from inhabitants of Ward Midden Modder River, Winburg, praying the House to consider the advisability of creating the area now under the jurisdiction of the Detached Assistant Resident Magistrate of Brandfort a separate district, with Brandfort as the District Town.

from Patrick Kelly, late clerk in the General Post Office.

from W. J. McEvoy, member of the District Mounted Troops.

from the widow of the late W. C. Meredith.

from P. H. Sarrie, for light employment.

from G. W. Chambers, assistant foreman, Salt River Works.

in support of the Married Persons’ Property Bill (four petitions).

from Percy Hertslet, who had been granted a loan of £1,500 under the Civil Service Housing Loan Scheme for the purchase of certain four stands in Johannesburg, since bonded to the Government, praying that the property be taken over by the Government, and that he be released from further liability.

from B. W. Parkes, clerk in the Agricultural Department.

from the widow of the late W. K. Stephens.

as Chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, recommending certain grants and leases of land (pp. 591-2, “Votes and Proceedings”).

The report was ordered to be printed and considered in committee to-morrow.

Papers relating to certain three (58 to 60) leases and grants of land.

These were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Proclamation No. 58 of 1912, in re Crown lands in townships in Natal.

Return of special warrants issued during March, 1912.

This was referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Sixth, seventh and eighth reports of the Commission appointed to make recommendations for the re-organisation of the departments of the Public Service.

I wish to call attention to the notice of motion on the Order Paper for Tuesday, 23rd instant, in the name of the hon. member for Durban, Point (Mr. Silburn), on the subject of a contribution by the Union of South Africa to the British Navy. This notice of motion is substantially the same as the motion moved by the hon. member on the 26th March (vide page 491 of the “Votes and Proceedings”), the only difference being a change as to the basis of calculation of such contributions. The alteration in the terms of the motion is not such as would in my opinion constitute a new question, and the notice for the 23rd instant is, therefore, in conflict with Standing Order No. 66 and must be discharged.

Regulations for Union accounts other than those of railways and harbours in substitution of regulations laid upon the table on the 29th January.

moved: That the return prepared in terms of section twenty-six of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, showing particulars of special warrants issued by His Excellency the Governor-General during the period from the 24th February, 1912, to 26th March, 1912, laid on the table of the House on the 4th instant, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved, in the interpretation of term “riparian land,” after “means” to insert: “Nothing in this definition contained shall be construed as rendering riparian any piece of land which being at the commencement of this Act a sub-division of land, was then non-riparian.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

In Clause 10,

moved, in line 1 of the clause, after “used” to insert “whether at the time the normal flow is determined or thereafter.”

said he knew what the hon. gentleman intended, but thought the words unnecessary.

saw no harm in the insertion of these words, which would only assist in making the matter clearer. He seconded the amendment.

said the definition of normal flow in the Bill was quite clear. It dealt with normal flows, not only for to-day, but for all time. The amendment was superfluous.

The amendment was negatived.

New Clause 24,

moved that the following be a new clause: “24. Whenever any such permission or authority as contemplated in sections nineteen, twenty, twenty-one and twenty-two is granted, there may be included therein permission and authority to lay out and use such cable, pipe, or other ways, as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes contemplated. (2) Such permission, authority and rights shall only be granted subject to compliance with such conditions as to notice to owners or other persons affected, appeal, compensation, and safeguarding the public interest, convenience and safety, as may be laid down in this Act or any regulations made thereunder and in accordance with any Aber law or Provincial Ordinance not inconsistent herewith, now or hereafter in fore in that behalf in the area concerned. (3) The provisions of Chapter VII. of this Act shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the grant of any permission, authority, right or rights contemplated by this section.”

The mover said he hoped that the Minister would reconsider the decision which he arrived at a previous stage. Unless such a provision was inserted, a man might have to go to the Provincial Council, or come to that House, for leave to pass his electric current over the ground of another man. He appealed to the House to take a broad view of the motion, and to realise that they were not dealing with their assets as they should.

seconded the amendment.

said he understood the hon. gentleman’s object was to give the wealthy corporations and the people who had already taken away rights from the owners of waterfalls, the right to run over and tear up people’s land as well. He hoped the House would not agree to it.

hoped the hon. member would not press his motion. It was a very contentious question, and surely they had enough questions of that sort before them. The hon. member should be satisfied until the matter was dealt with in a separate Bill.

said the two hon. members who had just spoken were taking a very parochial view of the question. They were not thinking of other parts of the country. They thought nothing of malting an irrigation furrow over another person’s land, but objected to a cable three or four inches thick. They had falls in Natal, and people were anxious to develop their power. The Howick Falls did not belong to any corporation, but to the Government, and could not be utilised until they got a private Bill through.

said he also wanted to appeal to the hon. member on the grounds he had already appealed to him, not that he did not agree with him that there was a necessity for this; but he did not think the matter was urgent, and legislation of that kind would have to be more carefully considered than he proposed now. He certainly thought it was a necessity, and he hoped at the earliest possible opportunity they would deal with the matter. He thought in the interests the hon. member wished to serve it would be better if he had a little patience, and got something that would be practically ‘useful.

said they had already put a clause in the Bill making provision for water power, and now they required to lay down the new provision in the Bill proposed by his hon. friend, that under certain safeguards they should allow people to utilise the power. They could only give the Water Board the power to grant that permission the means the hon. member proposed. He was not asking for any new rights to be given away, but simply that in connection with the clause already in the Bill they should utilise the power.

The amendment was negatived.

In Clause 138,

moved, to substitute the following new clause: 138. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as affecting any right which at the commencement of this Act any person possesses and is able to exercise beneficially in relation to the taking or use of water from a public stream or perennial stream defined as such by any law repealed by this Act.

seconded.

moved a further amendment that after the words “public stream” there should be a comma, and then the words inserted “or from a perennial or intermittent stream.”

seconded.

said that he would call attention to section 14. In that particular place existing rights were safeguarded to the full; and for the use of intermittent streams there was section 14. The amendment was totally unnecessary, and would only obscure the meaning.

said that he wished the right hon. gentleman would have told them why he wished to omit the old clause. One was rather suspicious that in the old clause the same object was not aimed at. The only substantial difference he could see was that he had added the words “able to exercise beneficially”; and he must candidly say he did not see what the Minister meant, and he could foresee a good deal of trouble arising over that. (Mr. MERRIMAN: Hear, hear.) If he had only added the word “exercise,” he could have understood it, but the moment they inserted the word “beneficially,” they began to raise the question what was meant by “exercising these rights beneficially”? Must a man have a balance-sheet to show that it cost him less to work that land; or what did they mean by it? If they meant for the purposes of irrigation, let them say so. He moved that the word “beneficially” be deleted. At the end of the new clause there was a provision which, he thought, would also lead to trouble; it made a distinction between a “public stream” and a “perennial stream.” Did the Minister mean a “public stream” by common law, or according to that Bill, because in that Bill a “public stream” included both “perennial” and “intermittent streams.” He would move, as a further amendment, in line 3 of the new clause, to omit “beneficially,” and in line 4, to omit “or perennial stream defined as such by any law repealed,” and to substitute “as defined.”

seconded.

said that he hoped the House would not accept the amendment. In the first place, the word “beneficially” undoubtedly had a meaning there. When one remembered how these rights had been exercised before there had been legislation dealing with the matter, how water had been used anyhow, and how it had been wasted, it had not been used beneficially. No man could complain where his rights were safeguarded, and if his rights were exercised with benefits to himself, but they wanted to prevent him from exercising them to the prejudice of others who might have rights to the water. As to the latter part of the clause, the hon. member seemed to find difficulty about the definition of “public stream” there. The object was to protect existing rights which people possessed at present under the laws proposed to be repealed under that Bill and accrued to them whether under the common law or under the Statute existing prior to the commencement of that Act; but he could not with that view make use of the expression “public stream,“because under this Union Bill the expression “public stream” occurred for the first time. “Perennial stream” was only defined as such in the existing legislation in the Gape. “Public stream” was only defined in the Transvaal legislation, therefore in the Union measure the Minister spoke of both these terms.

said that they had from the Minister of Native Affairs what he might describe, he hoped without any offence, an ingenious bit of special pleading. Didn’t the Minister know that by this Act “public stream” included every possible description of stream? That was laid down in the Bill. It was one of the proud boasts of the Minister of Lands that it was so. What the hon. member for Harbour said was perfectly correct. Why this change in the clause at the eleventh hour, when nobody could really discuss it, when they were out of committee? Whenever any of them had got up, members of the “Property Defence Association,” to plead that rights were being infringed, they were always estopped, and the Minister said, “Look at clause 136: there you have a perfect safeguard.” That was the great charter of existing rights. Now observe the slimness of the procedure—(cries of “Order”)—if he might use the word. What should he say? The skill, the dexterity with which the procedure had been carried out at the eleventh hour. The Minister had capsized this old clause 136 and introduced something new. As the hon. member for Harbour had pointed out, the word “beneficial altered the whole sense. Who was to define what “beneficial” was? He did not think it was right, he did not think it was a proper Parliamentary procedure, and he hoped that the hon. member (Sir H. Juta) would divide the House on the amendment.

said that he thought he should correct a misunderstanding. He had not ruled that the word “slim” was not a Parliamentary term. What he did the other day was, when the hon. member for Springs used that expression in reference to a vote which was taken by the House, to call him to order for making a reflection upon a vote which had already been taken, but not for making use of the word.

pointed out that, according to Elfers, the word “slim” meant “clever.

said this was the second time the clause had been amended, and he would have to vote against the new clause.

said he did not think that any word had been brought into the Bill which had taken away more rights from people than this word “beneficial.” He hoped the word would not be allowed to remain in the Bill.

said he must also enter his protest against this clause. The Bill made various encroachments on private rights, which the House had accepted under the safeguards afforded by clause 136. Now hon. members found that the safeguarding clause was to be altered in important particulars. He supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour.

said there was no very big difference between the new and the old clauses, and the difference lay in the use of the word “beneficial,” which was difficult to define. He suggested that it might meet the case if the word “beneficial” were withdrawn.

said that if clause 138 remained in the Bill, they might as well destroy the measure. (Hear, hear, and cries of “No, no.”) Throughout the Bill all existing rights were protected. Now they were asked to introduce a clause which distinctly said that all rights under a previous Bill were to be retained.

said the Bill did not affect any existing rights. Of course, some rights had to be given up, but throughout the Bill existing rights were protected. Clauses 137 and 138 might be deleted.

said he hoped there would be no misunderstanding in regard to the clause. He entirely agreed with the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. Becker). The word “now” was originally intended to mean the day the Act came into operation. If that were so, they would be in the same position as if the clause were not in the Bill. They had an admirable measure, but by having a clause subject to two interpretations, they might practically do away with most of the alterations made in chapter 2. It would be a serious thing if the clause were to remain in the Bill, and perhaps by the legal interpretations put upon it, defeat the whole object of the measure. He hoped hon. members would not be led away by the idea that any practical rights of theirs were being taken from them. The overwhelming majority of practical irrigators were practically in favour of the Bill.

said the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was trying to frighten the House. He was confident that every right would be protected. This was an attempt to get back to the position prevailing in 1906. The right hon. member for Victoria West had been trying all along to allow an owner on an intermittent stream to impound all the water, although he might not be able to use it. He urged the House to accept the new definition. It was some safeguard that owners would use the water beneficially, or, at any rate, so attempt to use it.

put the question that the clause proposed to be omitted stand part of the Bill, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, with the following result:

put the question that the word “beneficially” proposed by Sir H. IL Juta to be omitted, stand part of the clause; and declared the “Noes” had it.

moved, as a further amendment, after the word “beneficial” to insert “subject to the provisions of Chapter II.” His reason was that Chapter II. made very special provisions which he thought were of a very admirable character, one of which was that a man might be able to store in the bed of a river water to which he was entitled as a riparian owner. Formerly he was not able to do that. He was afraid if they passed this clause without making it subject to the provisions of Chapter II., the provisions they had in that clause would interfere with the working of other parts of the Bill and be contrary to the intentions of the Legislature.

seconded.

said the amendment was intended to satisfy those whose rights had been taken away. It could now be seen that rights were, in fact, being taken away, and he would vote for the amendment.

said the hon. member for Prieska had made it appear as if he (the speaker) did not know what was in the Bill. He did know perfectly well. At the same time, he was open to conviction. On points where he had been opposed to the Bill he had since been satisfied that it took away no existing rights.

The amendment was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Watermeyer was negatived.

The new clause was agreed to.

The Bill was thereupon read a third time.

said that he wanted to confine himself to two departments of the Government, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Railway Department, and he hoped by the time that he came to the latter that the Minister of Railways and Harbours would be in his place. He recognised the difficulties which the Government was in regard to the former Department, owing to the regrettable illness of the head of the Department; and everybody on his side of the House sympathised with the Government in regard to the absence of the Minister, and specially in regard to the reason for that absence. At the same time, it was impossible that they should indefinitely abstain from pointing out the defects in the administration of that Department because the Minister was not in his place. It was difficult for him to know whether the Government were considering the matter. When a question had been put in the House dealing with that Department there had been competition between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior as to who should answer the question, but they had not had an announcement made, and the questions dealing with the Department had been answered by the Minister of Finance, so they had come to the conclusion that, in addition to his other duties, he was at present acting head of that Department. He asked whether it was not possible at the present moment to appoint one of the Ministers to that portfolio, and so be, not a nominal, but an actual, head of that Department. He had asked a question with regard to what had now become known as the protest campaign with regard to the postal and telegraphic staff of the Union, and he would like to say at the outset that that was not a new matter, but that after exhausting every consitutional manner of drawing the attention of the Government to the existing state of affairs, they had started that campaign. He had raised that matter in April last year and the Minister had given a written answer, in which he stated that there was no ground for the statement that the Department gave irrelevant replies, and that a number of personal representations had been forwarded to be dealt with by the Public Service Commission. After vainly protesting to the Department itself it had been decided by the men to organise a protest campaign; and he would like to point out that it was not at all a political movement, but a spontaneous movement on the part of the men, and not confined to any particular part of the Union. It was true that in large centres members of Parliament had been asked to be present at these meetings, so that they could hear what the views of the men were, but they had taken no part in these meetings, except to reply to the votes of thanks which had been moved, as a rule. There had been no suggestion of an increase of salary in this campaign, but the protest had been entirely against departmental methods, and nothing else. The hon. member went on to read the resolution of protest which had been passed, to the effect that these postal and telegraph clerks viewed with great dissatisfaction and indignation the evasive and equivocal replies of the heads of the Department, the attempt to reduce the status of the executive officers, and the right of appeal being practically abrogated. At these meetings, he said, a number of specific instances had been given, and the Government for months past had been in the possession of the resolutions which had been passed. He had been present at the meeting which had been held in Cape Town and could see for himself the earnestness of the men. Telegrams of support had been read from various places. Up to the end of January there were 26 important centres in connection with the postal and telegraph clerks that had definitely supported the protest that was being made. He put a question in the House in February, but the Minister replied that he was not prepared to make any statement for the present. The men had stated their case. He wanted to give the Government now an opportunity of replying to the serious charges made in connection with the administration of this particular Department. Surely sufficient time had now elapsed to enable the Government to frame its reply. There was another matter in connection with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to which he wished to refer and that was in regard to the Estimates. Here he might say that the Estimates were full of pitfalls to the unwary and it might be that he had dropped into one of those pitfalls. On page 249 of the Estimates for the coming financial year they would find postmasters, postal and telegraph assistants, 1,969, minimum salary £90, rising by increments of £10 to £250, and minimum salary £250, rising by increments of £10 to £300. This showed, as compared with the last year’s Estimates, an increase in the minimum in the lowest grade which, in the last Estimates, appeared as £60, rising by increments of £10 to £120. Now it was to be £90, rising by increments of £10 to £250. In the Estimates for the coming financial year, it would be seen that there was an item, 194, receiving a minimum of £265, rising by yearly increments of £15 to £340. He would like specially to refer to that, because he thought he was correct in saying that the bulk of the staff came under these two particular grades. They had this section of £265, going up to £340. Now there were hundreds of men at £250, who had no prospect of ever getting into the higher class. They could only go beyond the barrier if there were a vacancy. These men might be put at a great disadvantage with regard to these Estimates, because he now saw there was a new class altogether introduced of £250, rising by increments of £10 to £300. What was that new class for? It was assumed by the men that this new class was an attempt, as it were, to say to them: “It is impossible for you to wait so long; you will never get into the upper class; we will grant you relief by creating a new intermediate class.” The thing that puzzled one was that, according to the Estimates, there were only 194 men who belonged to the class, £265—£340. From last year’s Estimates it was difficult to ascertain the number of men of this class, because the figures were rather different and there were varying scales in the different Provinces, but, from investigations he had made, he thought it was safe to assume that in this particular class, of whom there were now 194, there were then 400 and more. What they wanted to know was what had become of the balance? It would look, on paper, as if there had been a vast retrenchment. What was feared was that the Government were going to employ men of the lower grade and lower salary to do the work of men of the higher grade and higher salary. When, however, one looked at the number of appointments one apparently found a reduction, for in the Estimates they found the number of appointments carrying salary of £350 and upwards dropped from 315 to 263, and the number of appointments carrying salary of £350 or upwards in the Postmasters and Post and Telegraph Assistants class dropped from 120 to 79. Last year the number of men brought up from 1910-11 was 3,463, and for the current year the number was 3,488. One would naturally look for a reduction in the staff, but in this year’s Estimates there was a very considerable increase in the staff. The number of men in the postal, telegraph, and telephone service was given as 5,232, and last year the number was 3,488.

Have you looked at the explanatory memorandum?

Yes; but that does not help me at all. It says that the postal, telegraph, and telephone services show an actual increase of only 92, whereas as above mentioned there had been an apparent reduction. Continuing, the hon. member wished to know whether Government intended to impose a new barrier, and to get men drawing smaller pay to do the work of the more highly paid men. There was still a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Railway Department. The Regrading Commission had not yet published its report, and the men did not know where they were. The Grievances Commission had reported to the Government, but the report had not been laid on the table of the House. He was told that 500 grievances were dealt with in the report. He was also told that a number of men did not give evidence before the Commission because they wanted to see what their position would be under the Regrading Commission’s report, and also because they feared the consequences of giving evidence. In circular No. 15, it was made clear that Government did not bind itself to accept the Commission’s report. Therefore, the men, to a large extent, refrained from giving evidence, because they had no guarantee that if they brought grievances before the Commission that Government would carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The House had been told by the Minister that his hands were tied because the matter was engaging the attention of the Commission, but clause 19 of circular No. 15 said that the decisions of the heads of departments would be given effect to. Why were not the recommendations of the Grievances Commission carried out? He was told that the reason the Grievances Commission had not submitted its second report was because it was waiting for the report of the Regrading Commission. It was not enough for the Minister to reply that they should await the Grievances Commission report. He was able to deal with the matter on his own.

He wished to refer to some matters that were felt seriously by the men. A great grievance was that in the railway stores a number of men were doing clerical work, and receiving lower pay, that of storemen. In the case of vacant clerkships these had been filled from outside and the claims of these “storemen” passed by. He read communications he had received from some of the men concerned on this matter; he would not give their names for obvious reasons. The matter was represented to the Grievances Commission, but these men were under the impression that the heads of the department would deal with the matter without waiting for the report. Apparently nothing had been done to improve their position. Another matter on which the men felt keenly was that to a certain extent they were asked to do overtime without being paid. They all agreed that the Department should be run on business principles, but if the men were required to do overtime they should be paid in the same way as a private employer had to pay his men. The present practice should be discontinued. Another grievance affected the printers. These men were paid below the standard wage given by private employers for the same class of work. The Minister had done something, but very little, since he (the speaker) had brought up the matter last session. He was told that the men had received an increase of sixpence a day, two of them less than sixpence, while two men (the head printer and the chargeman of the ticket printers) did not receive any at all. The minimum wage outside for compositors used to be 11s. 3d.; in February it was increased to 11s. 8d. The men in the department got from 7s. to 10s. 3d., and the man who received 10s. 3d. was in charge of the works in the absence of the head printer. Still he received less than the ordinary compositor outside. The Minister should also take into consideration that these men had stood loyally by the Government during the printing strike. In the case of machine-minders, bookbinders, rulers, cutters, and so on the standard wage was 11s., but the Minister paid from 8s. to 9s.

Continuing, he pointed out that the machine-minders in Government employ did a great deal more than the machine-minders who were employed in ordinary printing offices. In ordinary offices minders were given a boy to feed their machines, but the minder in Government employ had to do all the work himself. The ticket printers got from 5s. to 10s. 4d. a day. He went on to allude to other instances where the wages paid were lower than those at ordinary printing offices. Perhaps the Minister was making a gain for the country, but he did not see why these men should not be treated the same as other men. One very serious point was that when these men were transferred to other parts of the Union their scale of pay, even including the allowances that were granted, was much below the scale paid at these places. He did think the Minister should see that the men employed by him received the same treatment as men in other offices. There was another thing that operated very much against contentment in the department. There was a want of sympathy between the heads of the department and the men, and this led to a great deal of friction, and possibly if the Minister went into these matters himself he would do away with a great deal of this friction. The Minister certainly investigated matters brought to his notice members of that House. He (the speaker) had brought forward a number of cases, and though in few instances did the men get substantial remedy they were satisfied that they had received a fair and patient hearing. He appealed to the Minister to go into this matter of the printers. He knew that though the Minister received reports from heads of departments, he always came to a decision “on his own”; but he would appeal to him to make careful inquiry into matters affecting the stores and the printing departments of the railways. It might in the end mean that the country would have to a little more for the services of these men, but the result would be that the Government would get better work from the men and contentment in the departments. He also drew attention to the fact that checkers were doing the work of clerks; they were paid low wages, and did the work belonging to a higher class. Another matter to which he would draw the attention of the Minister was the grading of the staff. On page 42 of the Railway Estimates a number of clerks were mentioned, and these men were graded differently from what they were when they joined the service. Did the Minister intend to apply the new grading to men who were appointed under the old grading scheme? The speaker pointed out that these men were appointed under a circular, dated September 20, 1908. and there were then five different grades. He would point out that the grading in the Estimates was substantially different from the grading laid down by the circular which he had mentioned. He hoped the Minister would see that the rights of these men were not affected by the new grading scheme. The hon. member went on to refer to a decrease in the amount of salaries paid, which appeared on the same page. There had been a decrease of nine clerks, but he could not see how this accounted for a decrease of £1,100 odd maid in salaries. He would like the Minister to explain just how that saving had been effected. Continuing, the hon. member went on to refer to the report of the Workshops Commission, and said he would not go into the details of that report as fully as the hon. members for Umbilo and Liesbeek.

It was a very important matter affecting this part of South Africa, and he felt it hits duty to say something on it. He was convinced in his own mind that when the Minister came into the House, he could not have read the Minority Reports. He must have had a general idea there were these reports, but could not have studied them, otherwise he would not have made the statement he did. It was sandwiched into the Railway Budget. He read the table and the conclusions to the House, but the conclusions were absurdly wrong. These were men who had preconceived notions that piecework was a good thing, and in order to support that idea they drew up this table. But even if their premises were correct, they did not lead to the conclusions they drew. But whether their premises were right or wrong, they went far beyond where they should have. The Minister certainly had done a great injury to what had been a source of great pride to the Peninsula, and that was the Salt River Works. The people of the Peninsula had always looked upon them with a sort of special pride, and every man’s sense, of pride, not only of the men working there, had received a very rude shock by the statement made by the Minister. The Salt River workmen were practically branded as inferior workmen, and therefore he made no apology for referring to this matter again. He would point out that the Minister might have been more careful had he read the Majority and Minority Reports carefully. It was not a Majority Report at all, because in regard to the matter of the unfairness to the Cape and Durban there was no majority. It was two against two. The first thing one noticed from the Majority Report was that they did not have reliable figures. On page 10, they said that the figures used in the calculations had been derived from the actual cost of repairs to each individual engine and coach with the exception of Durban and Uitenhage, for which the figures were not so complete as in the other case. It was a curious thing that there the verdict was worse than against the other centres. Of course, it might be desirable to take the individual cost of repairs or the total cost of repairs, but it was necessary to take the same basis for all the centres, yet in some cases they did not have the same basis, and therefore it was all wrong. That had led to confusion.

He would like to refer to a few things in the report of Mr. Beatty to show how unfairly the Minister had dealt, more particularly, with Durban and Salt River. He did not know whether the Minister noticed the question of repaired parts. He wanted to know if the Minister noticed in Mr. Beatty’s report (page 4) the statement that piece-work seemed to be a temptation in the direction of being extravagant with new material. That did not look as if he was going to get much economy from piecework. Now, when he came to deal with repairs for Pretoria and Durban, he (the hon. member) was really amazed that the Minister should have made the statement, if he had seen the reasons why, to some extent, there was more expenditure at the one place than at the other. On page 6 Mr. Beatty told them that the general policy with regard to the works at Durban for new parts required in connection with locomotive repairs was that as far as possible they were made in the workshops at Durban from scrap iron, and new cylinders were also made in the works, the policy being to import nothing that could be made locally. At Pretoria the opposite policy appeared to prevail. It seemed to be the practice there to order from England a large proportion of the new parts required even down to small items easily made, which had the natural effect of keeping the cost of labour down, but made the cost of material higher. At Durban they were practically supporting a local industry. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) had dealt with the question referred to in Mr. Beatty’s report of comparing Salt River with Pretoria, and so he was not going to repeat it, but he would like to mention that Mr. Beatty said that the difference was not £1 per engine, but really £15, as the Salt River locomotives were fitted with brass tubes which cost more: so that they came to that: that after giving the Pretoria workmen 46 per cent. more wages they got engines which were far better turned out at Salt River, though they had a more difficult road to traverse. Would the Minister tell them where was that hopeless inefficiency of Salt River as compared with Pretoria? Mr. Beatty also pointed out that the 46 per cent. was an exaggerated figure, and after allowing for a number of other matters, he still found that the cost per engine was 27 per cent. cheaper at Salt River. Another point to which the Minister had not drawn attention, but which was mentioned in the report, was that there was a larger staff in the steam fitters’ sheds in the Transvaal than in the Cape in proportion to the mileage run and the number of locomotives in service, although they did not require so many repairs owing to the nature of the road. Bloemfontein had been referred to, and the vehicles which came from there, but if they looked at Mr. Beatty’s report they would see that he said that the vehicles repaired there were comparatively free from upholstery repairs, and that accounted for the low cost. He also said that the system of keeping the details of carriage repairs at Pretoria appeared to be particularly primitive. His definition of efficiency was that the efficiency of labour was what the Department got in return for the money paid. Mr. Beatty said that the Salt River carriage shop was a much less costly construction than the carriage shop at Pretoria. He (Mr. Alexander) was sorry that the Minister had left the House.

He has been called out.

This is a most important matter. I would like to move the adjournment, but I do not wish to obstruct in any way. I do wish to protest against this method of dealing with the arguments of hon. members on this side of the House. Mr. Alexander went on to quote the following remark by Mr. Beatty: “A fair and impartial consideration of the examples cited will, I think, show that the skilled labour efficiency at Salt River is quite as good as at Pretoria.” There was a definite clear statement by an expert on the question of efficiency. Mr. Beatty then turned to the question of wagon repairs and pointed out, with regard to Salt River, that there was a great difference in the nature of repairs at the different workshops which had to be taken into account. He (Mr. Alexander) was pleased to notice that the Minister of Railways had returned to the House. (Hear, hear.) They had been led to believe, he went on to say, that there were too many men at these places that were supposed to be “inefficient.” He wondered whether the Minister had noticed that with regard to some of the “inefficient” workshops the men were working overtime, and that there were not enough boiler-makers at Salt River. According to Mr. Beatty’s statement, there would be a reduction in the number of employees, under the piece-work system, but there would be no corresponding reduction in expenditure, as the balance would be required for the earnings of piece-workers. With regard to Mr. Hendrie, he thought that that gentleman would endorse the general conclusions that he had referred to. On the other hand, Mr. Hendrie pointed out that it was impossible to arrive at the comparative efficiency at present. He also, very fairly to Natal, said it must not be overlooked that the late Natal Government was in favour of local manufacture even at considerably enhanced cost. An unprejudiced person would come to the conclusion that so far as piece-work was concerned the report was not proved, and that so far as efficiency was concerned it was abundantly clear that if due allowances were made for the different conditions in the various parts of the Union there was really no substantial difference between the workshops, and if there was a difference there was a balance in favour of Salt River as against Pretoria, while the tendency at Uitenhage was in the direction of improvement. When the Minister of Railways and Harbours replied he (Mr. Alexander) hoped he would perform a simple act of justice to the men, and not from a sense of false pride be afraid to withdraw what he had said. He hoped the Minister would make full reparation for the grave injustice he had done. (Opposition cheers.)

said he had come to the conclusion that the more speeches on the Budget they listened to the more difficult it was to get a true opinion of what the real financial position of the Union was. The difficulty was that we had no index by which to judge whether our expenditure was too high, or whether our taxes were too high or too low. Then there was no opportunity of judging of what were the reasons for instituting the various existing taxes in the different Provinces, and consequently now they were consolidated there were many anomalies. If one read the financial statements of other countries one was able to see what was the policy of the Governments concerned, and to judge by the amounts voted how far they were prepared to give effect to those policies. We would be premature in asking that we should be able to see this at once so far as the Union was concerned, but he had no doubt that the Minister of Finance was considering how in the future he could lay the position more directly before the House. There had been a good many misleading comparisons as to the expenditure of the Union, and in comparing it with other countries hon. members seemed to lose sight of the fact that many services were rendered in other parts of the world that were not rendered here. For instance, Australia’s expenditure of 21 millions included eight millions for old age pensions, sugar bounties, and defence. Then, if we went to Canada we found that the telephone service was privately owned. Again, we were told that our difficulties were mainly due to high wages, but no attempt was made to show why high wages existed here. But the other night the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) did try to grapple with the problem, pointing out that the high expenditure was due to high salaries and how high rents swelled our expenditure. The hon. member for George was quite right. He (Mr. Sampson) had made a comparison as to what a working man in three different places paid for housing accommodation. For a similar house which could be obtained in the suburbs of London for 6s. 6d. a week, one had to pay £3 4s. a month in Cape Town and £6 4s. on the Rand. How could we hope to compete with other countries under such circumstances? Then the shops had to pay high rents, and all things were proportionately high because of the high rents. He regretted that we had lost control of the municipalities. We had a system of taxing property instead of site values, and as a consequence we found working men living in hovels so as to be able to live on their wages. On account of being charged high rent the shopkeeper had to increase the price of his goods, and in the last resort the workman had to bear the cost. Owing to the high rents the price of everything in South Africa was enhanced. The House should, he thought, take into consideration the question of the abolition of the tax on property and the substitution of a tax on land values. In connection with the remark made the other day by the hon. member for George, the Government should take into consideration some housing scheme for their servants. Otherwise these would have to be paid higher salaries than they were receiving now. The position was likely to become serious in Pretoria, where, owing to the large accession to the number of Civil Servants, rents had gone up greatly. The hon. member went on to refer to the system of piece-work, approaching the subject from the view-point of an old pieceworker. He had never met the man yet who had done piece-work and had been proud of his work. His aim always was to get the better of the employer. The Minister should have heard enough in that debate to have convinced him that it was the unanimous opinion of the House that piecework should not be resorted to in the case of the Government workshops. The safety of the public would be endangered by it, and in the long run the country would have to bear the extra cost that it entailed through breakdowns and so on. Did the Minister expect to make a man efficient by putting him on piecework? The system was diametrically opposed to efficiency. Its sole result was an increased output, and it would lead to scamped work. If the Minister paid closer attention to the report he had referred to, he would no doubt reconsider his suggestion. He could realise but not approve the advantages of the system to employers when applied to work where a certain article had to be turned out in thousands and a fair estimate could readily be made of the time required. But it was impossible to apply it to the class of work done in the railway workshops. The Government would be robbed or else the men would be underpaid. One or the other must suffer. If the men suffered they would Soon grumble: if the Government, the country would have to bear the loss, and they would grumble when they saw coaches and engines breaking down and repairs figuring large in the Estimates. They would require to know the reason for the increased cost of repairs. He went on to say that he was satisfied that the best workmen were in Johannesburg and Pretoria. That was only natural. The best workmen would always go where the highest wages were paid. If there was any fault in regard to the workshops the management was to blame and not the men. The Minister had said the other day that he had sent the report relating to the working of harbours to the various Chambers of Commerce. He submitted that that report of the Grievances Commission and the Workshops Committee should be submitted to the Trades Unions. He recommended the Minister to adopt a more friendly attitude towards the Unions. Another point that had been raised, by the hon. member for Pretoria North, was relief from taxation in respect of the Premier Diamond Mine, he called it asking the Union to give away its assets, which he hoped they would not do. Last year the balance sheet of the company was presented to the House, and he thought that the hon. member should have then obtained a sufficient indication as to the feeling of the House on this matter, and he should have realised that there was no hope for what he asked. The balance sheet for the past year had not been published, so they might take it that it would reveal an even more prosperous condition of affairs than had obtained last year. The hon. member went on to speak on behalf of protection, he called it encouragement, of local industries. If there was one industry that should have been established here it was the diamond-cutting industry. An attempt had been made to establish it in the Transvaal by a private company, but it had failed. The only company that had supported it or would sell its diamonds for local cutting was the Victor Diamond Mining Company. He advocated the institution of an export tax on diamonds which would prevent this industry being neglected as it had been in the past.

Continuing the hon. member proceeded to refer to an attack made upon those sitting on the cross-benches by an hon. member who was not in his place, but who alleged that they wished to drive the natives and coloured people out of trades. He thought that he and his colleagues had fully explained their position and they gave no opportunity to that hon. gentleman to underrate them in any way. Certainly they objected to natives practising trades in the workshops where whites were employed, but they had never objected to natives working at trades in shops where their own people were engaged. If the hon. member had the interests of the natives at heart and paid more attention to what had been stated by members of the Labour party he would find that what they had said was really in the interests of the natives as much as the whites. The Labour party objected to the exploitation of the native for the purpose of reducing working costs. The only reason he was employed now was because he was cheap. In conclusion, the hon. member expressed the hope that when the next Budget was put before the House they would find those real economies that were promised before Union came into being.

said that representing as he did a railway constituency, he thought it only right that he should rise and make some reference to the speech of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. First of all the Minister had said that the rate of wages which was paid railway employees compared very favourably with the rate of pay to men in outside employment. He pointed out that this was not so, and that the reason why so many skilled men had remained in the employ of the Government was the fact that they were placed on the fixed establishment. Continuing, he went on to refer to the difficulty the men experienced in bringing grievances forward. Last year a Railway Complaint Board was agreed to, but he regretted to say that that scheme had not yet been put in force. He regretted it all the more for the reason that there were undoubtedly many individual grievances that required to be remedied. He referred to three cases where men complained that they had not received the special pay they were entitled to in connection with work on Sundays, and he quoted extracts from the proceedings of the Grievances Commission to show that the representative of the General Manager on that Commission had expressed the view that these men had grievances that were worthy of consideration. The hon. member said that just afterwards he received a letter from the secretary of the Department, and that communication stared that if these grievances were righted other men with grievances might come forward and want them adjusted. That was all very well but it was rather hard on these men. It was also suggested that nothing further should be done until the report of the staff committee was received. It showed that individual grievances did not receive the best of consideration. Another question he had been asked to bring before the House was in regard to the railway guards; as an instance he held in his hand a time sheet of a guard who signed on at 5 a.m. and signed off at the end of his journey at 6.30 at the Strand; had to remain there all day, and then on the return journey signed on at 7.30 and off at 9. This man received three hours’ pay for his day’s work. The Minister might say he was guaranteed a day’s pay, but he was not. He was guaranteed 26 days’ pay per month, and unless his time totalled more than that he only received 26 days’ pay. The Minister stated that taking the average of the salaries paid in the Railway Department, they worked out very well indeed. He agreed with that, but still held that the heads of the Department from the Railway Board down to a certain point were too highly paid. It would be far better to take a little off some of the salaries of the heads and give it to the lower daily paid men. As the railway was making money he thought they could afford to give them a real living wage; certainly more than 3s. a day, as paid some employees. Another question mentioned by the Minister was that of building houses for their employees. Some years ago the then member for Woodstock brought the question forward and suggested that the men should have houses at a nominal rent. The result was that the Government built rows of cottages for railway men. Subsequently when houses were standing empty and the rents went down, these cottages stood empty and the Government entered into competition with private owners, taking tenants whether they were railway employees or not. Certain of the suburban municipalities took up the matter and the reply they received was that the Railway Department paid rates and therefore were entitled to take tenants. But it was rather hard that the Government should spend the money of the country on building cottages and then compete with other owners. There was no objection to letting them to Railway employees or other Government employees. They had heard a great deal in regard to the Workshops Report. Unfortunately he had not had the opportunity of studying it; but from what he could see he could only say it was a wonderful accumulation of figures. The basis of the whole argument was that Salt River came out lower when it came to wages, but it came out still lower when it came to efficiency. It seemed to him that the whole of the Commission differed on different questions. They argued against each other. But when one really went into the report as a whole and worked out the reasons for it, they could not help thinking that a grave injustice had been done to the constituency he represented. He would summarise roughly the points where Mr. Beatty disagreed entirely from the others. He felt that if there was anyone on that Commission who was in a position to know the conditions and realise the conditions under which the men worked at Salt River it was Mr. Beatty. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member proceeded to quote from Mr. Beatty’s report, and went on to say that it went on to show that the Majority Report, as a whole, should be taken with very great caution, and the Minister should not come to any conclusion on that report alone, and he hoped that before any alteration was undertaken due consideration would be given to the Minority Reports, as well as the Majority Report. Another point brought forward by the Majority Report was that they pointed out in working out the average efficiency that so much depended on the labour; but those working on heavy engines and heavy repairs could not show the same results as those working with light engines. As to equipment, Salt River had not received its due proportion of equipment during the last few years, and previous to Union there had been a cheeseparing policy in the Cape Colony; indeed, he was positive that there had been a constant difficulty in the Salt River Works because the new machinery and the new equipment which were wanted had been refused because of the bad times. In Bloemfontein and Pretoria they had been absolutely lavishly supplied with equipment; and it was manifestly unfair to take the workshops with full equipment and compare them with shops which did not have the equipment they should have.

It is not so, as a matter of fact.

went on to say that Salt River had not received just treatment. In reference to the question of the general institution of piece-work in the railway workshops, he did not profess to have any workshops, he did not profess to have any special knowledge on this subject, but from what he had ascertained and the representations put before him he thought that the matter was one that should receive very full consideration before it was generally adopted. He need not mention the well-known question of sweating. Another point was that the system was an injustice to old and tried servants, who were unable to keep pace with the younger men. There was always a tendency, too, for piecework to be scamped. That was a serious factor where the lives of hundreds of people travelling on the railways were concerned. It was a dangerous principle. What he felt was that the Minister would be well advised if he left piece-work alone and contented himself with getting from the men a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage. Dr. Hewat went on to urge that the time had arrived for a change in the methods of pay. He submitted that wages should be paid to the men weekly, and that they should be paid their full wages without deductions, so that they knew exactly what they were being paid. Any deductions to which they were liable could then be paid out of their wages by themselves and not stopped by the department. A man should have the right of handling his own money. He mentioned a grievance which had arisen in connection with the salaried staff, who had now been called upon to join a guarantee fund, quite irrespective of whether they were handling money or not. As regarded the question of retrenchment, the Minister now said he did not intend to carry out any retrenchment, but that was not what he said the other day. At the same time, it was to be regretted that he should ever have made the statement, because it was things of this kind that tended to perpetuate unrest among the men.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing, said that instead of importing rolling stock it would be far better to manufacture it m South Africa. It was far better to employ the labour of your own country and to spend the money in your own country than to send your money elsewhere and pay for labour in other countries. (Hear, hear.) The building of railway carriages had been tried here, but it was not a financial success, the experiment having been undertaken at an unfortunate time, while provision was not made for the manufacture of a number of carriages. With regard to the workshops report, speaking on behalf of the Salt River workmen, he could assure the Minister of Railways and Harbours that if he only put Salt River on an equal basis with the other railway workshops in the Union he would have no reason to complain. He was convinced that, given equal conditions, the results at Salt River would work out equally as well there as at any other centre. (Hear, hear.) Why should they not? Salt River was at the nearest port to Europe, and the wages paid there were less than those paid at any other railway workshop, so that these two important economic factors were all in Salt River’s favour. As to the Civil Service generally, he hoped that steps would be taken to place it on a settled basis, so that its members should know where they were to be, for at present the men did not know when they might be shifted. This caused a lot of uneasiness, and prevented men settling down in one place and buying their own houses. In conclusion, the Minister of Justice was cutting down in the wrong way when the interfered with law and order. The removal of Magistracies was not going to tend towards the maintenance of law and order, and it was unfortunate that the Woodstock Magistracy had been abandoned. Proceeding, the hon. member was understood to say that the mere fact of having a Magistrate’s office in a community went a long way towards keeping down crime. In this instance a distinct hardship had been created by a Magistrate being removed, and not for the sake of economy, for he was transferred to another district. In regard to railways, he hoped that the Minister would give due consideration to the report before he acted upon it. Opinion on the subject was clearly divided. He felt that it would be wrong for the Ministry or for Parliament to accept that report without going into the whole question.

was glad of the opportunity that the debate afforded him for indulging in a general review of the situation. There were not many commercial men in the House; in fact, sometimes they wished that there were more. He would first of all like to approach the situation from the point of view of a commercial man. He was glad to say that the commercial position of this country, as revealed in various ways, was far clearer than it had been for many years. They had passed through a period of severe depression in South Africa, and in no part of the country had it been so severe or felt so long as in the Western Province.

Question!

said that he did not think there was much question about it in the minds of those who had lived in the Cape Colony for the last eight years. They had felt the depression first and last. He was glad to say that, commercially speaking, the Cape was in a sounder position than it had been for many years. This was the case whether the position was judged from the banking returns, the savings’ bank and post office returns, or insolvency court returns. He thought that it was a matter for general congratulation that, commercially speaking, they were having a far better time than for many years. The only thing that hung like a cloud on the horizon in that part of the Union was the real estate market. It was the fly in the ointment. He hoped that without waiting for the legislation or the Financial Commission’s report the Government would reduce the transfer duty. This would have the effect of producing activity in the real estate market in the Western Province. There a great many properties were held nominally by one person, but really by others, transfer not having been actually effected, on account of the 4 per cent. transfer duty. The reduction would assist to clear the market and to get things on a proper footing. So far as the immediate future was concerned, he did not think that there was room for concern. When one took a broader view of the situation, and looked further into the future, from the point of view of those in authority there were many reasons for anxiety. An examination of the trade figures that had emanated from the Statistical Department of the Union seemed to him to bear out certain points which he would endeavour to place before the House. They indicated that, although they personally need have no alarm for the immediate future, a different complexion was put on the case when they came to consider whether they were building up the edifice of South Africa on a sure foundation, that would last for generations, and whether they were inaugurating a policy that posterity would thank them for. One thing stood out very prominently, namely, that the present trade position of South Africa depended to a very great extent upon the gold and diamonds and minerals which it produced.

He would not apologise to the House for bringing forward this one fact, but he thought it was a matter of so much importance that repetition would do no harm, and it was as well that the House should be reminded of the essentials upon which the prosperity of the country rested. What did the figures of the exports of this country show? They showed that the mineral exports of last year amounted to 48 millions, while the exports of other Colonial produce amounted to less than 10 millions. So that of their exports, 83 per cent. were accountable for by minerals, and only 17 per cent. by other Colonial produce. Now, that was all right, if they could be sure that the mining industry was going on; but they were constantly being reminded that the life of the mines was uncertain. They might probably last for a generation, or two or three generations. Their prosperity was undoubtedly due to the continued prosperity of the gold and diamond mines, and they knew that that industry was confronted with serious dangers in the way of labour supply and it would be a bad day for South Africa when she was not able to continue the production of gold and diamonds on the scale of the present day. So long as they could rest their prosperity on these large sources, all would be well; but, in the natural order of things, they must come to an end. Though there had been new discoveries here and there, they had always had to fall back in the main on the Rand and on Kimberley. And yet they went on building up an expensive system of government and administration, which meant an expenditure of 16 or 17 millions a year, and, taking a general view of the situation, they should take adequate steps to see that their prosperity was founded on a sound basis. What he was going to say would, he knew, be unpopular with many hon. members of that House, but he was bound to think, after a careful study of the trade returns of the country, that the agricultural and pastoral production of the country was disappointing.

Nonsense!

I know it is unpopular. Continuing, he said that from the Prime Minister downwards they had paeans of praise for agriculture, and they were constantly being told that agriculture was the backbone of the country and the basis of our prosperity. He defied anyone who dispassionately went through those figures to find justification for such a statement. He was bound to say—and he said it with regret—that their prosperity was based on a temporary footing, and unless they took steps to place that prosperity upon a firmer basis they would find one day that they had been living in a fool’s paradise. He said again that the agricultural and pastoral production of this country was most disappointing, whether from the point of view of the export figures or the point of view of the import figures. If they looked at the export figures of Colonial produce for the last three years they would find an indication of what he meant. During the years 1909, 1910, and 1911 the exports of South African produce had been practically stationary. In 1909 the total was £9,191,000, in 1910 £9,790,000, and in 1911 £9,638,000. They would find that though their gross exports had increased a great deal this increase was mainly due to mineral exports which from £41,340,000 in 1909 had risen to £48,000,000, or an increase of 6¾ millions in 1911. He brought these figures before the House to show that the increase in their exports was not accountable for by any increase in the agricultural or pastoral production of this country. It seemed to him that it would be better were they to face the position. There had been a slight increase in the amount of agricultural and pastoral production—no one would deny that there had been a rise—but he said that that rise had not been big enough. Their prosperity had not been due to agriculture, but to minerals, and he was of opinion that they should face the position and place that prosperity upon a sounder and a surer footing. They constantly had hon. members on the other side patting each other on the back over the position of agriculture at the present time. He would like to contrast our country with other countries; and he would point out that from climatic and other points of view, in reference to pastoral and agricultural pursuits, South Africa was preeminently at the top of the tree so far as potentials were concerned. He would take the case of Australia, for that country, so far as climate and facilities were concerned, was almost on the same plane as South Africa. He was informed that Australia—which was a younger country than South Africa—founded her wool industry on sheep that came from South Africa, and he believed that what Australia had done South Africa would be able to do.

What were the facts? The exports of wool from South Africa in 1911—they must remember they had been led to praise themselves by the Prime Minister and others for their increased production of wool—amounted to £3,900,000. In Australia, which started the wool industry long after they did in South Africa, the export for 1910 was valued at 28¾ millions. In New Zealand, which was a country with a smaller white population than in South Africa and which was founded something like fifty years ago, the export of wool in 1907 was valued at seven millions. He had no wish to depreciate the agricultural and pastoral occupations in this country He wanted to encourage them, because what these other countries could do, could be done in South Africa. What he wanted to do was to get them away from saying they were doing well because their productions went up a hundred thousand or two. They were not doing well. It ought not to be a hundred thousand or two, but a million or two, and there was no reason why this country should not follow in the footsteps of New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, which had been taking their coats off and seeing that their prosperity was founded on a sound footing. The situation of Australia was analogous to that of South Africa, because Australia got its first fillip from the same source as South Africa. namely, gold. The difference between South Africa and Australia was that Australia had profited by the facts of the situation, and had recognised that her gold industry was more or less of a temporary nature, and had seen that full advantage was taken of it in order to develop her prosperity on something more lasting.

And, unfortunately, South Africa seemed determined to continue mainly to rely on the thing that gave her the fillip, diamonds first, and then gold. She was still relying on the same factors. Now, contrast Australia. It was not so many years ago that the bulk of its exports were minerals. In other words, Australia was in practically the same position then as South Africa was to-day, so far as the percentage was concerned between minerals and produce exported. What was the position to-day in Australia? The productions in 1907 of primary wealth, that was pastoral and agricultural produce, excluding manufactures, which was secondary wealth, amounted to £125,000,000, of which pastoral, agricultural, and dairying accounted for no less than £97,000,000, and mining for £28,000,000, so that the production in 1907 from mining only represented 22½ per cent. of the whole production. That was a sound footing on which a country should be based. As against that, he could not give the production of South Africa because, unfortunately, the statistics in this country were so deficient that they were not of much practical utility. But they had the position reflected in the export figures he had already quoted, which showed that the mining industries’ export amounted to 83 per cent. last year, and other products only 17 per cent., which was an absolute reversal of the position in Australia. If they came to deduce the lessons from the import returns, he did not think South Africa, if it put on its wise cap, would get any more satisfaction than from its export returns. Ever since he had been in South Africa they had held up to them as a disgrace that they should be importing millions of pounds’ worth of foodstuffs into this country, but it was no better to-day that it was 25 years ago. Last year they imported foodstuffs which they could have produced in this country to the value of over £6,000,000. And when they came to particulars they found the same details on the list to-day as twenty-five years ago—articles which could be produced in huge quantities here not only for home consumption, but for export. There was butter, £192,000; cheese, £143,000; eggs, £57,000; almonds and nuts (he was informed that the Western Province could grow them practically wild), £37,000; dried fruits (the Western Province had been quoted as a potential California); milk, bacon, and so on. That would show them how completely (backward they were, and how they were basing their prosperity on a false footing, which a generation or two hence might lead to very serious difficulties in the financial position of those who were going to come after them.

He would like to say one or two words upon one aspect of the Railway Report, and one not touched upon by the previous speakers, and which in its nature was of secondary importance, having regard to the huge figures of the report. He referred to the passenger policy of the present Administration, and he would like to say at once that he thought that since Union those who had been responsible for the management of the S.A.R. had shown a commendably liberal policy in regard to the passenger traffic and the fares, and he hoped that they would go on in that particular line. It had shown that cheapness and the increased facilities to passengers had led to a huge increase in that traffic, and that at the present time the people of South Africa travelled about the country in a way they had never done before—(hear, hear)—and he need not point out to the House what a tremendous value that was to the country, apart from the railway point of view. He wished that more were done to attract people from oversea to South Africa and to visit the country. (Hear, hear.) When he had been in Europe the previous year nothing had struck him more than the evidences of organisation on every hand, and the way in which the railway companies of the colonies and the Old Country made it their business to advertise themselves and attract the passenger traffic. If they took the Canadian Pacific Railway they found that it advertised extensively, not only to attract immigrants, but also to attract tourists; and he had felt for many years that there was a field in South. Africa for tourists and winter visitors which might mean a considerable wealth to the country. (Hear, hear.) The Minister would know that there were many places in the Northern hemisphere, such as Egypt, Madeira, and Algiers, which had deliberately set themselves out to cultivate that traffic, with very satisfactory results. While he admitted that South Africa was becoming more and more popular with these visitors, yet they were still in their infancy in that particular traffic, and if they set themselves out to compete with those places, and induce these people who left Europe and America during certain months of the year, to visit South Africa, they would be doing excellent business for the country at large. Let them take the attractions they had to offer; there was the excellent voyage out, first of all, although that did not concern the railways directly, and they had certain natural features which were bound to be a very considerable attraction to the people of Europe and America. They had a magnificent climate here—one of the best in the world—they had the Victoria. Falls, the Gold and Diamond Fields, the Battle Fields, and they had the glorious Cape Peninsula and Table Mountain. He was speaking as a business man, who wanted to see South Africa go ahead. He wanted all its assets used to their best and their fullest advantage, in order to see South Africa benefit. In these attractions they had a huge magnet to attract, not only tens, but hundreds, and thousands of visitors. Those who were in the commercial charge of the railways at the present time were completely sympathetic with that object. He desired publicly to mention that, and to thank them for it. Proceeding to deal with the Financial Relations Commission, the hon. member said that what had always been felt in the Cape Province and the whole of the Union of South Africa as one of the advantages of Union—and no one who had studied the question could deny that it was one of the essentials of Union—was that there was to be equality of treatment, and that involved equality of taxation from end to end of the Union; and he thought that the Minister would admit that any proposal of his which had the effect of leaving in the minds of the people of any Province that they were not being equally treated was the first thing to be deprecated, and would not lead to the satisfaction which everybody was led to expect from the Union. During the course of that debate—and it had been the Minister of Finance who had raised that question—the House had been constantly reminded that the Cape Province had been the chief beneficiary from the remission of taxation since Union. That had been rubbed in from various sources in a way which had become almost wearisome. There was one thing which had never been taken into account when that—statement was made—and the Minister did not take it into account—and that was a very considerable offset which had to be made to these remissions of taxation, owing to the fact that they were paying large amounts to their local Councils, and a very considerable amount of taxation which the other Provinces were not paying, and that the contribution which the Cape received to her Provincial Council from the Union was very much less than that which was received by the other Provinces. If this were taken into account, the net amount of remission of taxation to the Cape was nothing like what the Minister had said.

The Minister had professed to adopt the Majority Report of the Financial Relations Commission. He had constantly told them so. But the essentials of that report he had carefully dropped. What were those essentials? The Majority Commissioners laid down that the Provincial Councils must be solely responsible for Provincial Council expenditure, and that the Provincial Councils must be directly responsible for the raising of revenue to defray their expenditure, i.e., the essential of that report was that the Provincial Councils were to commence to raise funds themselves by direct taxation at once, and so were to be weaned from the idea that they were to be dependent upon funds provided by the Treasury. That was the gravamen of his charge against the Minister of Finance in regard to his proposals in reference to the Financial Relations report. He was carefully doing what the majority report did not want him to do. They wanted him to bring home to the Provincial Councils the responsibility of raising revenue in order to defray their expenditure. What had he done? To all intents and purposes, at least for the first few years, he was going to continue the present position. He was going to provide all the funds they wanted for the first few year from the Union Treasury, and in the case of the Orange Free State and Natal that was going to be prolonged. But that was not going to permanently settle this question of the financial relations between the Union Government and the Provinces at all; it was only postponing the evil day. He looked at this matter not from the Provincial point of view, but from the Union point of view. Unless the Minister exercised control over the expenditure of the Provincial Councils—which was what they did not want—he was going to have to provide £ for £ whatever they expended in any one year. It was radically unjust, it was radically unfair, and it was radically unsound finance—(hear, hear)—that the whole thing should rest on that basis. It was far better that the Minister should face the position at once. He could not help thinking that there was a great deal to be said for the basis that the minority report laid down, i.e., a contribution per head instead of £1 for £1. On that basis the Minister of Finance would have had automatically to pay out as a subsidy so much per head as long as the arrangement lasted, and he would not have had to worry himself as to whether the Provincial Council was extravagant or not. Under the present proposals it must be his duty to revise the estimates of the Provincial Councils so-long as this wretched £ for £ principle subsisted, and this would do away largely with the responsibility of the Councils.

said that his hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) had, in his extraordinarily informative and eloquent speech, put most of the points which he had intended to deal with. He hoped the points which the hon. member had brought forward would be carefully considered, because he had dealt with a position which was one of extreme seriousness. Before he came to deal with that, he would like to touch upon another matter. He hoped that if the Minister of Education had got any friends in the House they would get him back into the House, because he would like to say to his face what he intended to say that night. It was rather awkward when a Minister, intervening in debate, took the opportunity of making a direct attack on two members of the House—(Opposition cheers)—and cast imputations upon the whole of a party, and then absented himself. (Hear, hear.) Last night it was pointed out by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) that the Minister of Education introduced most gratuitously and most offensively a question that the Unionists had left alone with the greatest respect and consideration for the interests of South Africa. (At this point the Minister of Education entered the House.) It was the wish and advice of the Leader who went on board the steamer yesterday afternoon that they should endeavour to deal as smoothly and as gently as they could with a very delicate question. (Hear, hear.) Even without the knowledge of the hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson) they had yesterday taken a resolution among themselves not to raise the question of education in any way, but to give time and common sense and patriotism a chance, so that they might get a settlement.

He (Sir Percy) had differences with hon. members opposite, notably with the Minister of Justice, on this question, but he respected him as a man, and the Minister of Justice had the courage of his convictions. But he could not say the same of those who dragged in a question of that kind for political motives. Last night the Minister of Education began by saying that the Unionists had started their congress at Durban by blackguarding the Government. The Minister quoted, as he said, their own public statements, but the Minister omitted a great many that were published some months before. Of course, the Minister’s apologist said it was merely a stupid stumbling into an unfortunate position. He hoped the Minister was grateful to his apologist. There were other ways of looking at it. The Minister might have found that things were going too slow, that there were rivals in the public favour, and he might have wanted to make a little mischief. That was how it struck him (Sir Percy). Whatever the reason was, the Minister told the hon. member for Fordsburg and himself that they were perpetrating a breach of faith. The Minister said that, knowing that there was not a vestige of support for the historical accuracy of that statement, and he hoped the Minister knew what he meant. The Minister knew it himself, and yet he said it. The Minister said what he could not support by one tittle of evidence. Was that said through mere blundering, to obtain public favour, or through racialism? He (Sir Percy) could not find a reason, but he would like to give some facts. The Minister charged him with having been consulted in this matter by his friends in the Transvaal Provincial Council before that Ordinance with its alteration was passed. That was not true. He (Sir Percy) was never consulted on that question, and he did not know that the Council had passed that clause before he read the speech which the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) delivered at Kimberley. In May last year, Mr. Frank Brown and Mr. Lunnon—two members of the Transvaal Provincial Council—came to him and asked his advice whether they should adopt the Majority Report unconditionally, or whether they should attach to it a condition that it should not become operative until the Free State Provincial Council had adopted it, because trouble arose out of the Free State. His answer to that was “Make no conditions; it is up to you to set a good example; adopt the Majority Report without any conditions.” They, however, foresaw what was going to happen, and pointed out the difficulties, but he stuck to what he had said. Was that mischief-making? That was the only advice he gave—unconditionally to adopt the Majority Report. It had been said that they did not know that this clause existed in the Transvaal Ordinance. If they did not know it seemed curious that they should have pointed it out themselves or that the Minister of Education should have pointed it out. What was more, it existed in the Charter of the Independent Schools, of which he (Sir Percy) was one of the founders.

They pointed that out and took it from the Transvaal Ordinance so as to make as few difficulties as possible, but when they put their names to the settlement in the Union Parliament they gave a pledge to see the settlement carried through. (Opposition cheers.) What they did as supporters of the Independent Schools in the Free State was another matter. Well, he had been adhering publicly to this Majority Report, although he did not like that report. He was one of those who came reluctantly into the compromise, giving up the parents’ rights, because he believed it was the price of peace in South Africa. (Opposition cheers.) It was pointed out to them that the English-speaking children would not suffer, but the Dutch would, and that they were not to look after the latter. Nevertheless they felt that the parents had the right to use either language under the Act of Union, but if that were to be made the price of peace even that would do. Since that time a discussion had arisen as to the conditions under which the Free State schools were to come in. He advised them to accept the settlement in the Free State. It might be workable in the Free State and the Transvaal, but it was not the settlement they bound themselves in honour to accept throughout South Africa, and they, as members of Parliament, were bound to uphold the Majority Report. (Opposition cheers.) Reference had been made to the action of the Natal Provincial Council and they had been held responsible. There were hon. members there who knew perfectly well what took place in Natal. The resolution passed at the Durban congress was for the adoption of the Majority Report out and out. (Opposition cheers.) What he urged at public meetings at Maritzburg and Ladysmith was the adoption of the Majority Report. He had never said one word—neither had any member of that party said one word—to upset that settlement. Yet the Minister of Education had the supreme audacity and effrontery to charge them with it and had lectured them from the great Olympus the Minister sat upon and made it appear that inferior people had broken the settlement, knowing perfectly well that it was he and his Government who were responsible. (Opposition cheers.)

The evidence was found in the great National Convention. (A Ministerial laugh.) He was sorry to provoke the hon. gentleman opposite. He had hopes that in time the hon. member would contribute something more sensible than cackling. (Laughter.) It was waste of time for the hon. member (Dr. De Jager) to practice cackling: there was no Rome for him to save. He would tell the House who was responsible for this. When the Transvaal introduced this change—(a Ministerial yawn). Yes, he would wake the hon. gentleman up with a quotation from his own words presently. (Laughter.)

You cannot do better than quote.

I will quote the hon. member once or twice before I have finished. Continuing, he read from the “South African News” report of the Bloemfontein Conference that Mr. Sauer had said: “The promise made by the Prime Minister had been fully discharged, and they were going to have uniformity on the Transvaal lines.” The promise made by the Prime Minister was to carry out the Majority Report, not the Transvaal law. What first alarmed them was when at Losberg the Prime Minister began by saying that the much lauded “Smuts Act” was only taken on account and did not do justice. They read in the report of the Bloemfontein Conference references time after time to a settlement on the lines of the Transvaal Act. In the Prime Ministers own letter to the Administrators he pointed out that the most important difference was taken from the Minority Report. There were other things that made them uneasy, for instance, the way in which this was approached. A formal letter—as had been pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour—which was sent out by the Clerk of the House seemed to have inspired the Government to action—in case they should not have heard the discussion that took place in the House! Was it any wonder that they were looking for some move? The first indication they got was from a clause in the Minority Report which was put into the Transvaal Ordinance. He had voted for that in the Transvaal Ordinance. But as a member of the Union Parliament he was in honour bound to support the agreement, and he was not going back to what he voted for years before. (Hear, hear.) He was going to keep his word, and when hon. members opposite said there was only a small difference, he replied that there was no small difference between keeping your word and breaking it. He could produce an abundance of evidence. But this was what startled them first of all. He was in Cathcart, or King William’s Town, when he read in the papers a telegraphic report of a speech made by the hon. member for Uitenhage.

He did not want to make much of the hon. member; he had made a good deal of himself (already. (Laughter.) He took the trouble to look through the files, and he found the following in an advertisement appearing, on October 1, in the Graham’s Town paper: “H. E. S. Fremantle, representing the Prime Minister, General Botha.” (Laughter.) It was this peripatetic plenipotentiary who had dropped the bombshell on them. He (the speaker) noticed that in that day’s paper the hon. member had made an explanation. He would not quote it. It was there for those who would read it and be able to understand it. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Fremantle) made some fine distinction between what he thought the Government were going to do and what he knew the Government were going to do. (Laughter.) He would quote the letter to which reference had been made yesterday. There were one or two gems in that letter. The hon. member began by saying that he (Sir Percy) was absolutely incapable of wilfully making misstatements, “but he had not troubled to verify the facts before.” (Laughter.)

That is not the letter I quoted.

This is another letter—just as good perhaps He carefully refrained from quoting that letter. (Laughter.) But this is the hon. member’s gem: “I,” he says, “carefully verify my misstatements before I make them.” (Loud laughter.) The letter went on to say that he (Mr. Fremantle) stood close to General Hertzog, and knew more of his mind than anyone else. He was his right hand man, and what he said was true, and he repeated it. (Laughter.) If the Minister of Justice were there he (the speaker) would apologise to him. (Laughter.)

It is not my letter.

I am astonished. It is signed “H. E. S. Fremantle.” There must be another of that name. (Laughter.) I never expected to find a man with the consuming ambition to be mistaken for the hon. member for Uitenhage. I do not understand it. I suppose it was somebody else. Proceeding, he said he would read an extract from another letter: “In their feverish anxiety to make mischief, Mr. Patrick Duncan and his friends now suggested, without a shadow of reason, that General Hertzog is not prepared to carry out the definite undertaking he was prepared to make, and that the Government is also going back on its word.” His hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, speaking at Pretoria, condoned the Transvaal Provincial Council’s departure. That was a serious thing. The Prime Minister had spoken but little of the difference. In regard to the Minister of Railways, he had just quoted his own words, in which he said that all these things were settled. Would any hon. member in that House, who knew the position in the Transvaal, believe that the Union Government exercised its influence with the Administrator, with the Executive, and with the members of the Provincial Council, to adopt the majority report settlement in the interests of all South Africa, and that they refused? It was impossible.

There was no person in South Africa who would believe such an utter slander on the Administrator, the Executive of the Provincial Council, and the members of the Provincial Council. They would readily have taken such a course if they had been asked to do so.

Wrong again.

continuing, said that the hon. member for Fordsburg had pointed out what he had done in this matter, and his responsibility did not go to the extent of breaking any compact. He had gone very far indeed to help this thing through, and regain the position from which the Government had departed. They were told that they had incited the Natal Provincial Council to depart from it. What the Hon. the Minister for Education had the audacity to say in that House was only what he had been accustomed to hearing and saying for months past. They had only to read the “South African News” to know that they were accused of breaking the compact; they had other papers under the control of the Hon. the Minister saying the same thing. It might be a light thing to be charged with a breach of faith. That was how it might appear to the Minister. It might seem a clever thing to the Minister. But it did not strike hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side in the same way. It did not appear so humorous as it seemed to strike hon. members on the opposite side. When they, on that side of the House, agreed to a compact and kept it, they expected hon. members on the other side to do the same. The Hon. the Minister might raise his eyebrows in surprise, but there were still people who could keep undertakings which they made. They on that side of the House had nothing to do with what had happened in Natal so far as the majority report was concerned. As he had said, he did not entirely agree with the majority report, for he was certain that Dutch parents would yet turn round and accuse them of not having guarded their rights, and all they could say was, “We could do nothing,” and apologise and say that they were not strong enough. If he had been a member of the Natal Provincial Council he would have done exactly what they had done. Would the Prime Minister tell him (the speaker) or the House that when the Administrator of Natal and his Executive Council were here not ten days ago that he used all the influence of which he was capable to induce them to adopt the majority report, and not the Transvaal amendment, and that they obstinately refused? Would he say that publicly? He (the speaker) would be surprised—

There is my letter.

I don’t want letters that are months old till you answer the simple question.

There is my word.

said he could get no answer from the Prime Minister. He did not believe for one moment that the Administrator of Natal or his committee would be unpatriotic enough to go in direct violation to the wishes of the Prime Minister, the highest elected person in the land, and obstinately insist on the Transvaal amendment in preference to the Majority Report. He would not believe it. Everyone knew that the Administrator would not get up and defy the highest elected authority in the land on a matter which was in the best interests of South Africa and peace in the land. The Prime Minister did not exert any pressure.

Question?

said if he had been a member of the Natal Provincial Council he would have done as they had done. He would have been warned by the trickery that had gone on; he would have preferred the law which had given satisfaction to their people, though it might not be perfect. He would do that rather than be led into a trap without knowing where that trap might lead. He would like to say a final word to the Minister of Education. He hoped that was the last time they would have the Minister of Education on a high stool lecturing them on the language or race questions. If not, then he would get some more. He would like to tell him this: With experience, that ought to have warned him, with the knowledge that should have informed him, he had deliberately said in that House that the Dutch people of South Africa were unfairly treated in the Civil Service of the Cape Colony. He did not know whether that was true or not—he had not had sufficient experience of Cape Colony—but he did know this, that the party to which the Minister of Education belonged, with the exception of one break, had been the party of the government of that colony, and if that was true, then, if any injustice had been done, it had been due to the party of which the hon. Minister was a member. He (the speaker) did not believe that it had existed. Continuing, he said that when he discussed the language question the other day, though he attempted to be as calm as possible, he was assailed by gibes and taunts and interruptions of all kinds from the Minister in order to make him lose his temper and make him say something that was ill-judged, and which could be used against him. He believed hon. gentlemen on the other side knew that he would not, and did not say anything that would give offence to them. Continuing, he said that he would leave that unpleasant topic now and turn to the business from which the Minister had distracted him. His right hon. friend the member for Victoria West had described the Treasurer as a good man struggling with adversity, who was endeavouring to the best of his ability to say “No,” but could not make it effective. He (the speaker) could not say that his right hon. friend had done justice to the Minister; but he thought that the Minister, in the course of his statements, had given the House certain indications of his own convictions, which he (the speaker) thought ought to be taken and considered seriously. He did not intend to go over the ground which had been so ably covered hon. members on both sides of the House; but the Minister gave them a warning which he thought they ought to take to heart. The Minister gave them an indication with regard to taxation, which he (the speaker) thought conveyed a warning to members on the other side of the House that a portion of the burden would fall on them, and that the sooner they realised this point the better. He took only one little warning, which he gave. In referring to the point which was so ably dealt with by Mr. Baxter, he had said that, considering their resources, these products of South Africa, apart from minerals, were not as satisfactory as he should have wished to see them, but they must have patience. Well, he had taken the trouble to look up a few figures, some of which had been quoted, but they were in a slightly different form, so that he thought if hon. members would take the trouble to consider them, they would be made to think. He took the year 1887, as it was practically the beginning of the gold development, and compared it with last year. The expenditure for South Africa—that was, the portions now comprising the Union—in 1887 was 3½ millions; to-day it was nearly 17 millions. The debt was 27½ millions; to-day it was 114 millions. The white population was 565,000; to-day it was 1,300,000—only a little more than double. The railways were 1,900 miles long; to-day they were 7,200 miles in extent. The railway revenue was £1,300,000; to-day it was 12½ millions. The imports were 7 millions; to-day they were 35 millions. He had taken some exports, not with a view of showing the resources of the country, because these things differed, but he had taken particular exports, which must of necessity be exports—wool, feathers, hides, mohair, diamonds, base metals, and gold. These things, in their present condition, had got to be exported, and for that reason did not vary as others did by reason of local consumption. Therefore they were a good guide for them, as showing’ where they were going. To his mind, the worst feature—or what was nearly the worst feature of the whole lot—was the white population. The next to that—most deplorable—was the wool position. Twenty-four years ago it was £1,761,000, and to-day it was only £3,900,000—very little more than double.

The war in between.

Yes, I know the war.

The military killed them.

No; let the hon. member not mislead himself. I am not trying to score off him, and least of all the farmers, because this is a thing that affects me personally. I would like to see it otherwise. You can make certain allowances for the war, but it does not account for the whole matter.

All the stock was killed off.

Does ‘the hon. member consider the position of Australia, with their years of drought, when in three years the total of sheep fell from 93 millions to 53 millions. Proceeding, he said the hon. gentlemen should not mislead themselves. They must get rid of the idea that he was trying to score off them. He was trying to put something before them in their interest. It was a serious matter, and if that explained wool, why did it not explain hides, for instance?

Feathers were good. They had risen from £368,000 in 1887 to 2¼ millions in 1911. That was a big increase. Now they had hides, skins and horns: £370,000 in 1887 and I4 millions now. If the war accounted for all these things there would not have been those increases. It would not have increased fourfold while others were only nearly doubled. There must be something else, there was something wrong. Mohair in 1887 was £281,000 and had risen to-day to £918,000. These were certain products of the farming industry. He had left out grain, because grain went forward sometimes as an export and sometimes was consumed under fluctuations and at that rate it might be misleading. Diamonds had risen from £4,260,000 to £8,747,000. Base minerals and coal from £964,000 to £3,193,000, and gold from £387,000 to 35¼ millions. Now that was the position, which, as his hon. friend had said, must make everyone uneasy. It was unequal development; it was unsafe development, and no one could shut his eyes to the fact that the present position of South Africa was built upon revenue that was got from minerals, and there was no adequate development in other directions. There had been an enormous overflow from minerals which had acted as a fertiliser, but could they honestly say that the development off the farming side had responded adequately to that fertiliser? There was something wrong, and he was very much afraid that they would have a very severe awakening some day in this matter of expenditure—and taxation would fall very heavily all round. He was sorry his hon. friend was uneasy about the wool business. Referring to Australia he said that in 1910 they had in that country 100 million sheep giving 28¾ million pounds sterling of wool, which worked out at 5s. 6d. per head. He did not know how many of these were wool sheep, or what class they were; but he had taken all the sheep in Australia. In South Africa he had taken the direct return of wool sheep, which amounted to 22-4 millions. He had allotted to them all that was called wool and the average then only made 3s. 6d. per head, that was to say, 2s. per head less than Australia. That was not satisfactory, but he could not put his finger on the spot which was wrong. There were natural difficulties in this country, but there was some fault to be found in their methods. Other countries had gone ahead without these tremendous fertilising flows they had in this country in the shape of minerals, the Nile of industries. (Hear, hear.)

Criticisms had been directed against the arrangements which had been made in connection with the Provincial Councils and their source of revenue. He did not want to go into that, but wanted to point out that in the Transvaal the main source of revenue was pass money; an extra shilling pass money—another tax on the industry to pay for the whole lot. Anybody who had got anything to draw, any little experiment to make, any little relief to get, it was put on the mining industry. He would advise hon. members to consider the mining industry very carefully. A question had arisen during the last few days which had to be considered from an entirely different standpoint—miners’ phthisis—and he knew one mine which would have to give up 25 per cent. of its profits because of miners’ phthisis. They told you that it was an enormously wealthy industry; he told them that anyone who wanted to make an experiment made it at the expense of the mining industry, and that was not unnatural, because that was the only big thing they had in that country. They would come to the time when their experiments had brought it down, and they would have overreached themselves—that was his conviction. He had heard one of the hon. members of the Government say the other day that they were in favour of stopping a certain source of supply of labour—he thought that was said because it was a pleasant thing to say—popular—but it was a very risky thing to say, and a mighty risky thing to do. To-day they were very short of labour, and anyone who took the trouble to look at the mining returns would know that, and that the costs had gone up by a shilling. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs! That was getting a near margin. The expenditure was excessive, and it was all dependent upon one industry, and everyone said that it was a perishing industry—it would not perish in their lifetime or their children’s lifetime—but it was not an industry which could go on bearing all that burden. He wanted to know what the Government’s policy was in regard to that matter, and he knew it irritated the Right Hon. the Prime Minister when one talked about policy, but he wanted to know whether they were going towards a definite goal—he did not see it. If there was one thing which he, as coming from up-country, counted upon confidently, it was that the Hight Hon. the Prime Minister would see to the thorough carrying out of that policy of the development of the inner portions of all the Provinces, and in that connection he would like to say that, for his part, he would like to see that there were no Provinces and that these Provincial Councils should be gone; and for ever end these old artificial lines. (Hear, hear.) What was the policy of development? A course of development could be brought about in two ways—a scheme of taxation would do one portion of it and a scheme of construction would also effect it. Now they did not know what was going to be done in connection with taxation; they had been told that that was going to be settled that year—taxation of a true fiscal nature—but they did know that in the hands of the Minister of Railways—nominally in his hands—really in the hands of the Ministers—there was a weapon of taxation in the railway rates. Now, if he had counted upon one thing with confidence from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, it was that he and his colleagues from the Transvaal would insist upon the proper carrying out in the spirit of that statement embodied in the Act of Union that the railways should not be a means of taxation; yet in that very debate the Prime Minister had said that three of the Provinces had contributed towards the railway surplus, while in the Cape there had been a deficit. The hon. member quoted from the speech of the Prime Minister. As they had heard last year that in the remission of railway rates nearly £400,000 had been granted within the Cape area, that must mean that the lines, which had been already non-paying and whose rates had been fixed by the responsible Government, governing only in the Cape, were benefiting by such reduction, and made them still more non-paying—made their shortage still greater. Simultaneously the areas where there was a big development of trade had their rates maintained, and there was an enormous profit still exacted from them. That was a point which should be considered by every man in South Africa—not from a local standpoint. Here came in the “business principle?.” Was it good business to reduce the railway rates where they could increase development? Was it sound business in the interests of the country to grant further remission to lines which were already non-paying, when they did not see that that area was a developable one and they did not see how they could get a return. Was it not sound business to remit rates in an area where every sovereign remitted brought in another sovereign? He was not speaking with a view to getting any particular advantage for the Witwatersrand area, the Kimberley area, or any other—he could name areas in Natal and East Griqualand where a great deal ought to be done. He was dealing now only with the railway rates, and it seemed to him that people jeered at the phrase they put in—“business principles”—because they were hard up in making a score. In the minds of the men who had put it there was a clear idea what it meant—or what a business man would do with those powers. He would develop the developable areas, and not grant remission to lines which were not already non-paying where no expansion would result. There was another department—the construction department. A fortnight ago his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) asked when they were going to get the details of the programme for £4,910,000. He was told that it would be produced immediately. They had not got it yet.

was understood to say that the estimates were being prepared.

said that to his mind was wholly, utterly, and absurdly insufficient. He did not think they were at all on a plane in this matter. The Minister began as an autocrat last year, and he must congratulate him and thank him for a very considerable advance towards responsible government since then, but still he was far from perfect. He thought there was altogether too much arbitrariness. The Prime Minister, in his speech, had said that he did not say that the railway taxation in the Cape must be increased, but he thought that the reductions to the Cape last year had been too fast. As long, he added, as there were two parts of the country, the Transvaal and the Free State, that gave £2,000,000 to the railways, that was not honest taxation upon those parts. Well, of course, that was very nice. But it did not strike him (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) as the confident lead which They should expect from the head of the Government. It seemed to convey that the Minister of Railways and Harbours was an autocrat, a semi-detached autocrat of the Government, who was going to remit taxation on the railways just as he chose, and the Prime Minister was going to say prayers and “Thanks” for all he got. He did not think that that was a right position. He thought that the Prime Minister ought to have more authority than that. (Hear, hear.) Now what was the remedy for all that? It was surely so obvious that it did not need discussion or emphasis. It was the Railway Board. They had a Railway Board put there for that very purpose. The Railway Board ought to be able to submit to this Parliament annually a report showing not merely reductions here and there, but their reasons, their policy, the way they arrived at it, the objects they were aiming at, and how they were going to attain those objects. With such a vast and important undertaking as this, Parliament was content to get it from the Estimates and be even grateful if they got it a fortnight before the end of the session.

The Railway Board had now been at work a year and more. They were three highly competent and intelligent, experienced men in different spheres. But if they were to have three ordinary men, very ordinary men, inexperienced in that particular walk of life, and give them the opportunities for observation and acquiring information which these three gentlemen had during the past 18 months, they might bet anything that these men would come with a fund of information of the most extraordinary value to this Parliament. Why was the fund of information which these gentlemen had got in their offices there, never available to this House? There did not seem to him to be adequate control by Parliament of the lines built without a scheme, without a policy, without an idea where they were going and what their objects were, and those lines could not be put right again. They were built; they not only remained there, but they compromised the future. To-day he knew, by accident, one thing, that one of the lines was most highly thought of by individual members of the Board, that it was a great line for development and with a most excellent prospect; they at once admitted that it was a first-class line, but it was not in the programme. No one knew why. It did not come up for discussion in that House even. Why? Surely the Railway Board ought to be in this position, that having all this tremendous fund of information, knowing what could be done and what ought to be done, they ought to be able to put this before Parliament, not proposing that certain new lines should be built, but giving a survey of the whole position. Now, in what he had said he had tried not to say it in a way to provoke the Minister into one of his most excellent and effective debating retorts. He did not mind that the Minister should do it at his expense, but to do it at the expense of the country would be a considerable loss. Let the Minister tell them what was the policy to be pursued, what was the machinery to be put into operation, and then they would feel that they were in some way on the move towards getting this development which would correct the position, which he had endeavoured to explain was one that he considered to be absolutely insecure and undesirable, and one which needed the remedy they had ready to their hands to be applied. (Opposition cheers.)

said he took it that some of the speeches on the Budget had been a warning to the Government that the expenditure was very high, and must be reduced. There were far too many Civil Servants—22 out of every hundred men in the country, or five persons out of every hundred people. However, whenever there was the least indication given by the Government of a desire to reduce the expenditure the Opposition were the first to object. (An HON. MEMBER: “No.”) There was evidence of that in the matter of the railway workshops. The Government would be doing an injustice by keeping men if they had not sufficient work for them. These men should find other occupations. Something ought to be done in this matter. It was expected that with Union the numbers of Civil Servants would be reduced, and he hoped something would be done in this direction, and that new men would not be taken into the Service at random—(hear, hear)—at the same time that older men had to be pensioned off. There was a feeling—and he said it with some reluctance—that the South African-born men in the Civil Service were not always treated fairly. There was a great anxiety on the part of the Opposition to get the Civil Service Bill before the House. He did not know that that would help them. When they passed the Estimates that would fix the salaries of these officials for all time. They should have the Service in such a position to be able to pay for it in ordinary times. It was disappointing that though they had discussed the matter, for weeks nothing definite as to the status of these men should have been fixed. He admitted that there was dissatisfaction in the Service. On the other hand, the salaries were higher than ever. Perhaps it arose through their being accustomed to extravagance in this country. The sword of taxation was continually hanging over their heads. It was only in the reduction of railway rates that they were making some progress. It was evident from the proposal of the Minister of Finance that he intended to get extra revenue. The expenditure of this country was certainly much more than it would be able to bear were it not for the large revenue derived from the gold and diamond mines. The printing account was exorbitant. At some of the stationery depots thousands of copies of documents were stored unnecessarily; they could never be sold. They cost thousands of pounds. This matter should certainly be taken into consideration. A great expenditure could be anticipated in connection with defence. He only mentioned this to show that their expenditure would increase in that direction. He hoped that the Government would make every effort to keep expenditure down as low as possible. This was the only opportunity they would have of doing so, and they should not allow the opportunity to slip to put everything on a good footing. He thought that the debate on the Estimates was a barometer for the Government to go by. No one would refute his statement, that they were on the crest of a wave of prosperity. That was the reason that they had a good income. It was at such a time that they had to be prudent, because they might expect bad times again. The time might come when the Government would have to retrench their men and tax other people. In regard to agriculture, he agreed with much of what had been said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, that our position was unsatisfactory. Hon. members on the other side of the House always seemed to think that hon. members on his side of the House enjoyed a monopoly so far as agriculture was concerned, and he found fault with that statement—agriculture being starved at the present time for the want of capital. In India private people wanted to carry out irrigation works, but the Government refused to allow anything of the sort. In this country it was just the reverse. Private people would not invest money in irrigation works, and so it was left to the Government; and yet, when the Government proposed to spend a little money on agriculture, they had hon. members on the other side getting up and protesting. The same thing happened when the Government spent a little money on ostriches. (Cries of “Oh, oh.”) Well, it was just a little experiment in the interests of agriculture. The hon. member went on to refer to the fact that there had been increased production on the land, and said that all that could was being done in the interests of the country by the formers, in spite of the fact that, on the whole, there were so few available workers. In Denmark they found that the greatest number lived on the land. If they took the modest sum of 6d. per head produced by each individual of the population, it would amount to 55 millions. The people living on the land in this country really produced 64 millions, because they exported 12 millions. He did not think there was any other country where so many people lived in the towns, and that was because it was still a rich country. They could not do more until they had more people on the land. Some hon. members always brought to the notice of the Government the necessity for doing something for the fishing industry; but he thought the people in the seaport towns should do more. Surely they did not expect the farmers to do everything for them? He hoped no new taxation would be resorted to in the near future, unless the fiscal policy of the Union was so arranged that they had protection for those things that could be grown here, and could do with a stimulant. Many members of the Opposition were Free Traders, and he did not hold with making food dearer, but they should make people drink their good wine and brandy, which was quite good enough for respectable people. (Laughter.) He hoped whisky would be taxed more heavily. Even beer was still being imported. Another thing was fruit. He did not see why they should import any more jam. They had the finest fruit country in the world.

said that he was sure that every hon. member of the House would be glad that that debate had come to an end at last. The hour was rather late, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours also desired to say a few words, so that he would now move the adjournment.

The debate was accordingly adjourned until to-morrow.