from inhabitants of Elliot, Tembuland, praying that the district of Elliot be annexed to the Cape.

from C. Driesse, on pension.

from residents of Senekal, Ficksburg and Bethlehem, praying for railway communication.

from the Mayor of Mossel Bay, and ratepayers, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

moved, seconded by Mr. YAN EEDEN: That the report and evidence be printed and considered on Friday.

Agreed to.

Commission appointed under the Townships Act, 1909 (O.F.S.), re township on farm Poortje, Ladybrand.

The report was referred to the Select Committee on Poortje Township.

who, on Friday evening, had moved the adjournment of the debate, said: Before the House resumes the debate on the motion, I would like to say that I exceedingly regret that, probably owing to the lateness of the hour last Friday evening, and the condition in which hon. members found themselves after a very strenuous week, a misunderstanding has arisen, which had the effect of somewhat curtailing the discussion. I understood when I rose to move the adjournment of the debate that all hon. members who desired to take part in the discussion had already spoken, and that is why I moved the adjournment of the debate. I understand now that there are several hon. members on both sides of the House who are anxious to contribute to this most important discussion, and therefore I am willing to waive the right I have now, and to allow any hon. member who likes to do so to speak on the matter. I hope that this will meet with the convenience of those hon. members who still desire to speak. (Cheers.)

said he took it that the Minister of Finance had waived his right more from pressure brought by some hon. members on the Government side than on the Opposition side of the House. The hon. member went on to deal with the number of officials of the Union, and the statement made that that number was smaller than before. He did not think that was the case, because it was a well-known fact that wherever any retrenchment took place there had been replacement; and furthermore, new appointments had been made since the Government had come into power. The hon. member alluded to the removal of Colonel Burns-Begg, land his replacement by Mr. Truter, and the removal of Mr. Brown and the Postmasters of Natal and the Orange Free State. He submitted that no economies of any kind had been effected since Union. He drew attention to a speech delivered by Mr. Sauer in January, 1910, about the economies which could be effected under Union, and added that that advice had net been carried out. Nothing had been done to believe the Transvaal of any of the taxation which now existed. The Government’s policy was one of levelling up, and not of levelling down, and he protested against the extension of the Cape cigarette tax and the stamp duties, which were to be imposed upon the country. As regarded the suggestion that mining claims should be taxed, he asked what would be the result? He said that if claims were taxed, a blow would be struck at the poor man and not the rich man, and he warned the Government that if anything were done to increase, instead of lower, the taxation on claims, or if anything were done to force people to work their claims, the revenue of the country would suffer considerably. Now, according to the Estimates of Expenditure, the Field-cornets in the Transvaal had not been touched.

They deserve what they get.

Yes, probably they do during the elections, because they preside at the meetings of our friends opposite, and see that the meetings are well attended. As regarded immigration and land settlement, he said that everybody wished to see the poor whites looked after. But there were two classes of poor whites. For the poor white who had dragged himself down into the mire owing to thrift lessness, he had no consideration. No good purpose would be served by putting him on the land. He thought those poor whites who would not look after themselves should be left alone. The hon. member went on to refer to what had been done by Canada in the way of land settlement. He quoted figures in regard to the growth of Canada’s population since 1881, and also as to her revenue and expenditure and trade. The general complaint had been that there was too much tinkering. Take the Marriage Bill, for instance, which was introduced in November—four months ago. Why did they not hear more about that? They got through the whole of the Bill, but allowed several sections to stand over. Again, what became of the Ostriches and Goats Bill? That also was introduced in November; but they heard nothing more about it.

Don’t you bear the goats bleating? (Laughter.)

Then there was the Judges’ Pension Bill. That also had disappeared. So also had the Administration of Estates Bill.

Talk less, and we will got through.

referred to an article which had appeared in a certain journal with reference to the culture of violets. That seemed a small thing, but he asked hon. members to go to the South of France and see what an enormous industry had grown up there. Then there was the complaint of the merchant community at the 15th Congress of the Chambers of Commerce, held in Bloemfontein, and expressed in a resolution condemning the action of the Government in purchasing goods across the water. Government, he thought, might well call for tenders for all their wants in the country, and if they could not get them at a reasonable rate, then they could get them oversea. With regard to the clothing of the police and railway men, he asked if the Government had called for tenders for this work, and the Minister added that they imported the goods free of duty. But he must recollect the merchants paid duty for their material, and so the country did not lose anything. The Government should do its best to foster local industries for the purpose of finding employment for the youth of the country. The Government of the Transvaal had started what they called a Central Agency, but he submitted that this was not a good proposition, because they could get better prices in the open market. He was prepared to support the Central Agency provided the consumer and the producer alike were benefited. Continuing, the hon. member referred to the case of the young Englishmen formerly in the British Army, and who joined the Transvaal police service as warders, but had been dismissed because of certain misstatements regarding their age. Some of these men were dismissed at 24 hours’ notice. Mr. Nathan concluded by appealing to the Ministry to reconsider the case of the dismissed warders.

deprecated constant reference to Cape and Transvaal lines. He had thought that those extraordinary lines had been wiped away, that the slate had been wiped clean, that we had made a new start, and that we were going to run the country on purely South African lines. (Ministerial cheers.) His constituents were quite prepared to pay their fair share of taxation, but they absolutely refused to be taxed in order that a certain section of the community might live in luxury. Was it fair to tax poor men in order that others might live in luxury? He thought if they had officials drawing £1,500 a year who were not required they should be retrenched, for that would be a saving if a pension of £500 were paid. He warned the Government that it was much wiser to be careful now than to be sorry afterwards. (Cheers.)

referring to the mail contract, said that if competition in freights were brought about the large importers would benefit by being able to get lower freights, while the mining companies would probably import their own supplies. He was not one of those who had expected a great reduction of expenditure under Union. It would take the Government a long time to so readjust the Civil Service as to get rid of superfluous men. Still, it was not right that they should be bringing in more men for the Civil Service. He had heard that that was being done. He sincerely hoped it was not the case, because they ought first to provide for Civil Servants here who had been retrenched. With regard to the taxation, proposals he was disappointed that the tax on patent medicines was to be removed. Not only was it revenue-producing, but it did good to the country, in that it discouraged the consumption of patent medicines, in regard to which there had been many remarkable exposures. Rather, he thought, should the tax on patent medicines be increased. He favoured a tax on unoccupied land, which, he thought, would have the result of bringing a lot of good land into the market. Following that, he thought the Government would be able to devise a satisfactory scheme of white immigration.

said that the hon. member for Von Brandis had spoken of a land tax as if it were so easy to impose, but it would not be fair to tax the land of the countryman and not the land of the townsman. He trusted the mines would not become antagonistic to the landed interest. What was a fair tax was one on incomes, levied on “business principles.” Then the hon. member had spoken of immigrants, but he (Mr. Aucamp) had seen many of the type whom he likened to a man who bought a motorcar and knew nothing whatever about it, except what he could pick up out of the handbook. When he at length got the oar to go, after a good deal of trouble, it went backwards. (Laughter.) He did not object to immigrants—of the right sort. Dealing with education, he spoke of the inequalities existing under Union, sayng that it was unfair that while they were all taxed to the same extent under Union, one Province got more from the State for education than another. He also hoped that the Government would thoroughly go into the question of quitrent. Then more could be done for agriculture and irrigation. They would not be able to export more if the Government did not put a larger amount on the Estimates for agriculture.

said that the Minister of Finance must know the prosperity of a country largely depended on the economy of administration, and nothing gave rise to more uncertainty than the tampering with the Sinking Fund. Were they going on from year to year piling on to that 75 millions of debt without providing for Sinking Funds—for these tended to keep up the country’s credit. He hoped that the Minister would see that the Sinking Funds were put on a sound basis. As to defence, a sum of £75,000 was being saved, of which £25,000 represented a reduction in the Volunteer and military forces. He specially deprecated the reduction as it affected the Natal Volunteers, and the differentiation between them and the Volunteers of the Transvaal. He regretted that the Minister, when dealing with the Provincial Estimates, had compared the large amount received from the Transvaal with the small amounts received from the other Provinces. That, he thought, was a wrong spirit to show, and it would not help to cement that good feeling which they all wished to encourage. Let them cease looking at matters from a parochial point of view; let them cease talking of town interests against country interests; let them cease trying to set one industry over another, and let them realise that the prosperity of one Province and of one industry was intermingled with the prosperity of others.

said that the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) had told them there were too many Ministers. Well, the ten Ministers surely had as much work as they could do at the present time, and complaints had been made by hon. members that they had not carried out sufficient development work. The hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) had accused the Government of incorrigible optimism. And why? Simply because the Minister of Finance had budgeted for something less than they had last year, both as regards expenditure and revenue. The hon. (member for Georgetown had said that he would not have an income tax, and would insist upon a land tax. Well, as it was the duty of the Government to introduce taxation measures, he thought it was incorrigible optimism on the part of the hon. member to suggest that next he would be on this (the Ministerial) side of the House. (A laugh.) The hon. member for Georgetown had also complained about filling the (portfolio of Minister of Commerce and Industries. Well, he (the speaker) would like to point out that the appointment of a Minister of Commerce and Industries had been asked for by the commercial community of South Africa. Proceeding, he said that hon. members opposite had been incorrigibly persistent in accusing the Minister of Finance of having no financial policy, but it seemed to him that the Estimates indicated the policy of the Government. Surely they did not want a fanciful picture of (the future, but amply a plain statement of the financial position, and that he submitted had been given to the House.

denied that there had been facetious opposition as alleged by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Watt) had resented criticism from those amongst whom he sat, and it seemed a pity that the hon. member had made his speech to the House and not to his constituency. He noticed that the hon. member, towards the end of his speech, urged that the Government should encourage the bringing out to this country of the (families of these who were already here. A humble member of the Opposition, he might mention, had already brought that to the notice of the Government, who had sympathetically replied, and a sum of money had already been placed on the Estimates with a view to carrying out that mild and sensible suggestion. Dealing with the Public Service Commission, Sir David Hunter said it appeared to him that the movement had begun at the wrong end, and that the Government should have obtained the advice of those who were qualified to give it to the country. They should have appointed the departmental officers to go into the matter, and if they had put it upon them to carry out some system of economy they would have placed the task upon the right shoulders. Touching upon native affairs, he thought some better recognition than had been given in the Estimates now before them should have been given for the promotion of the education and welfare of the great native peoples of this country. (Hear, hear.)

said that certain hon. members of the Opposition had told the Government what to do, and then, on the other hand, had criticised it for doing it. There were hon. members who wished to tell agriculturists their business; and was not the hon. member for Von Brandis’s speech in that respect a ridiculous one? (Laughter.) He seemed to think that South African farmers were not capable enough, and wanted farmers imported from elsewhere. (Laughter.) They had had enough of that! The Government had, he proceeded, a great deal to do in connection with making the laws of the various Provinces uniform. It had been said by members on the other side of the House that too much was being done for agriculture. He did not think that was the case, or that those who represented the mining interests had any reason for complaint, in view of the amount of time that had been devoted to the mines, and the way the Government had met them during the session. It was the turn of agriculture now! If they were sincere, they would recognise that a land tax was not leasibla at present. Too much, in his opinion, had been spoken about taxation in that House; and he would rather that the members of the Opposition came to the assistance of the Government, instead of unfairly criticising it. For example, it had been said that there were too many Ministers, while some hon. members on the Opposition wanted a Minister of Public Health appointed. Did that show that criticism of the Government’s policy was genuine? Dealing with the grain export trade, he hoped that the Government would come to the assistance of the farmers. Not that he asked for doles, but it must not be lost sight of that the prosperity of the grain farmers depended to a large extent on rain. In one way the Government could meet them, and that was by reducing the price of guano to cost price, instead of, us at present, making an annual profit of £20,000 out of the farmers. Another matter which demanded the attention of the Government was the taxation imposed in the Cape Province, and he hoped that the Government would as soon as possible see that taxation was equalised throughout the Union. It was regrettable that while they were under Union complaints should he heard of one Province against the other. There could not be satisfaction in the Union unless there was uniformity of taxation. He trusted that the Government would really come to the assistance of agriculture, and that more would be done in regard to water bores.

said hon. members were grateful to the Minister of Finance for giving further opportunity to express their views upon the Budget. The hon. member for Durban (Sir David Hunter) had made a remarkable statement. He had stated that the duty of an Opposition was to criticise, but that was evidently not the duty of the present Opposition, and particularly the hon. member who, he believed, had not even raised his voice against Sunday labour, or at least he voted with the Government. Then, again, he (Mr. Madeley) did not think the hon. member had read the South Africa Act. He said no reference was made to the natives in the Convention Act, except to state that they could take away the political rights which they had in the Cape already, He would tell the hon. gentleman that before they could take away these political rights it, was necessary to have a two-thirds majority in both Houses, and so far from there being no safeguard, the franchise could be extended to the natives throughout the Union by a majority of one. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, in defending the appointment of a Minister of Commerce, said it was a most important appointment, but, if that were so, how much more important would be the appointment of a Minister of Labour? The labouring class was in a majority, and there should be a Minister of Labour He was glad that the Minister of Native Affairs had returned to the House, for he wanted “to have a go at him.” The Minister had stated that coloured labourers at Stellen bosch had been prevented obtaining work at Johannesburg by the white labourers, the former being willing to work for less than half the wages of the latter. The white labourers did not object to coloured labour, but to the small pay it was willing to accept. The same argument applied to the resolution of the Johannesburg Town Council prohibiting the employment of coloured labour on building contracts. The Minister of Native Affairs had added that that showed the tyranny of labour. But Mr. Burton was a member of the legal profession, which fixed its own fees, but they did not hear of the tyranny of lawyers. Turning to the Indian question, Mr. Madeley said the objection to the Indians was not to their colour, but to their lowering the standard of civilisation. It was inimical to this country to make South Africa a black country. And coloured and black labour was ousting white labour. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) had suggested that the natives in the Territories should be armed. Had he forgotten the “Black Hole” of Clacutta? Europeans could not expect the natives to fight for them. If we employed native troops, we should never know when they might take exception to our method of government, and rise against us. The whole Budget was nothing but a mass of figures, and one saw nothing of humanity in its pages. The poor white question would have to be dealt with. They on the crossbenches contended that before the House considered the reduction of railway rates the poor whites on the railways should first have their wages raised. They heard tremendous protests against reducing the pensions of Judges. They objected to reducing the pensions of men who earned ample to enable them to save for their old age, yet they expected the white workers should save enough for their old age out of 3s. 4d. a day. The State owed a duty to those white workers, who had helped to build up the country, and was it too much to demand for these people that, when they had grown old, they should have a pension of 10s. a week, when they proposed to give their Judges £2,500 a year as a pension?

said that they must not be too critical as regarded the expenditure on education, as a great deal still had to be done, especially in the country districts, where many children ran about without education. That was a serious matter, taking into consideration the native’s craving for education They must not be silent or sit still as long as such a condition of affairs existed. If they only provided the children of the country with proper schools, a great many problems could be solved. For example, racialism could be eliminated easily at school, but not so easily later. They should adopt as their motto, “Africa for those who mean well by her.”

said that speeches such as the one delivered (by the hon, member for Springs might do a great deal of harm, and were only caused by ignorance—as to colour. Hon. members on the cross benches used the words “natives” and “coloured people” promiscuously. The other day he saw an advertisement inviting working-men to come to Johannesburg, but when he went to the Labour Bureau to inquire he found that no coloured people need apply. That was brought about by the Labour Party’s desire to keep the work in their own hands. The hon. member for Commissioner-street had said that attempts to establish diamond cutting in South Africa had failed because the Amsterdam cutters were afraid that it would fall into the hands of coloured people. That was not the case, however. Similar attempts had been made in New York, and they failed because the Amsterdam cutters preferred keeping the work in their own hands. He (the speaker) wished an equal opportunity for all, and he took serious exception to the speeches of hon. members on the cross-benches. He regretted the fact that the Public Accounts Committee had seen fit to delete the amount of £750 placed on the Estimates in connection with the currant and fig industries. Hon. members opposite wished to limit the supply of liquor. If they were sincere in that policy they should encourage land being utilised for the growing of figs and currants. The Liquor Adulteration Act of the Cape should be made to apply to the whole of the Union. It had led to a great improvement in the quality of Cape wines and brandy. It prohibited the use of cane sugar and salicylic acid for wine, and of certain other ingredients in the distilling of brandy. The maintenance of the surtax on spirits was necessary for the support of viticulture, for its disappearance would ruin the Western Province. It would not do to impose a general Excise of 9s. During the past year grain to the value of £800,000 was imported into South Africa. Yet a large quantity of wheat, produced in the country, remained unsold.

Why?

He would tell them why. It was because at Cape Town wheat of one quality and colour was imported. Buyers found it easier to purchase it in that fashion at the Docks than go to Malmesbury and grade the different varieties. Further, the market for South African wheat had been shifted from Cape Town to Kimberley, the reason being that it was comparatively cheaper there on account of the preferential railway tariffs. The system of preference led to a good deal of fraud. Large quantities of flour, consisting of a mixture of South African and imported grain, were handed in at the South African produce rate, which was not as it ought to be. Hon. members from the Transvaal complained about the high railway rates generally. It was perfectly true that the Gape had had relief, but it should not be forgotten that the Cape Railways had made sacrifices by accepting mealies at un-remunerative rates, in order to enable Transvaal producers to export at a profit. He was in favour of encouraging corn-growing and protection for cereals.

spoke of the Orange Free State Select Committee, which had dealt with the tobacco growing industry in the Orange Free State, and asked why the Government had not yet done anything to carry out its report. He would like to know what the Minister of Commerce intended doing to carry out the recommendations of that committee. Much could also be done, he continued, in regard to dry farming in certain districts of the Orange Free State and afforestation. The south banks of the Vaal River were very well suited for irrigation schemes, which, he trusted, would soon be carried out. He went on to deal with the poll tax in the Orange Free State, and complained that many natives did not pay that tax. He blamed the system in force, and considered that it would be more desirable to leave the collection of that tax in the hands of the Field-cornets. The Free State seemed to be the only Province where attorneys had to pay £70 to £100 in annual licences, and he thought that was not fair. Not that he liked attorneys, but he wanted fair treatment to all. He spoke strongly against the recent decision of the Judge-President of the Orange Free State in regard to refusing to accept certain Dutch documents which he had ordered to be translated into English, and said that as both English and Dutch were the official languages of the Union he must speak strongly against any disrespect shown to his language. Any slight towards his language was a slight towards himself.

having congratulated the Minister of Finance on his Budget, regretted that the debate had been dragged from its high level by the hon. member for Pretoria East on Thursday evening. He condemned the hon. member for going into personalities. The gravamen of the charge against the Minister of Finance was, be added, that he had not economised, but what could they expect when they were making a new start? What did a business man do when he started a new venture? He spent money. Later, he might get a return on it; but he would not get a return if at the outset he did not venture to put any money into his business. He regretted the attitude usually taken up by the hon. member for Gape Town, Central, in regard to the farmers of the country. There was, at any rate, some hope for him—(laughter)—if he would only acquire some practical knowledge of agriculture, and the many difficulties with which the farmers had to contend. He would extend a cordial invitation to the hon. member to pay a visit to Somerset East, when he (Mr. Vosloo) would be only too pleased to show him round. (Laughter.) It had been said that too much was placed on the Estimates for agriculture, but that was certainly not the case. If they wanted to develop the country many things were needed, such as bridges, telephones, telegraphs, and the like.

Who will pay for it?

We shall (Laughter.) He went on to slay that two things were very much needed in country districts—more education and better facilities for litigants, because the distances between many of the Magisterial centres was too great, and people had to wait too long for the Circuit Courts. The hon. member went on to speak of the proposals made by Opposition hon. members to impose a land tax, and said that a reasonable land tax was not objected to; or, in other words, that all land and the buildings thereon should be taxed. Mr. Merriman had introduced a fair and reasonable land tax in 1898-9, and had had the support of the Cape House, but the measure had come to grief in another place. Many hon. members wished to tax un worked land, but there was a vast quantity of land in the country not by any means more suitable for cultivation than Table Mountain, for instance. He would be delighted to see the hon. members for Cape Town, Central, and Fordsburg scarifying the face of Table Mountain … provided he (the speaker) was allowed to apply the whip. (Laughter.)

said he would not have spoken but for the extraordinary utterance of the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). The hon. member’s complaint was that owing to inadvertence on the part of the University examiners—

I did not say that. I did not point out where the fault lies, but said there is something wrong.

There is something wrong, and what is wrong is that so many boys are being sent up for that examination when they were unfit to pass it. I prevented some boys meeting the same fate by telling them that the proper course was to undergo two years’ preparation. So many parents are in such a hurry to put their boys through the examination that they will send them up before they are fit to undergo the examination. They could not, proceeded Sir Bisset, blame the examiners because dull boys could not pass. As for the idea that the examiners were setting up a ring fence, he had never heard anything more preposterous.

I did not say that.

The hon. member spoke about a ring. The natural interpretation I put on that was that the examiners set up a ring, and would not allow anyone to come into it. The hon. member instanced the surveyors, and I hope that the surveyors’ examination will be put on a proper footing.

Hear, hear.

But here they were near the end of the session, and the Minister had not said a word about the Teaching University.

Something has happened.

We hear rumours, but what it is that has happened we don’t know. Continuing, the hon. member expressed the hope that they were not going to be guilty of the foolishness of looking a gift horse in the mouth. When the Glen Grey Act was passed provision was made for transferring the lots in a very easy way. The natives in his constituency complained that they had to send to Cape Town to get transfer, and very often the fees amounted to more than the value of the land. As a result the deeds were not being registered, but were simply transferred from seller to purchaser when a sale was effected. This would eventually lead to a great deal of confusion. Sir Bisset then referred to the licences for the sale of mineral waters by hotelkeepers. Originally that was 30s., but was raised to £3 by Mr. Merriman, but the old Act stipulating that the licence was 30s. was not repealed, and consequently licensed victuallers had been called upon to pay both sums. Some of them refused) and some of them had paid. A case was decided in the Supreme Court, by which it was held that the licensed victuallers, under the provisions of the old Act, could not be called upon to pay licence fees under the new Act. In consequence of that some of his constituents who had paid their three pounds came and demanded a refund of 30s., but they were told that there was no authority to make any payment. He hoped his hon. friend would see that this money was refunded. He would also direct attention to the brewers of the Cape Colony. In the neighbouring colonies of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State the brewers were permitted to use large quantities of sugar, but the brewers were not allowed to do so in the Cape Colony. The brewer had got to pay 4d. a gallon for beer, but if he sent his beer into Cape Colony be got a rebate of the duty on the Excise. Again, with regard to the Sinking Fund, the hon. member said he could not help expressing surprise that the Treasurer proposed to abridge the Sinking Fund. He would point out that the trade routes were always changing, and what with Delagoa Bay, Lobito Bay, and various other places opening up, it was not unreasonable to suppose that the trade routes would be different than they were to-day. Besides, the great sources of coal were only supposed to last another 60 years or so, and he thought it was not right to leave the full debt of their railways to be paid by those who came after them. Then with regard to the taxation of natives, he wanted to bring home to the House that the natives were contributing over a million to the general revenue of the country, and were receiving no direct representation. If Europeans were taxed without being represented there would be no end to the howling. (Hear, hear.)

objected to the opinions of the hon. member for Von Brandis, pointing out that Japan sent her sons to every civilised country to study, and then to return to Japan and teach their countrymen what they had learned. Again, he always thought that the Opposition was averse from encouraging increased taxation, but here they had the hon. members for Georgetown and Yevoille recommending it.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that it was very unreasonable on the part of hon. members opposite to accuse the Government of having no policy. The Government, he declared, had a policy, and were doing everything to further the interests of the country. He instanced the policy of the Prime Minister in regard to agriculture, and the proposals of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, which, he said, had frightened some hon. members opposite.

And on your side, too. (Laughter.)

said he was sorry that hon. members had stated that it would be impossible to get the Irrigation Bill through this session. By conserving the rainfall of the country, they could vastly increase the value of the land. He went on to urge the importance of seeing that they got full value from their expenditure on education. He next criticised the appointment of a Minister of Commerce, remarking that he thought the commercial men in the House were quite able to look after commercial interests. (Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that it would have been better to have appointed a Minister of Produce, whose duty it would be, as far as possible, to encourage the extension of production in the country. He was also of opinion that they had a public service which was too expensive. The Government, however, were bound down by the South Africa Act, and he felt that he could not blame them. The hon. member deplored the provincial spirit which had been manifested in the course of the debate. He instanced the attitude of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) towards the impending abolition of the tax on medicines, which had been levied in the Cape. He trusted that the Government would earnestly strive to equalise taxation throughout the Union.

said that when the Government were being criticised, it must not be lost sight of that this was the first Government under Union, and that it had many difficulties in the way of putting things ship-shape. The Government should be given a chance, and critics should be patient. A glance at the Estimates would show that certain economies had already been effected: they were not many, but still it was going in the right direction. The vote in regard to agriculture had been increased, but that was not to be wondered at, seeing that the Government had had to expend a good deal in combating various cattle diseases. Having touched on a number of items in the Estimates, the hon. member said that as regards taxation the Minister of Finance could get a great deal by means of additional protective duties; and he was in favour of those articles and products being protected which could he produced in the Union. He specially alluded to the grain industry and the manner in which it could be built up under Protection. This would have the effect, he said, of increasing the production of the South African article, and so cheapening the price. He agreed with Mr. De Beer as to what he had said about the Government coming to the assistance of the grain-farmers, and the cheapening of the price of guano. A good deal could also be done by the Government in the way of afforestation; and he hoped that, now that they were under Union, much more would be done than under the previous Government. Then there was railway development, which was urgently required in various parts of the country, so that the farmers could get their produce to market; and he sincerely trusted that, the line to Hankey would soon be constructed. In this connection he pleaded on behalf of the lot of the poor woodcutters in his constituency, and hoped that they would get a better chance of getting the wood to market.

said he wished to refer to the agricultural aspect of the Budget. It was utterly beyond the power of the Minister of Finance to see that the huge sum of twelve millions was spent efficiently. He (Mr. Fawcus) hoped that the result would not be the establishment of a bureaucracy of high officials and an aristocracy of highly-paid Government servants. (Laughter.) What had Government done to help the wine, sheep, and ostrich farmers? He defied anyone to say that Government had helped one iota in any one of these directions. Where did the money go that was wrung from the taxpayers through the Customs? It went in such extravagances as the Union buildings at Pretoria, where a thousand clerks would mismanage the affairs of South Africa— (laughter)—while the pension fund would supply these gentlemen with feather beds for their old age. (Renewed laughter.) There had been talk of Cape and Transvaal lines, but he would like to see more of the old Free State lines followed. (Hear, hear.) As to East Coast fever, the result of Government’s action in this matter had been to give an idea of false security, and to discount individual enterprise. He did not blame the Government—it was the system that he blamed. It would be probably just the same if the Opposition were in power, perhaps it would be worse. (Ministerial cheers.) He would give a warning to farmers that so far only gold and diamonds had been taxed, but he foresaw a time when ostrich feathers and wool would be taxed, if wholesale reductions were not made in their expenditure.

replying to the debate, said he hoped he might be allowed to congratulate hon. members that this interminable debate had come to an end. They had listened to a large number of speeches; he understood that seventy members had taken part in the debate. No doubt some very excellent suggestions on a number of important questions had from time to time been made, but, on the whole, he had no reason to complain about the criticisms that had been directed against his Budget statement. Because, if they examined these criticisms closely, they would find that there was, after all, nothing in them. (Ministerial laughter.) The speeches that he specially wished to refer to were the speeches of that veteran financier of the House (Mir. Merriman). Some of those speeches were couched in very violent language: they contained a largo number of adjectives, but a good friend of his upon his side of the House had told him not to mind, because he said, “if you will look at the speeches the (Mr. Merriman) made during the year 1906, you will find the same criticism.” (Laughter and cheers.)

Absit omen.

His hon. friend the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. Walton) occupied the position he (Mr. Hull) now occupied. They would find that precisely the same kind of speech, the same kind of language, used by his right hon. friend upon these two occasions, were employed now.

Absit omen. (Laughter.)

said he was not going to inflict these speeches made by his right hon. friend upon the House, but it struck him that there was a remarkable resemblance in the speeches then made to the speeches they heard: on this occasion. Well, what was the main criticism that had been directed against the Budget statement and against the financial programme that had been submitted on behalf of the Government and the House? He thought it would be admitted by everybody that the main charge against them was the charge of extravagance. Stripped of the leather and prunello, the main charge was the charge of extravagance; and he wanted to devote a few minutes’ time while he examined the account of the charge. Of course, it was no use that such a charge should be based upon general terms. The charge to be of any value must be specific. Well, the hon. members who criticised him had referred to certain figures to substantiate their charge of extravagance. The figures that he would specially refer to were those placed before the House by the right hon. member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Gape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), and although the hon. member for Port. Elizabeth had not in so many words referred to these figures, yet he understood him to say that he had seen the figures, and that they met with his approval. These three great financial experts of the House, his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West, who was a loyal, and—and, did he say doubtful supporter of the Government? (Laughter.)

Humble. (Laughter.)

Oh, I see—a humble supporter of the Government; and the great financial authority on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Jagger) had used these figures. Now, if these figures were accurate and reliable, then he (Mr. Hull) had no hesitation in confessing that the charge of extravagance against the Government had been made out; but if, on the other hand, these figures were false and misleading, then so far from repudiating the charge, he would return it with the statement that the hon. gentlemen had been guilty of a very serious attitude, because they had submitted to the House and to the country at large a statement of figures which would not bear the test of examination.

Then you ought to take into account the £750,000.

I shall deal with you in a moment. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he asked what were they to think of financial experts who quite omitted to take into an account an enormous sum like this sum of one and a half millions sterling? But that was not nearly all. His right hon. friend, in the figures which he submitted to the House, appeared to have entirely forgotten that in the 1911-12 Estimates provision was made for expenditure out of revenue of a very large sum of money which in 1908-9 was paid out of loan funds. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) He would only take three of these heads of expenditure, namely, public works, eradication of stock diseases, and forest plantations. In the 1911-12 Estimates they accounted between themselves for no less a sum than £435,000 of his right hon. friend’s hastily compiled figures. So that already two millions sterling out of his alarming figures of £2,272,000 had been accounted for.

You might give us the total of that. Is there more to come?

I was hoping that my hon. friend was following me. (Laughter.)

We are not allowed to. I would like to.

I hope some hon. friend will be able to give him the figures. I don’t want to go over them again. Proceeding, he said that the figures he had given were considerably in excess of the supposed difference of expenditure mentioned by his night hon. friend. Well, he could go on multiplying these instances by taking out other items which occurred in the expenditure for the period which they were just entering upon, and which his right hon. friend had not taken into account for the period 1908-9. But a case of extravagance had to be made out, and figures had to be compiled somehow or other.

You are not dealing with railway figures.

I am dealing with the revenue. Continuing, he said he knew that his hon. friends were annoyed at having these figures refuted, and the figures quoted were so easily capable of refutation that he could not understand why they were brought before the House at all.

I didn’t say that.

Oh, yes. Perhaps it was said by his colleague.

I—

Oh, then, the charge is withdrawn? Proceeding, he alluded to the statement of his right, hon. friend, who said that while we were making a great fuss about exporting mealies, South Africa was importing mealies. That was the kind of statement to which he (Mr. Hull) took objection. A gentleman in the position of his right hon. friend ought to know better than to make a statement of that kind—a statement that was entirely misleading. If he had said that the mealies to which be referred were a few mealies of the value of £10 or £50 per annum imported for seed purposes, then he (Mr. Hull) could have understood it. But to make a bald statement which was misleading, was, he thought, a most improper statement to make. So far as ha had gone, he had shown that the figures put forward by the critics of the Government, could not stand the test of examination, and had failed. (Hear, hear.) Before he left the subject, he would like to say one word with regard to the inconsistency of which his hon. friend the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had been guilty. His hon. friend, he understood, agreed with the general charge of extravagance, but immediately afterwards he swerved round, and brought a totally different charge, and said that, so far from being extravagant, the Government had not, included enough for development. Well, the two charges could not go together.

You spend in the wrong way.

Let, him give the figures in regard to the particular services to which the hon. member referred.

I started with the Ministers’ salaries.

I shall deal with the Ministers’ salaries in a moment. I understood him to say that not enough provision was made for development of the resources of the country, and to say that we should take from the mines the wealth which they gave, and spend it on development, and thus posterity would reap an enormous advantage. If he will examine the Estimates of Expenditure, he will find that something like £750,000 is included in the Estimates for 1911-12 for agriculture, agricultural education, forestry, Lands, and public works, and the whole of this expenditure is not from loans, but out of the current, revenue. (Hear, hear.)

I still think the same thing.

said that the hon. member at that time went on to say that, so long as the then Government were in power, he thought the House might feel assured that there would be no proposal for the taxation of land laid before it.

That is a policy you have advocated yourself.

Yes, but I have got older. (Laughter.) Besides (he continued) he would still be in favour of that policy if they were building railways now for the first time in South Africa. Then there would be a good deal of force in the hon. member’s suggestion. But the country was already burdened with a debt of 75 millions for railway and harbour construction and did the hon. member want the people whose land had been benefited in the past by the building of railways to go free, while they taxed all whose land might be developed by the building of railways in the future? He would like also to ask the hon. member why he did not advocate that policy under Crown Colony Government, when he was one of the principal advisers of the Administration? With reference to the criticism directed against him (Mr. Hull) in regard to his using the £300,000 further contribution, which he got from the railways towards meeting the expenditure for the current period, he might say at once that before he decided to come to the House, and to ask the House to vote this sum of £300,000, together with the sum of £450,000 odd surplus, he hesitated considerably, because he recognised that the charge would be made against him that whereas in his first Budget statement he had advocated strongly that all revenue and surpluses should automatically be used for the redemption of debts, he had now gone back on that policy. Therefore, he hesitated before he came to place this proposal before the House. He might say he still felt a great deal of hesitation, because he wanted to assure hon. members that the policy he advocated of using surpluses every year for the purpose of debt redemption was the policy he wanted to stand by.

Hullo!

Whenever anything is suggested about the Transvaal, and somebody says, “Does it smell?” you hear “Hullo,” and up go the foxes’ ears. (Laughter.) This case of the pastrycook, proceeded Mr. Hull, was one of a peculiarly distressing character. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying that the whole House, if it knew the circumstances, would agree that the Transvaal Government acted perfectly fairly in making the unfortunate man this allowance of £500. The transaction started before they took office in the Transvaal, and it arose in this way. The late Crown Colony Government of the Free State had decided to grant a bounty in respect of sweets and jams manufactured in the Free State. The effect of that was that the business at Johannesburg which this man had laboriously built up for 15 or 18 years was entirely ruined.

Other people suffered too.

I grant you that. The man’s business was completely ruined. My predecessor, the Colonial Treasurer of the Transvaal, had a very strong appeal addressed to him a month or two before we took office. He wrote a most sympathetic letter, and said he would act but for the fact that the Transvaal was on the eve of having Responsible Government, which should deal with the matter. I have not the slightest doubt that if the Public Accounts Committee go into this ease that they will satisfy themselves chat this was an exceptionally hard and distressing case. The man was ruined, and petitions were presented on his behalf, and representations were made by people who knew him, and it was only after the very fullest inquiry, and after we had satisfied ourselves that this man had been ruined through no fault of his own, but by Governmental action, that we thought that this was a case in which we were entitled to use our discretion for the purpose of giving this man a fresh start in life.

What is the contingencies account for?

We have no contingencies account. Proceeding, the Minister of Finance read some of the items in the report in question, which included: expenses in connection with the National Convention, expenses in connection with the deportation of Asiatics, expenses in connection with sending Kruger coins from the Cape to the Transvaal, expenses in connection with the Gape Wine Commission—(laughter)—refund of £500 deposited with the old Republican Government, which had been repaid to the depositor, and so forth. These (said Mr. Hull) would indicate to his hon. friend the mature of the charge, and he was perfectly satisfied that he would agree that it was a proper vote.

You leave out the railway debt.

I must leave it out for the simple reason that the railways must he kept at a standard. If his hon. friend suggested that the railway debt should be paid out of the Sinking Fund then he would be compelled to pay out 1 per cent, upon some 75 millions, If he did that, then Parliament would have to modify section 127 of the South Africa Act. He would not say anything more then. Hon. members would have ample opportunity of detailing further with these points that he had not been able to reply to when the House was in committee. He was sorry that he was not able to place the Estimates of the loan expenditure before the House, but be hoped to be able to do so in a day or two. He had been prevented from doing so, because that part of the Estimates which dealt with railway matters had not yet been placed before the House. ’The effect of the delay, however, had been that very substantial reductions in the loan proposals had been effected. (Loud cheers, during which the bon, gentleman resumed his seat.)

then put the question.

The motion was agreed to, and the committee stage set down for Wednesday.

moved: That the following be a sessional Standing Order: That while the Estimates of Expenditure are under consideration by Committee of Supply, consideration thereof take precedence of all other business during evening sittings, on the following conditions: If at five minutes to six o’clock p.m. on such days the business be not sooner disposed of, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate then under discussion, or the Chairman will report pro gross and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for the adjournment of the House, etc., will lapse without question put; if a debate arises as to the day fair which such interrupted business shall be put down. Mr. Speaker shall call for the “Ayes” and “Noes”; when, if Mr. Speaker is unable to determine whether the “Ayes” or the “Noes” have it, he shall order the interrupted business to be put down for the next day on which the House shall sit; provided that at five minutes to six o’clock p.m, the Estimates of Expenditure are under consideration, no such interruption shall take place.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends that, for the purpose of consolidating the various Stamp Duties at present in force in the several Provinces of the Union, there shall be charged, levied, and collected for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Union subject to the exemptions hereinafter mentioned, and to such conditions as may be laid down in any law passed during the present session of Parliament, the Stamp duties set forth in the schedule on pages 798 to 893 of the Votes in respect of instruments executed in the Union, or relating to property in the Union, or to any act, matter, or thing to be done or performed within the Union; and the said Stamp duties shall be in substitution for the Stamp duties at present in force in the several Provinces of the Union.

Agreed to.

It was further agreed that the heads of Stamp duties in the schedule he taken seriatim.

Head No. 14,

moved, after the word “original,” to insert “bill or” and to insert the following exemption: “bill or document of entry coast wards from any port in the Union to any other port in the Union.”

Agreed to.

Head No. 15,

moved: In paragraph (1) Rates of Duty: In the second line after the word “rent” to insert “exceeds the rate of £2 10s. 0d. per month, but”, and in the following lines after the words “exceeds” and “exceed”, to insert the words “the rate of.”

asked if the charge on very small leases could not be lessened? He even thought that where the rent was under £5, these cases might be left alone. Even as the tariff stood, it would cause a great deal of hardship.

pointed out that Johannesburg would suffer under the amount charged on large leases for long periods. He was anxious to help the Minister, but be would be failing in his duty if he did not urge him to bring down the charge by one-half.

moved to omit all the words from “but not exceeding 15 years,” to the end of the paragraph.

asked what the stamp duty would be on a 25 years’ lease of a property, the annual rental of which was £2,400? He objected to the imposition of one-third of the original stamp duty on account of the cession of the lease.

replying to the hon. member for Cane Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), said that a deputation of house agents had had an interview with him, and he thought he met them very fairly. He agreed to reduce the duty. His first proposal was that they should have a minimum stamp duty of 1s. on a £5 lease, but he afterwards reduced it to 6d. upon a lease of £2 life, a month. He did not think that anybody would object to paying 6d., more especially as it was borne by the lessor and the lessee. Sixpence was for the whole period of the lease, and not for each month of the lease. He could not accept the proposal of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Neser).

said that the duty on a lease for 20 years on a property at £2,500 would be £25. Was it intended that it should be £25 per year?

said that that was so.

instanced a shorter lease, say, for ten years, and urged that the duty would be outrageous.

said that under the Transvaal law if a lease for 25 years and upwards were entered into it was regarded as an alienation of the property, and 1¼ per cent, of the aggregate amount of the rent was paid as duty for the whole period. Then, if they took a lease of 20 years, instead of 25 years, n charged, not at the rate of £1 5s. per cent., but £1 per cent.

said that the fallacy underlying the Treasurer’s argument was that the aggregate of annual rents was not the value of the property.

pointed out that the Minister was labouring under a misapprehension. In the Transvaal when they paid on the basis of alienation they paid duty, not on the aggregate rent, but on the actual value of the property.

suggested that the proposal should stand over.

drew attention to the great inconvenience which house agents would experience in obtaining the cancellation of the hosts of small leases.

It was agreed that the proposal should stand over.

On Head 16,

moved: In line 3 of the head, to insert after the words “corporate body” the words “(excepting a building society).”

Agreed to.

On Head No. 18,

said that he did; not know whether the Minister’s attention had been drawn to the fact that the proposals contained here would operate unfavourably in connection with local companies. Many local institutions carrying on business in South Africa, having all their assets here, got themselves registered in London, where they did not have to pay a duty on their scrip, and so on. It would be unfair to some companies if others were allowed to evade this duty by being registered in London. He hoped provision would be made to prevent such companies evading their obligations.

said the British tariff on transfers of shares was a great deal higher than the South African tariff, and in other ways companies registered in. England would have to pay more. He did not think, therefore, a company would go to London to be registered in order to evade the South African duty.

asked why stamp duties were imposed on securities of the Government of the Union?

said it was the practice all over the world.

said that hero the duty was placed on the person or company or Government which issued the scrip or security. He could see no reason for requiring the Government to pay. It was taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another.

thought some of the licences were too high.

said the Durban Chamber of Commerce had expressed the opinion that the stamp on partnership agreements should be reduced from £1 to 10s.

moved that a stamp should not be required in the case in which the money represented in the partnership did not exceed £100.

said he could not accept the amendment.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

suggested that progress be reported.

moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

The motion was agreed to, leave being obtained to sit again on Wednesday.