now in South Africa. If they must have them, they would have first to see that they had an opportunity upon arriving in South Africa of making a living. (Cries of “Certainly.”)

I don’t want to dump any people here.

asked how were they going to get their settlers and provide for them if they did not increase the agricultural vote, and if they did not open the road to the territories beyond?

I spoke wholly in favour of that.

said that only one class was going to benefit by bringing people from oversea to South Africa, and that class was the class that required labourers, mine workers, wage-earners, and the class who owned landed property and could not work it. If they brought in settlers to-day where was the market for them? Where were they to send their produce to? If they could not get a market they would flock into the larger towns and swell the labouring classes, and wages would drop. The mine owners would, of course, not be sorry. When he heard Sir George Farrar, who owned ten million morgen of land—

I wish I did. (Laughter.)

The land held by his companies is ten million morgen.

Tax them!

I hope they will be taxed, not because they settle on their farms, but because they do not. (Cheers.) I can quite understand why they say: give us settlers; give us immigrants, because they have everything to win and nothing to lose. If the settlers are successful, the value of the land goes up; if they are unsuccessful wages decrease, and they (the capitalists) are again the winners. Where my hon. friends on the cross-benches do go wrong is that they wish to have an economic state of affairs, for which the world is not yet ready.

What about England, Australia, and New Zealand?

If this is their ideal, I differ in toto from them; it can never be realised in South Africa. I fully share their views when they say that this capitalistic basis of society which we have to-day is one which I pray we shall get rid of.

And on which you based your salary.

As long as capitalism is there I am going to avail myself of the morality of capitalism as it is, and as it is dictated. Sir George Farrar certainly does not think I have less right to exist than he has? Continuing, he said that before the hon. member for Georgetown came to the House and made such suggestions, he should make a better study of land taxation. He did maintain that they must face circumstances, and they would have to deal with the labour difficulty as long as the native was in South Africa. The Government had been accused of extravagance. He would say that the only extravagance that had been proved had been the extravagance in the indictment against the Budget. (Laughter and cheers.)

said that so far as State Socialism was concerned, General Hertzog was a long way ahead of him. (Laughter.) In 1888 a Select Committee was appointed in Natal to inquire into land values, and that committee decided that and should contribute towards taxation. Proceeding, he asked to whom the interest on capital should belong? The greatest wealth of modern times had nothing to do with labour at all, but to the increased value of real estate. Value should belong to those who created it. He regretted the tone which had been adopted since the beginning of this debate. He was sorry that the hon. member for Victoria West was not in his place, because he seemed to regard Government as a poor wretch in a pillory. It had been said that the Government had no policy. A little while ago they were told that they had too much policy. The Prime Minister had spoken of equality of opportunity. Then they had Hertzogism in education. (Laughter.) They had the industrial policy of the Minister of the Interior. That was a good policy. They had his policy in regard to immigration and defence. They had the Minister of Finance with a policy of taxation of incomes. That was where he disagreed with the Minister, because he (Dr. Haggar) objected to taxing any man’s real earnings. The hon. member, at 11.5, moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

This was agreed to, and the debate adjourned until tomorrow.