from A. Edmondson, late of the Natal Civil Service.

from G. McGarrity, late gaoler, Jacobsdal.

from C. M. Dewes, widow, praying that she may be granted a refund of her son’s contributions to the Pension Fund.

from F. J. Bezuidenhout, a pensioner from the former Transvaal Republic.

from A. E. Lean, teacher.

from the wife of Cornelius Vollenhoven, at present detained on Robben Island as a leper, praying that her husband be allowed to return to his home.

as chairman, brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the Bill, as follows: Your committee beg to report that certain witnesses from a distance whose evidence was material to your committee’s inquiry have been unable to receive payment of their expenses from the Clerk of the House, owing to the fact that their attendance was inadvertently obtained without complying with the provisions of Standing Order No. 196. Your committee, having considered the circumstances, beg to recommend that the non-compliance with this Standing Order be condoned, and that the witnesses concerned be paid their expenses.

The report was adopted.

Annexures to General Census Report dealing with population and dwellings.

Government Notice No. 609 of 1912, further regulations, township of Kopjes; Government Notice No. 610 of 1912, amended regulation under Act 31 of 1909 (Orange Free State).

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) What was the gross revenue received by the Government Cold Storage at Pietermaritzburg for the last financial year; (2) what proportion of this revenue was derived from farmers; (3) what was the total loss of this cold storage for the last financial year, after including interest on capital, depreciation, etc.; (4) what were the principal items stored during the last three months; and (5) when do the Government intend to cease competing with private enterprise for the sale of ice from this cold storage?

asked the hon. member to allow the question to stand over till next Tuesday.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: “(1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the services of a man named Roberts, who lost a leg and an arm while engaged in shunting operations in Durban some time back, have been dispensed with, although the accident happened through no fault of his own; (2) that out of an allowance of £540, £310 has been deducted for hospital charges and for an artificial leg: (3) whether he will supply full details of the amount of £310 which was deducted from the allowance; (4) whether it is customary or in cordance with Law or regulation that hospital charges are deducted from such allowances; and, if so, (5) whether he will take into favourable consideration this unfortunate man’s case, he having a wife and two children to provide for, and give him some suitable employment to enable him to provide for his family?” The hon. member added that he had received a telegram to the effect that Roberts had four children and not two as stated in his question.

In regard to (1) the answer is in the affirmative, but the accident happened at Pinetown. As regards (2) the answer is also in the affirmative, but £236 of this amount represents injury-on duty pay. With regard to (3) the details of the £310 deducted from the compensation paid to Roberts are as follows: Injury-on-duty pay from date of accident, namely, November 11, 1910, to February 29, 1912, inclusive, £236; fees paid by Administration to doctor for medical attendance, £19; Addington hospital fees, £19; artificial leg, £18; artificial arm, £18. The answer to (4) is in the affirmative. As regards (5)This has been done; but there is no suitable position vacant to which Roberts could usefully be appointed. I would like to add that the Administration was not responsible for the mishap, and Roberts was not legally entitled to any compensation at all a sum of £540 having been paid by the Administration purely as an act of grace and in view of circumstances of case.

asked the Minister of Justice what is the proportion of police to population at Pretoria and Bloemfontein respectively?

said that he was sorry he could not give the information asked as the question was only raised the previous day, but as soon as he obtained it he would lay it on the table of the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) What is the reason for the unusual delay this year in connection with the supply of guano; (2) whether he is aware that in consequence of that delay farmers in the Western Province are being seriously hampered in their ploughing operations; and (2) whether he intends to take steps to obviate such delay in the future?

asked that the question be allowed to stand over.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the “Cape Times” of May 9, to the effect that Sir Richard Solomon was about to become a member of the London Chamber of Commerce; (2) whether the Sir Richard Solomon mentioned is the gentleman who represents, in England, the Union of South Africa, and whether he has become a member of the London Chamber of Commerce; (3) whether the Minister is aware that the said Chamber of Commerce has a Parliamentary Committee whose function it is to advance the interests of members of the Chamber by political action; (4) whether Sir Richard Solomon is a Civil Servant; whether all Civil Servants and other employees of the State may become members of organisations which have Parliamentary Committees; and, if not, (6) whether Sir Richard Solomon will be permitted to continue his membership of the London Chamber of Commerce?

replied: (1) The answer is in the affirmative. (2) The statement obviously refers to the High Commissioner for the Union in London, but the Government have not received any notification that the High Commissioner has become a member of the London Chamber of Commerce. (3), (4) and (5) The answer is in the negative. (6) The Government, as at present advised, see no reason why the High Commissioner should not be a member of the London Chamber of Commerce. (Hear, hear.)

moved: That in the opinion of this House: (1) The widening of the field of white employment is essential to the well-being of the Union; (2) the continued importation of alien native labourers from territories beyond its borders is undesirable, in that it tends to narrow the field of such employment; and (3) a commencement should at once be made to curtail such importation by prohibiting the entry into the Union of natives recruited in territories situated north of the 22nd degree of south latitude.

seconded the motion.

I move that this debate be adjourned.

seconded.

hoped the Government would accept his motion, which was of infinitely more importance than many questions that had been put before the House. He deprecated the attitude of the right hon. gentleman in moving the adjournment.

regretted the action of the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West. It was his intention, after formally seconding the motion, to speak upon it, but the right hon. gentleman sprang up and cut the ground from beneath his feet. Last session they had endeavoured to bring this before the House, and he hoped it would be brought to the notice of the House before the end of this session. Several hon. members on the other side of the House were desirous of speaking, and if this motion could be brought to a termination, the effect would be very great indeed. A great many people, both in the House and in the country, did not understand the question at all. He trusted the House would not agree to the right hon. gentleman’s motion

thought the right hon. gentleman was quite right in moving his motion, because the hon. member who had introduced the question had not taken the trouble to say anything on the matter at all. (Laughter.)

said he hoped the House would not agree to the adjournment of the debate. Hon. members were all agreed that this was a question of very vital importance. They had been listening very carefully to all kinds of questions being debated, and the present action of the right hon. gentleman showed not only discourtesy, but something very near to cowardice.

put the question, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Am I in order, Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the House?

One matter at a time. To which date is the debate adjourned?

Wednesday fortnight.

This was agreed to.

moved that the House do now adjourn in view of the flagrant violation of the rights of private members. Every private member had the right to ask the consideration of that House on any question which he might bring forward, and it was wrong, when such a question was brought forward, that the way should be blocked and the Government occupy the time of members with Bills that were of no use to the country, Bills like the Public Health Bill, which the Government well knew it had no intention of carrying through that session. When the time of the House had been occupied day after day in futile discussion on Bills that ought not to have been brought forward and the Government, countenanced by its supporters, refused facilities to private members in bringing forward matters of the greatest public importance, then it was time to move that the House adjourn in order to show the Government and the country that there had been a violation of the privileges of Parliament, and a violation of the spirit of Parliamentary institutions. He hoped hon. members would support the motion that the House should adjourn.

seconded.

said he did not think he could ever be accused of wanting to restrict the rights of any member of that House—(Ministerial “Hear, hears”)—but he did say that he did not think he ever remembered such a discourteous act to this Parliament as a member putting down a motion on the paper, and then getting up and saying, “I move.” He did not think he ever remembered such a case. He thought that the motion should have been explained, for the reason that the hon. member for Jeppe put the motion down on the paper some time back, then he withdrew it and then he strained the forms of the House in order to put it back again. If every private member was to do the same sort of thing, what a fine state of affairs would prevail. It was an important motion. It was a motion upon which he was prepared to say a few words, which he had not an opportunity of saying on the last occasion; but he was astonished when the hon. member came to that House and treated the motion and the House with the utmost discourtesy. The hon. member got up and moved, then they were supposed, like a lot of schoolchildren, to vote on this question. He would have liked to have heard what the hon. member had to say for the motion, for he must confess that he had forgotten what the hon. member had said on the last occasion—no doubt it was something most valuable. The hon. member came to the House and moved the motion pro forma—it was like throwing a bone for a lot of dogs to scramble over.

said he was astonished at the right hon. gentleman.

You will be more astonished still. (Laughter.)

said that he would never be astonished at anything the right hon. gentleman said in future. Continuing, he said that on the last occasion this matter of vital importance to the country was blocked by another motion, so that the hon. member for Jeppe was not to blame. The right hon. gentleman spoke as if that matter had never been debated before. He was astonished at the right hon. gentleman seeking refuge behind such a subterfuge. He hoped that the House would adjourn, for the reason that the most important matter on the order paper had been removed. Nothing else of any consequence to the country appeared on the paper. (Ministerial laughter.)

said that the hon. member must debate the motion that the House do now adjourn.

hoped the House would not endorse the attitude adopted in the last division.

The hon. member must not cast a reflection on a vote of this House.

That is a reason for the adjournment.

The hon. member must not make any reference to the vote.

said he hoped hon. members would see the folly of continuing the sitting now the motion had been removed.

said that before the question was put he would like to give the reasons which actuated them in voting—

said that the hon. member must make no reference to a vote of the House.

said he did not think that any useful purpose would be served by an adjournment of the House for the reason that there was other legislation of a most important character to be considered.

said he must enter a protest against this encroachment on the rights of private members.

said the hon. member must make no reference to the vote.

said that the right hon. gentleman had given an unfair version of what had occurred in connection with the debate which had been adjourned. He submitted that it was the right hon. gentleman who had been discourteous, and that he had no right to say what he did. The hon. member for Jeppe simply suited the convenience of the House by not discussing a motion which he had already discussed. The right hon. member had been very smart on his feet—(laughter)—but he did not think that the vote—

The hon. member has no right to make reflections on a vote of this House.

I do not wish to cast any reflection on the vote. I merely regret the vote that—

The hon. member must make no reference to a vote of this House.

rose.

The hon. member cannot reply.

On a point of order. (Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member cannot—

On a point of personal explanation?

The hon. member is out of order in speaking.

May I not reply to—

The hon. member may not.

The question was put and negatived.

said he would like to make a personal explanation. He had no desire to be discourteous to the House when moving his motion. In doing what he did he thought he was suiting the convenience of the House. He believed that every member of the House would give him credit for that. (Hear, hear.)

moved that the following proposed Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows: (1) In Standing Order No. 29, page 5, lines 6 to 8, to omit “if he considers the motion is one contemplated by this Standing Order,” and in line 10, to omit “fifteen,” and substitute “twenty”; (2) In Standing Order No. 39, line 7, before “Fridays,” to insert “(twenty-one days after the commencement of the session)”; and (3) In Standing Order No. 74, line 2, after “Committees,” to insert “‘(1),” in the same line, after “or,” to insert “(2),” in line 4, after “or” to insert “(3),” and in line 8, after “motion” to insert “as in (2) or (3) herein.” The hon. member was proceeding to refer to the responsibilities and duties attached to the office of Speaker, when

interposed and stated that the hon. member ought to confine himself to the matter in the motion of which he had given notice. The sections of the motion would be taken seriatim.

said that he bowed to Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The first matter referred to in the motion was in regard to the adjournment of the House on matters of urgent public importance. In the past when a member of the House had desired to move the adjournment on any matter of urgent public importance, the practice had been to call upon a number of members to rise in their places in support of the motion, but in addition to that, under the new rules and orders, Mr. Speaker would consider whether the motion was one contemplated by the standing order. That was an innovation upon the practice in that House.

No.

It is, at any rate, an innovation upon the old rules of the Cape House. Under Rule No. 22 the rule was that where a matter of urgent public importance is moved the Speaker calls upon members to the number of ten to rise in their places and thereby signify their desire to support the motion for the adjournment. Proceeding, he said the point he wished to make was that before a member could raise a matter of public importance in the House, he had to consult at least 15 members of the House to see whether they were likely to rise in their places. He would have to explain to those 15 members the import of his amendment or motion, and before he succeeded in getting those 15 members to agree with him he would have to convince them. He submitted that if a member had gone through that process it ought to be sufficient to guide the House as to the importance or otherwise of the matter, and that the discretion or judgment of the Speaker, who was hurriedly called upon to consider the question, should not be superimposed upon the discretion which he desired should be vested solely and entirely in the hands of the House. The rule, as it was printed now, said that 15 should rise. He hoped he might be allowed to move as an amendment that “20” should be substituted for “15.” that was one-sixth of the members of the House.

who seconded the motion, said that what they objected to in the insertion of these words was that it tended to restrict the rights of members, of the House. Under the old rules, nothing was left to the discretion of the Speaker. He thought the proposed substitution of 20 members for 15 ensured the support of a fairly large number of the members. He pointed out that in the House of Commons the rule was that 40 members should rise, and the discretion of the Speaker was not included.

It was decided to put the amendments seriatim.

On Standing Order 29,

said that it had been the practice in that House that the Speaker should exercise his discretion. He had known cases where the Speaker had exercised his discretion. Now they took the House of Commons In the latest edition of the Rules of the House of Commons, it was expressly provided that the Speaker should exercise his discretion. Whether in view of this fact, and knowing what a regard the hon. member had for the House of Commons, the hon. member would withdraw his motion, he did not know, but he hoped that the House would not accept the proposal. If they were to take away the discretion of the Speaker, they might have an unconscious humourist like the hon. member who had moved this motion coming to the House and wanting to raise a discussion on the fact that a train was late, and 15 or 20 members might support him. They might have the time of that House, if the discretion of the Speaker were eliminated, frittered away. As to the argument that the Speaker was suddenly called upon to give judgment, did not that occur every day? The matter had received the most careful consideration of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

said he wished to support the motion of the hon. member for Von Brandis. While recognising the force of what the Minister had said, he thought they ought to bear in mind that there were in the House or Commons various ways of bringing a subject before the notice of the House that they had not got in this House. He might mention, for instance, the debate on the Address. The House of Commons had 667 members. In this House they had 120 members. In the House of Commons, owing to the tremendous number of members.during the last. 20 or 30 years they had had to introduce a number of rules, which they in this House hoped it would be a long time before the saw there. (Hear, hear.) He ventured to submit that the Minister’s objection, based upon fear that the rule would be taken advantage for the purpose of raising merely frivolous matters, was without ground. It was, of course, perfectly possible that the rule might be used by a minority in Opposition in a manner that would not appeal to the Minister in his present position.

said that the Standing Rules and Orders Committee discussed this matter very carefully in the presence of the hon. member for Queenstown (Sir B. Berry) and Albany (Sir Starr Jameson), and as far as he could remember there was no division on the subject. The rule was really giving effect to the practice. In the House of Commons the Speaker did not allow the motion to be made if, in his opinion, it was not definite, or the matter was not important or urgent; in doubtful cases, the question of urgency and importance was left to the House to decide. That was the practice that was carried out in the Union Parliament. Three of these motions were brought forward last session by the hon. members for Fordsburg, Border, and Jeppe and the one brought forward by the hon. member for the Border on February 16, 1911, was ruled out of order. This was the practice that obtained in the Cape Parliament prior to Union. He certainly did not think that the House ought to agree to the amendment, for the Speaker ought to have discretionary powers.

said it undoubtedly had been the practice during the last session that the Speaker should exercise his right not to put the motion. But now they were laying down a new set of Standing Rules and Orders. Hitherto they had been acting on those of the Cape Parliament, but now they should consider the matter de novo and not merely adopt the old practice simply because it had been the old practice. As to the House of Commons, he thought there was a reason why they should not follow it too closely in this matter. The House of Commons had 670 members and the Union Parliament 120. Here it was quite easy for a member to ascertain beforehand whether he was going to be supported by such a number that would make it reasonably clear that a considerable proportion of the members regarded the matter as one of urgency. But a private member of the House of Commons would have to get the support of 120 members, which would be an impossible task for a private member. It was reasonable to hold that 40 members out of 670 were not enough to justify a motion for adjournment being put. That was the reason why the Speaker of the House of Commons had the power to prevent a motion being brought forward by a comparatively small number. Here a member who desired to waste time would effectually be checked by the difficulty of getting one-sixth of the members to support him. (Hear, hear.) It was not a question of the House not trusting Mr. Speaker.

said he quite sympathised with the hon. member if he regarded politics as a game. It added to the piquancy of the game if the Opposition always could command twenty members to stand up and ask for the motion for the adjournment to be put. The whole of the Opposition would rise. The Minister of Railways and himself were old hands at the game. (Laughter.) A more splendid instrument for obstruction than motions for adjournment could never be invented. (Ministerial cheers.) One had only to come forward with some business which caught the public’s eye and the Opposition would always be prepared to reel off long speeches—he had been there himself—(laughter)—and the unfortunate Ministry, which, perhaps, had a matter of great importance to deal with, had it blocked for the day, while a good deal of warm feeling was excited on both sides of the House, angry speeches were made, the whole place was in an uproar, and business did not get on. From that point of view a motion for the adjournment was a splendid thing. He sympathised with the desire to have opportunities for a good discussion. He did not know how many times his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) and himself had been checked—(hear, hear)—they always tried it when they were in opposition. (Laughter.) Therefore he considered the rule, on the whole, a safe one. Sometimes he had thought that there had been Speakers who had been a little stringent in this matter and who had not given way. He dared say, however, that they used their own discretion. Public business, after all, was the passing of the Estimates; the time to talk was on the Estimates—

They have not been brought forward yet.

They will have to come sooner or later; you will be able to draw the badger some day. He cannot remain in his hole always—(laughter)—and when he puts his head out, then is the time—at him! (Laughter.) But when the Estimates are on you will not find ten gentlemen over there. (Opposition cries of “No.”) My hon. friend and myself have been engaged in the occupation of hare hunting for years, but we could never find people in the House on such occasions. They did not take the same keen interest in the sport that we did. (Laughter.)

said they were mixing up what was sport with what was business. (Laughter.) He thought there was one sound reason why the matter should not be left to the discretion of the Speaker—that was the excellent reason that the Speaker was not a politician in a representative capacity in close touch with his constituents. The case of East Coast Fever, which was not allowed to form the subject for a motion for the adjournment last session, was a very serious matter. There were many cases which appealed to the country as being very serious which might not appear to the Speaker, in his impartial position, as being of such great importance. As to the question of obstruction, it was interesting to know how it had been done from two such able exponents of the game. If it were meant to be obstruction, an Opposition—small and impotent though it was—could find heaps of ways to obstruct. (Hear, hear.) But if they adopted obstructive methods they would have to give an account to their constituents. Anyone might do it once or twice, but if they made a habit of it they would be called upon to give an account and they would lose credit.

Of course this did not appeal to the Government, because it had got a majority, and it had only to use it to do what it wanted, but this amendment was for the protection of minorities.

Against the speaker!

I don’t put it so offensively; it is the business of hon. members to be in touch with their constituencies Proceeding, the hon. member said that there was another point to be considered. He took the history of this session as an instance. Tuesday was the only day on which certain matters could be brought forward, but it was a very easy matter for the Government to stop these matters being discussed. The work of the Union Parliament was too much to be got through in four or five months, and pressure from he Government would increase from the first week of the session and members’ day would eventually disappear altogether, and they would not have any opportunity of discussing questions at all.

said that the right hon. member for Victoria West had asked them to follow the rule of the House of Commons, but he wished to point out that there was no rule of the House of Commons such as was proposed here. It was simply a practice of the House of Commons. He considered that they should leave the Speaker in a position to say whether a question was of sufficient public importance as to allow the adjournment of the House to be moved. In the old Cape House supposing a matter was considered by a small body of members as of great importance, the Speaker would put the question to a division, even if only four hon. members rose. The Speaker ought to be allowed to use his discretion and to say whether a question was trivial or otherwise. He supported the matter being left as it was in the old Cape House. The practice there had worked perfectly well and there was no need for an amendment.

I don’t understand why this amendment has been introduced.

To give effect to the practice.

It goes a little further. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the practice now was that the Speaker could rule a matter out, but here they compelled the Speaker to consider every motion and decide whether it should be put or not. It went a little further than the House of Commons’ rule. He really thought the Cape rule was a better settlement; it was certainly better than forcing the Speaker to decide every question. It might put him in rather an awkward position, because he desired to be impartial and on a question on which there was a strong party feeling he would be compelled to decide between one party and another. He thought they should leave it to the Speaker to say whether a matter was trivial and merely dilatory.

said he was sorry to see so much evidence of mutual suspicion. Hon. members seemed to suspect each other of having something behind. (Laughter.) He was not referring to Darwinism. What he wanted to say was that if the right hon. gentleman, the member for Victoria West, ever took a crest, he hoped it would be a weather-cock. (Laughter) Just now the right hon. gentleman said that the Estimates would give hon. members an opportunity of airing their grievances, but last year he advocated following the English and Natal practice of having an address in reply.

The first part of Mr. Nathan’s amendment to Standing Order No. 29 was negatived; the second portion withdrawn.

On Standing Order 39,

then moved the second part of his motion to prevent the appropriation of Fridays for Government business until 21 days had elapsed from the beginning of the session.

said that in the Select Committee on Standing Orders he had proposed that in view of the duration of the session they should at once make a commencement with three evening sittings. His motion was negatived, and it was subsequently agreed that from the commencement the Government would be entitled to have Mondays and Fridays. This arrangement, he held, should be acted upon.

said private members had a right to these days at the beginning of a session to bring forward anything that they may desire, and if they did not do so the Government put their own business down instead. From the Opposition point of view, it was immaterial, but from a private member’s point of view it was a wise provision that these days should be allotted.

said it had been suggested that they should go on with evening sittings at once. He was one of those in favour of this arrangement, because he did not want to restrict the rights and opportunities of private members. He was of opinion that these rights should not be curtailed, although there were limits. Private members in the House of Commons had precious few rights. It appeared that the Minister in charge allotted the time, but, of course, he saw that most of the time was allotted to the Government. (Laughter.) When they came to consider that in the House of Commons they budget for £180,000,000 and only take three days to discuss it, they could see that here in the Union they were not at all badly off. He did not want to limit the time, but what they ought to do was to take more time to do the work of Parliament, and if they were to adopt night sittings from the start, then they would have more time. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) seemed to imagine that the only people who had constituents were the Opposition, and the Government were being told, “Look how badly you manage your affairs,” and this was particularly the result of want of time. He did not want to be unreasonable, but the Government ought to have a little more time.

said he could not quite understand the attitude taken up by his hon. friends (the Minister of Railways and right hon. member for Victoria West), especially when he remembered some fourteen or fifteen years ago, when these protagonists were the very men that were so anxious to uphold the rights of the Opposition. But other times, other manners came about. (Laughter.) If they were limited to the Wednesday, they could not possibly get through the work. It was for that reason that the question of the hon. member for Jeppe had fallen through. All that was asked for was the first twenty-one days of the session, and then only if they had business to bring forward. He could not understand why the Government should seek to have this Friday as well as Wednesday.

said that under this amendment, private members, so-called, were going to come off very badly. It was not their own business after all that private members desired to discuss, but public business. While he supported this amendment, he was more and more convinced that the only way in which there was going to be any reasonable probability of any group of members who desired to see some final issue achieved was by a debate upon the address, because in the first two or three weeks of the session a great deal of desultory work went. One of the great functions of Parliament was to discuss questions of policy.

The amendment was negatived.

On Standing Order 74,

moved the third portion of his motion. In the House of Commons, before the House went into committee, it was within the power of any member to debate questions before the Speaker left the chair. He thought the Minister might support him, seeing that it was the practice of the House of Commons.

said that under the new Standing Orders there might actually be two debates on the Budget, one on the Minister’s original motion, and the other on the subordinate motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. It had therefore been decided to abolish the second debate, which was totally superfluous. He would vote against the amendment.

said that this was a serious amendment, for the orders proposed a distinct curtailment of the rights of members to debate financial matters. A point cropped up this session which they had no opportunity of discussing. The Treasurer discovered a mistake two months ago in the Estimates, and yet though all that time had passed they had had no opportunity of debating the point. He pointed out that in the House of Commons members were allowed the right of debate on some of the financial votes, and he did not see why the privileges which were usually accorded members of this House should be curtailed in the manner suggested. That being the case, he thought that the amendment should have the support of the right hon. member for Victoria West and the Minister of Railways.

said it was merely human nature when hon. members, having changed places, changed their views. He would like to point out to his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central, members were only allowed one opportunity to debate a matter of this sort in the British House of Commons. There was no motion that the Speaker leave the chair, and the debate only took place on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. They were only adopting the rule of the Mother of Parliaments, and it could not be said that in that House the freedom of members was restricted. There was no rule of the House of Commons.

It is there.

Well, if it is there, I should like to see it. Continuing, he quoted May on the subject, and pointed out that the Speaker left the chair without “question put.” It seemed to him that hon. members who held views in the Select Committee changed those views when they were on the floor of the House.

said he supported all these amendments in the Select Committee.

pointed out that this particular point was very carefully discussed by the Select Committee. So far as the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was concerned, well, it could, he thought, be discussed in Committee of Supply. If this were not carried unanimously in that committee it was carried by a large majority.

Of course, it was rather the fashion to say that they wanted to take away their rights. There was a great deal of what, he would not call “humbug,” about it but there was a great deal of gallery about it. He would only add—he did not say this as a precedent—that the tendency everywhere in Parliamentary institutions was to limit discussion. They knew what had been done in England. They had seen what had happened in relation to the Home Rule Bill. The tendency was that they had too much discussion, and frequently the discussion was not very apposite, and the result was that Parliament interfered and sometimes went too far in limiting discussion. That was what he thought they had done in England. He should be very sorry indeed to see the rights of private members interfered with. He wanted those rights to ‘be as large as possible, but he also wanted to see the people who were entrusted with the government for the time being have an opportunity of getting the business through which the country had entrusted to them.

said he was not a member of the Select Committee to which reference had been made, nor had he, in his brief Parliamentary experience, had an opportunity of sitting on the other side of the House, so that he could not be suspected of having changed his opinion in this matter. He heartily associated himself with what had been said on that side of the House as to the importance of keeping the opportunity which was now given to members of the House to express their opinions on financial matters. The Minister, he thought, had, so to speak, given away his case in what he had said as to the practice of the House of Commons. He quite agreed with the Minister that the limit placed on discussion had been carried to an undue length. He did not think they could say that the position had become so intolerable in that House during the four months or so in which they sat that it was necessary that Parliament should step in and limit the rights of members as to speeches. He hoped that this facility would not be taken away and that the amendment would be carried.

said it ‘was surely better to have one Budget debate than two. They had decided this year that it would be better to have two than four. It seemed to him that there was no advantage whatever in duplicating discussions. They ought to concentrate their discussions, and the rule of the House of Commons, it appeared to him, that there should be no discussion on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair was a sound and healthy one which it would be to the advantage of this House to adopt. It was he urged, much better to give up rights which amounted to nothing—(“Oh”)—and which meant nothing, rather than invite the interference of the Government on other matters which were of far greater importance and which might come on in the future.

said that two arguments had been brought forward in opposition to the motion of the hon. member for Von Brandis. One was that the new rule was in accordance with past practice in that House, and the other that it was in accordance with the rules and practice of the House of Commons. It seemed to him unfair that the Minister should have suggested that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central had put an entirely wrong construction upon the rule of the House of Commons. Whatever might be said in favour of the innovation that was now before them, it could not be said that it had in favour of it the rules or practice of the House of Commons, neither had it in support of it the past practice of that House or of the late Cape Parliament. He could quite understand that hon. members opposite took an entirely different view from hon. members on that side as to the value of this facility.

said he would like to ask for what reason had this change been made? So far as the Cape Parliament was concerned, this practice had always existed, that there had been a right to review the debate on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair. There had never been any delay or obstruction in these matters so far as his experience of the Cape House went. The country expected the Opposition to protect its interests. No Opposition in its senses would take advantage of the practice to obstruct the business of the House, and it had never been done at the Cape. And there was no danger of it being done in the future. Only on a few occasions had they had a very brief debate on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair. That gave an opportunity for the position to be reviewed. He would extremely regret if this privilege were taken from Parliament, but Government, having a strong majority, seemed determined to curtail the rights of Parliament. It was a very short-sighted policy on the part of the Government, because it would not always be in power. (Hear, hear.) There had been several changes in the financial position since the Budget was introduced, and the Minister of Finance would have an opportunity of putting the actual position before the country before the House went into Committee of Supply, but if the Standing Rules were altered he would not have that opportunity. He (Sir Edgar) was quite sure the time would come when Government would regret the change, as he did. (Hear, hear.)

said he remembered a particular instance in which the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) took part. On one occasion, when the right hon. member was Treasurer of the Cape, and introduced his Budget, and after someone had made a short speech in reply, the right hon. member actually came forward and said: “Hon. members will please postpone their speeches until the motion is put that the Speaker do leave the chair, when they can speak as long as they like.” But if the present rule were allowed to go through, the right hon. member might find it very inconvenient on some future occasion. He (Sir Bisset) did not propose that the rights of members should be abridged in any one respect, but he thought they were abridged in the new Standing Rules and Orders. (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to give every reasonable latitude to hon. members to debate as long as they liked within reasonable limits, but he did not like to see the rights of hon. members, that had endured for untold centuries, abridged by a mere ipse dixit. (Hear, hear.)

said the old procedure gave one an opportunity of holding up the business of the House until a question had thoroughly been ventilated. (Hear, hear.) He earnestly hoped that the House would reconsider the matter, and that the Ministerialists would recollect that their turn might come some day. (Hear, hear.)

said that the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply was equally as important as the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the purpose of going into committee on a Bill after its second reading had been agreed to.

The amendment was negatived.

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

stated that the new Standing Orders, relating to Public Business and to Private Bill Procedure, would take effect immediately after the prorogation of the present session of Parliament.

moved that the petition from E. Norodien and Burhanoodien Desai, president and secretary, respectively, of the Cape British Indian Union, praying for the amendment of the General Dealers and other Licences Amendment Act, 1906 (Cape), removing the power of issue of licences from local bodies to Resident Magistrates, presented to the House on the 26th April, 1912, be referred to the Government for consideration. The object of the petition, he said, was to take the control out of the hands of the local authorities, so that applications for licences could come before persons such as Magistrates, and would be dealt with on their merits. Those who had any knowledge of the working of the Act of 1906 would agree that, especially in the country districts, it had not been satisfactory. There was a Select Committee of the House of Assembly that sat some time ago, and the hon. member for Piquetberg gave an instance which occurred in his own district of a farmer who had had a shop for twenty years, and had had his licence refused. He, himself, had only recently come into possession of particulars of a case in the Fraserburg district of a farmer applying for a licence, supported by a petition signed by 103 farmers, yet his application was refused. In the country districts the members of the Councils who dealt with those matters were largely shopkeepers, and they deliberately refused licences so as to draw the trade into their own hands. They were acting in their own interests and against the interests of the public. It was not suggested that a return should be made to the system which allowed applications to be made at the post office, but to a Magistrate, who would have all the information the police could give at his call, and could be assured of the good character of the applicant. He believed that at the next session of the Provincial Council the matter would be brought forward, as well as the question of the hours of trading. He hoped the hon. Minister would not refuse to allow the motion to pass, but let it be referred to the Government for consideration, so that the Government could pass the matter on to the Administrator and be dealt with by the Provincial Council in due course.

seconded the motion.

moved, as an amendment, in line 2, after “Union” to insert “and from J. W. Gool, president, and S. H. Rahim and G. Desai, joint secretaries of the Cape British Indian Union in the Cape Peninsula”; and in line 5, after “1912,” to insert “and the 10th May, 1912, respectively.”

seconded.

speaking in opposition, said the competition that white men had to meet in connection with Indian traders was altogether too keen. These Indians worked from early morning until late at night and kept open their shops to a great extent on holidays; moreover, they did not give up any portion of their time, as the white men did, to such matters as defence. Any step taken which would weaken the position of the white trader in South Africa was much to be regretted. They in Natal had seen him shouldered out by the Indian trader. The position that should be taken up in the House was that if they did anything to weaken the position of the white trader in this country they were acting against the interests of their own race in South Africa.

supported the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, not that he was opposed to the ideas of the hon. member for Umlazi, but he thought their ideas would be better carried cut in the method suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. The Government should consider whether they ought not to do away with these Indian traders, and he thought it was better that they should have the matter in their own hands.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

moved that the petition from Sishuba and 106 others, native delegates and representatives of native individual landowners and occupiers from the several locations or farms which form the ward Kamastone and Oxkraal in the division of Queenstown, praying for the reduction of the quitrents now payable in respect of the reserve plots, or for other relief, presented to the House on the 2nd instant, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

said he did not want to oppose the motion, but he would like to have asked for an explanation as to why the petition had been presented through the hon. member for Victoria West? He did not know whether the right hon. member had run away from the motion. However much his own sympathies were with the motion, he had not been approached, and he was sorry the right hon. gentleman was not there to explain.

The motion was carried.

moved that the petition from Owen Marete and 360 others, Baralongs of the Thaba ‘Nchu district, O.F.S., presented to the House on the 10th May, 1912, and praying for investigation into their claim for a settlement of the disputes between them and the coloured settlers on the farm Bafulo, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that all documents and papers in connection with the Kuruman gaol contract, as also a letter from Mr. Attorney De Jager to the assistant engineer, Potchefstroom, dated the 6th ult., be laid upon the table of the House.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that Mr. Speaker levae the chair.

said he did not wish to take up the time of the House, but he understood that the Minister of Finance was going to give them additional information regarding the scale of duties, because it would have been better to have had this if they were going to discuss these matters in detail. It seemed to him that there was a certain misunderstanding as to their attitude on that side of the House. The Minister of Finance said the other day that they were endeavouring to defend the interests of rich persons oversea. As far as he was concerned, his position was perfectly clear. If the Minister could get at the estates of these few rich people living oversea, no one would be more pleased than he would be. Some of these people had realised their responsibilities to South Africa and some had not. (Hear, hear.) But they were all well enough off for their estates to bear a little of the country’s responsibilities, but the Minister in his attempt to catch these people was embarking upon a policy which was going to damage seriously the interests of some people whom he never expressed an idea of attacking at all. The Minister the other day said they were not consulting the interest of their constituents in this matter, but those people oversea. This might be a good point in debate to use, but it was not quite true. He would point out that in his own particular constituency at least 50 per cent, of his constituents were interested in shares in different companies, and the manner in which they were affected by these duties would be that their property would depreciate. Companies would have to make provision against these charges, and that provision would be made at the expense of the shareholders. (Hear, hear.) All that the Minister had said in reply to the arguments advanced had not in any way shaken his conviction that if he carried out his intention he was going to do a great deal of harm to South Africa, and they would not be doing their duty if they did not point out the effect of these proposals. (Opposition cheers.)

said with many others, doubtless, he had been trying to get at the bottom of the policy of the Government. This was an endeavour to create a new world of their own, built upon the imagination of political topsyturveydom. He had some idea of the conditions and the opinions on the Rand, and he could assure the Minister that most people believed that this was a hare-brained scheme. If they were going to destroy the small investor in Europe then the game was not worth the candle. These death duties, of course, were not a new proposal, but it might happen that three generations might die in the space of two years, and what estate or business could bear such heavy charges? This was a tax that would come home to the Government in the future. (Hear, hear.)

asked whether the Minister had made any further calculations? He had assured the House that he intended to make great reductions as far as the duties affected ordinary persons. What he wanted to know was what effect this tax was going to have? He had had several inquiries from different parts of the world.

What parts of the world? (Laughter.)

Well, never mind. What I want to know is what would be the effect on these bearer shares? Proceeding, the hon. member said if they took the share value of a company at £1,500,000, and if it paid dividends of £100,000, then under the present taxation the amount charged would be £10(XX). A quarter per cent. upon £1,500,000 would be £3,750 in addition to the profit tax of £10,000. Therefore the Minister was going to take £13,750. This was out of all proportion, and it seemed that the Minister’s calculations had been made hastily.

What do you say it should be?

Well, I’ve just quoted figures. I should like to know if the Minister has worked these things out and asked himself what the effect would be? It would affect the people of the country and the industries of the country, and, he thought, the credit of the country. He hoped that they would not take any such step without realising the consequences.

said it did seem to him extraordinary that the Treasurer did not think it worth while to make a statement upon this important matter before the House went into committee. It was not for hon. members on his side of the House to suggest how the Treasurer should reach the thing he wished. The Treasurer had not told the House what his figures would mean in taxation. He should like, before going into committee, to again impress upon the Treasurer the fact that this would mean the discouragement of capital coming into this country. The Treasurer was sowing, and he was afraid he would reap something which he did not anticipate. He felt sure that such a scheme would make South African mining securities unpopular, and he thought that it would have a discouraging effect on investments in South Africa. All the constituencies, though the constituencies on the Witwatersrand in particular, were very much concerned over this question, because if mining securities were going to be rendered unpopular, then the people would be the sufferers. There were signs now, as a matter of fact, that investors were not quite happy about their investments in this country. He went on to say that at the present time there was no bid for mining ground which the Treasurer had offered to the public.

What about the syndicate?

No syndicate has been formed. That has nothing to do with the matter.

Oh!

said that the fact that people were not clamouring for this ground was an indication that the public were not very happy about their investments. He had no personal interest in the matter, and if there was general taxation, he was quite ready to bear his fair share, but he did not like taxation by this tricky method. It was not a direct tax upon all classes of property, for the Treasurer singled out a special class of security. It was fundamentally bad, and he did not think that it would redound to the financial credit of the Ministry in the future. He did hope that the Treasurer would have changed his views on the question by this time. The principle of this sort of taxation was irregular and wrong. If there was a general income tax, then it would be all right; but it was different when the Treasurer went about with schemes of taxation of such an irregular character. He did think that some sort of statement should come from the Treasurer on the subject, because investors in the future would be frightened of being singled out in this fashion.

said that the hon. member for Germiston had stated that 50 per cent. of his constituents would be affected by the tax which was proposed by the Minister of Finance, but he did not think that fifty per cent. of his hon. friend’s constituents were shareholders in the mines.

It does not apply to the mines only. It applies to all.

said that the mining industry was the chief industry of the Witwatersrand. He did not think that these people could be directly affected; they must be indirectly affected by the, new proposals. They were told that capital would become shy of this country, and the inference was that the operations of the mines would be restricted, and some of the hon. gentleman’s constituents thrown out of work. Now, he represented a constituency that was largely composed of people who worked on the mines. What did they find on the Rand at the present time? He had been informed that a certain big house had issued a statement to the effect that no further construction work would be undertaken for the next two years. That meant that all the construction work that was started some time back was finished, and that so far as equipment was concerned the mines were in perfect working order. Why was it necessary, therefore, for these mines to have further capital? There was no need for further capital. The way it struck him was that this capital was required by the wire-pullers of the country for the purpose of manipulating shares on the market. Why should not some of the capital that was produced in this country be used for the development of the country, instead of it being sent to foreign parts? Why should they have to depend on European investors for their capital? Many big schemes could be financed in this country by the money that was flowing out of the country. He thought that the proposal was a very good one, and one that was popular with the majority of the people of the country. If the Government wished to hold the good sense of the people then he said that the Minister of Finance should not tamper with the proposals which he had placed before the House.

said he did not like the principle of the tax, and he hoped that the Minister would listen to the good advice that had been tendered him by financial members of the House. He thought the Treasurer would find that the little sum that was gained would not compensate for all the irritation that would be caused. Besides, he did not think that additional burdens should be placed upon the shoulders of the mining companies, who already had to face large contributions in connection with the relief of sufferers from miners’ phthisis.

said that hon. members on the cross-benches, ever since they had been in that House, had been endeavouring to increase the difficulties of the mineowners of Johannesburg and decrease their profits. If they thought they were going to increase the field of labour by advocating those measures, in the interests of the working classes, he (Sir D. Harris) must tell them that they were making a great mistake. It was well known that in this country the working-men’s salary was three or four times as large as it was in England —(“No”)—and much larger than it was in any other part of the world, and it was only possible for the companies to pay those large salaries because some of them were in easy financial positions and were making big profits. The great aim of hon. members on the cross-benches seemed to be to decrease the profits of the mining companies. If their earning powers were decreased, how was that going to affect the working-men? It must naturally affect them, and hon. members on those benches if they were wise, if they had the interests of the working-men at heart, would not be continually condemning and criticising the methods of the mine owners and making things more difficult for them. The hon. member for Georgetown talked about money flowing out of this country in the form of dividends that were paid by the different companies. Could any hon. member of that House draw a distinction between the interest paid on money borrowed by the Government for its railways or the dividends on the capital coming into this country for the development and equipment of the mines? As a matter of fact, no money went out of this country at all. The commodities that were exported from this country were realised in foreign countries. The foreign countries supplied the money. Take the case of diamonds, for instance. The bulk of the diamonds produced in this country were sold in America. The Americans paid for these diamonds, and the money that these commodities realised in England was used for the payment of all our indebtedness to England, including interest and dividends. The exports of this country actually brought money into the country. Take the export of wool, feathers, or any other commodity. It was just the same as with gold and diamonds. They did not bring the actual sovereigns into the country, but all these things were regulated through the medium of exchange, and hon. members got a wrong idea when they thought that the commodities that were being exported from this country were taking money out of this country.

It was a fallacy that a good many people believed in. It was absolutely wrong. The exports of this country, no matter what these people said, brought money into this country. He would like to make a last appeal to his hon. friend the Minister of Finance. If every argument in the world could be brought in favour of the imposition of this one-quarter per cent, tax, on the amendment of the Minister of the Interior, was this the right time to saddle the mining industry of this country with an increased burden? They ‘had the miners’ phthisis. That would place a burden equal to about a million of money to capitalise the cases that were existing at the present time. Why not give them breathing time? They were told to be merciful to their enemies. Why not be merciful to their friends? He hoped the Minister would let this matter drop. Taking all things into consideration, he did not think that the amount of money that this country would dtrive from this taxation would in any way compensate for the diversion of capital that would be caused. (Hear, hear.)

said that he wanted to mention one question again which he did not quite understand. They had the death duties. But, in addition, they had an amendment to introduce a taxation of an entirely different kind. (Hear, hear.) He did not know, if this principle were once admitted, where it might lead them. He knew the Minister desired to get at the estates of people who locked their estates up in a particular form of investment. If they did that, there was nothing to prevent some other Treasurer coming in and introducing the death duties and then saying, by a specious form of argument which would appeal perhaps to a certain section, “the farmers of this country, the agriculturists, own a vast quantity of movable property, which it is difficult to locate; therefore, by way of collecting death duties, we will impose a tax of a halfpenny per sheep per annum.” (Hear, hear.) It would be a parallel case, entirely. He did not think that was right. If they were going to tax any particular property, the tax should be introduced for that purpose. This was not in any way a death duty tax. It could not be called a death duty tax. It was a property tax; it was a tax upon a particular kind of property. His hon. friends were better able to deal with the question of the inadvisability of this tax than he could, but that it would have far reaching effects was undoubted and, however little they might like a particular section of the people, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that the prosperity of this country and the income of this country largely depended upon that industry. They were going in a few days to make a call upon that industry, which, he ventured to say, had never been made upon any industry yet in this country, an extremely heavy call, and it would be met, as far as he could see, at any rate, the proposals had been met so far, better than he could possibly have expected. They were now going to put an additional and a most irritating tax at a time when the proposals they were going to make, and indeed had been made by the Minister of Mines, were likely to have a depressing effect upon the industry. In addition to the depressing effect arising from that at a time when they wanted really to enable the industry to bear that burden, they were then going to put an additional tax on, which undoubtedly, as far as he was able to judge, would have the effect of lessening the credit of this undertaking in other countries. He wanted to see the Treasurer get all he could by every possible means, but he did not think this was the right thing to do. He should be very sorry indeed if this matter were pressed He thought it would be a great misfortune and have a prejudicial effect upon this country, besides creating a precedent which may be turned afterwards to uses which hon. members who supported it might find to be extremely uncomfortable for them. (Hear, hear.)

said that he was afraid of the pressure that had been brought to bear upon the Treasurer, but he hoped that he would stick to his guns. The impression had been sought to be created that this was a tax aimed at a particular industry, whereas those who were pleading in the interests of that industry were pleading for an exemption of that particular industry from the common burdens of the industry. The mining industry (proceeded Mr. Creswell) did not merely consist of those who had a lien on the profits of the industry, but of those who were making the industry, and the Government’s proposals so far from having a depressing effect on those most deserving of the consideration of the House, would have the very contrary effect. He would ask the Minister of Finance to consider the possibility that this agitation m England might not altogether have been spontaneous, and he would ask him not to be too profoundly impressed by the following telegram which appeared in the “Cape Times” last Thursday: “On the Stock Exchange Kafirs were depressed on the South African Government’s taxation proposals, which many characterise as incomprehensible.” He (Mr. Creswell) had a sort of idea that that telegram might have been inspired from some place not very far from South Africa. The telegram proceeded:” Dealers declare that the proposal has arrived at a most unfortunate juncture, when the revival of public interest in Kafirs was being hoped for.” (Laughter.) In conclusion, Mr. Creswell said he hoped that the Government and the House in dealing with these matters would take this firm ground—that they were going to deal with thorn as fairness, common-sense, and justice dictated, with the absolute assurance that those clever brains and agile intellects which were sending these telegrams would exert all their agility and cleverness to carry on their business in conformity with whatever laws this Parliament might make to secure that the industries were carried on in a manner to conduce to the interest and welfare of the people who lived in this country. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought that as a rule people argued matters by putting forward reasons for and against the proposals under consideration. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) instead of bringing forward any argument had simply given them an illustration of how extraordinarily distorted his mind was when he dealt with anything connected with mining. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member had suggested that the agitation in Great Britain was not a spontaneous agitation—(Labour cheers)—and that it had been aroused by inspired telegrams from this side. That was not an argument, but the expression of a prejudiced view. (Mr. CRESWELL: “Experience.”) What arguments had been brought forward by the Ministers of Finance and Native Affairs to justify these proposals? The sole argument in justification of the proposals in regard to bearer shares had been that in the first ‘debate the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) gave away the secret of the evasion of the proposed duties, and that these changes were brought forward with the idea of meeting such evasion. Had there ever been a more extraordinary ground adduced by any Government for changing its taxation proposals? They practically said: “We didn’t see how the taxes could be evaded, but now that we find they can be, we have taken the first opportunity of meeting these methods.” That was actually said, and was the argument solemnly used by the Minister of Native Affairs. Anything more fatuous than that argument it was very difficult to imagine. He (Mr. Long) thought that the “agile intellects” and “clever brains” to which the hon. member for Jeppe had referred would be able to devise some means of evading these proposals. The point was—what would be the effect of these proposals on the investor in Europe? Had any argument been brought forward to show that the effect would not be extremely bad? The existence of the new taxes would be an additional prejudice to people investing money in South African securities. (Hear, hear.)

said every new country required capital for its development, and the Government’s proposals were a distinct tax on capital. Perhaps the strongest possible condemnation of these taxes was the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria North (Sir T. Cullinan), who saw that they were going to make a large inroad on capital, so that he wished Government to become a partner in the concerns which would be affected by these taxes. Hon. members must see that what would apply to the hon. member for Pretoria North must apply to every other member. Were they going to go to Government with a similar proposition? The effect of the tax would be to take money actively engaged in the development of the country and put it into the Treasury, and that would hinder the development of South Africa to a very serious extent. (Hear, hear.)

said he was in hope that the motion that the Speaker leave the chair would have been taken that afternoon without any further discussion, because the matter had been very fully discussed already on the original motion, and anything further could have been said in Committee of the Whole House. Not a single new point or argument had been used that afternoon which had not been stated over and over again by several speakers. (Hear, hear.) He did not think hon. members did their cause any good by repeating the same old arguments. But there had been some statements made which were calculated to obscure the issue and to mislead, and he did not want those statements to go forth to the world quite unchecked. No arguments had been used against the main portion of the tax, the whole of the attacks being confined to the quarter per cent. tax, which was the burden of their objection. The object of the quarter per cent. tax was to widen the net. He had been watching the effect of estate duties in the Transvaal for the past four or five years, and had been in correspondence with England for the past four or five years upon the question of people who tried to evade taxation, and his efforts had been directed to devising ways and means to bring those who now escape the tax into the net. His great point had always been the bearer share, and if he could devise ways and means to include holders of bearer shares in the net, his object would be gained. His hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, he was sorry to say, had made a statement which was calculated to deceive and mislead. He said he thought it was unfair and unreasonable that this additional tax of a quarter per cent. should be imposed upon the mining industry, and then he went on to say that, according to his calculation, this tax would have the effect of increasing the burden by 35 per cent.

I gave you an illustration.

He said 35 per cent., and he adopted the interruption.

It was 37g per cent.

said that made it more still. He did not quite know where he was. The hon. member for Liesbeek said that agile intellects would make it possible for the tax to be again evaded. Why then should hon. members opposite be alarmed? Either the proposals would have the effect of tightening up the net and including the bearer shares or they would fail. Put they could not say one moment that the proposals would still allow the tax to be evaded and the next moment say that the burden on the mining industry would be largely increased.

Another statement was made as to this being the right time to saddle the mining industry. He wanted to repeat again that his proposals would not saddle the mining industry at all. The proposals were designed to get hold of people oversea who held bearer shares and who transfer their shares into the names of companies for the purpose of evading the tax, and he had not heard a single argument adduced against the main principles of the tax.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends: (1) That for the purpose of consolidating the laws now in force in the several Provinces of the Union which impose taxation on the estates or property of deceased persons or of successions to such property, there shall be charged, levied and collected, in respect of the estates of persons who die on or after the 1st May, 1912, for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Union, subject to the exemptions and allowances hereinafter mentioned, and to such other exemptions and rebates, and to such conditions as may be laid down in any law passed during the present session of Parliament—

1. (a) A graduated estate duty in respect of the net value of the deceased person’s estate according to the following scale: Where the net value of the estate does not exceed £500, exempt; exceeds £500, does not exceed £1,000, duty shall be at the rate of ½ per cent.; exceeds £1,000, does not exceed £1,500, 1 per cent.; exceeds £1,500, does not exceed £2,500, 1½ per cent.; exceeds £2,500, does not exceed £5,000, 2 per cent.; exceeds £5,000, does not exceed £10,000, 3 per cent.; exceeds £10,000, does not exceed £20,000, 4 per cent.; exceeds £20,000, does not exceed £40,000, 5 per cent.; exceeds £40,000, does not exceed £70,000, 6 per cent.; exceeds £70,000, does not exceed £100,000, 7 per cent.; exceeds £100,000, does not exceed £150,000, 8 per cent.; exceeds £150,000, does not exceed £250,000, 9 per cent.; exceeds £250,000, 10 per cent; subject to the following exemptions: (i) in favour of the widow of the deceased if her total inheritance from the estate does not exceed £1,200, ah allowance equal to the duty on £500; (ii) in favour of any minor child of the deceased whose total inheritance from the estate does not exceed £500, an allowance equal to the duty on £150.
2. (b) A graduated settled estate duty in respect of the value of any interest in settled estate (i.e., property which upon the death of the owner becomes subject to a fiduciary, usufructuary or other limited interest) according to the following scale: Where the ascertained value of the interest in settled, estate does not exceed £100, exempt; exceeds £100, does not exceed £500, the duty shall be at the rate of 1 per cent.; exceeds £500, does not exceed £1,000. 1½ per cent.; exceeds £1,000, does not exceed £2,500, 2 per cent.; exceeds £2,500, does not exceed £5,000, 3 per cent.; exceeds £5,000, does not exceed £7,500, 4 per cent.; exceeds £7,500, does not exceed £10,000, 5 per cent.; exceeds £10,000, does not exceed £15,000, 6 per cent.; exceeds £15,000, does not exceed £30,000, 7 per cent.; exceeds £30,000, does not exceed £50,000, 8 per cent.; exceeds £50,000, 10 per cent.
3. (c) A fixed duty of five per cent. in respect of the value of the share capital, debentures or debenture stock in any company incorporated or registered or carrying on business within the Union, when such capital or stock is held by a deceased person who was domiciled or resident outside the Union at the date of his death. Provided that (a) if the warrants for such share capital debentures or debenture stock are issued to bearer upon which any interest dividend or bonus is paid, or (b) if such share capital debentures or debenture stock are registered in the name of a company or body incorporated or registered outside the Union, then in lieu of the said fixed duty a special compensation duty of one-quarter per centum per annum in respect of the value aforesaid. (2) That the foregoing shall be in substitution for all existing duties levied on the estates of or on successions to the property of deceased persons.

here reported progress, and leave was granted to sit again to-morrow.