The public outside, who have been reading the daily press, have had this discussion given to them in a very illuminating manner. Every speech which has been made from the Government side has been “a brilliant speech,” “a smashing reply,” but, unfortunately, when the poor innocent reader reads the speeches, then he begins to wonder why these headlines. As for the speeches from this side of the House, well, according to the press reports we have only been quibbling with the facts, quibbling with everything. I want to deal with this important matter as it strikes me, and I would like to touch upon a statement made by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance in his superior manner, that manner which is all his own in this House, stated they wanted uniformity. Well, I have looked through the Bill very carefully and I have seen there is uniformity in regard to the maximum that a teacher can draw. But I also take the words of the Minister of Finance. What did he say when he was speaking? He said: “Yes, the provincial council will not be enabled to increase the salaries of various teachers beyond the maximum, but that does not stop them if a province in financial straits decides to reduce them below the minimum.” If this is so, where does the uniformity come in? Take one province which is perhaps badly hit; this province may reduce the salaries of its teachers to a very low figure indeed, and the teachers’ salaries would compare very badly with the salaries paid to teachers in the other provinces; so when you talk about a uniform scale of salaries the thing is absurd in the face of the statement made by the Minister of Finance. I want to deal with this matter from a Cape Province point of view, because that is the point which appeals to me most. I belong to the Cape Province and they are provincial matters we are dealing with, and I am more acquainted with the facts as they obtain now in the Cape. The Cape seems to bulge very largely in the eyes of every member who has criticized the Bill; we are told that expenditure in the Cape has increased enormously. How many hon. members of this House know just how the teachers of the Cape were paid before and up to 1918? Prior to 1918 the teachers of the Cape were paid a very, very miserable salary indeed. Anyone who knows the scale of pay at that time will wonder why so many men and women adopted the profession of a teacher. The salaries of teachers were a disgrace, and acknowledged to be a disgrace by practically everyone who took an interest in education. Prior to 1918, in the days when our teachers were being paid a starvation wage, our teachers in the Cape were naturally attracted by the high salaries in the other Provinces. We were training teachers in our training-schools for the benefit of the other provinces, they were attracted to the other provinces on account of the better conditions existing there. These are facts, and are fully borne out by figures and authorities. It is stated that the Cape has been extravagant. When the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) spoke the other day, I am sure he was put up by the Government, in order to put forward a suitable plea on their behalf. I was in the House and listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset), and it struck me very much that it appeared as if the hon. member was addressing a judge and jury, and pleading to make a good case out of a bad one. He stated that the Government had no intention of touching the teachers’ salary; that the Government did not want to do that. The right hon. the Prime Minister, I do not accuse him of running away, but he has thrown the responsibility of dealing with education and teachers’ salaries on the Provincial Council. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) said that there was nothing in the Bill that said the teachers’ salaries were going to be touched. A very fine plea indeed, but what do we find? The Government has reduced the subsidy to the Provincial Council and has told it it has to economize, and it was hinted to them that the time had arrived to take ten per cent. off the teachers’ salary. That was the situation. The Provincial Councils are restricted in their methods of taxation. They have only a certain scope of taxing powers, but they have to get money somewhere, and are told, no doubt by the right hon. the Minister of Finance, that if they were hard up then it was their duty to take ten per cent. off the teachers’ salary. Yet we have the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) getting up and stating that the teachers’ salaries were not to be touched. I am not one to say that in no possible circumstances should the teachers’ salary be reduced, but I want to be honest. It makes some of the hon. members smile when we speak of honesty in this House. There is so little honesty on the side of the Government. If they were honest, they would not be sitting where they are to-day. When speaking on the Bill many of them ridiculed it, but when it comes to a matter of decision and vote, their conscience suddenly drops away. They answer the crack of the party whip, knowing they are voting wrong. There is no doubt the position to-day is that the teachers’ salaries are one of the first things that are going to be touched. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) gave some illuminating figures. He said that our expenses on education have increased to an enormous extent, yet that the European population has only increased, I think he used the figure, nineteen per cent. Did that prove anything? It proved nothing. If one wants to go into the increased cost of education, and the reasons of that increased cost, one has to deal not with the total European population but the total of European pupils attending school. In 1910-’11, education in the Cape was a disgrace to any civilized country; to-day we are reaping the whirlwind. Previous to Union, the number of European children attending school, was in 1910, 82,315—that was the total attending school in the Cape for primary education, but it was estimated that there were at least 20,000 European children of school age who were running wild, no schools or teachers to provide them with education. In 1921 the figures had increased to 134,638 or an increase of over 60 per cent., instead of the nineteen per cent. mentioned by the hon. member. The actual figures of children attending school showed an increase of 60 per cent. on the figures of 1910 and 1911. Again I say the lack of education facilities for children in the Cape Province in 1910, was disgraceful, and no doubt it was this disgraceful state of affairs—no education for our poorer children—that was responsible in a large measure for the creation of our poor white problem. When you are dealing with increased expenditure, don’t forget there is a 60 per cent. increase on your pupils attending schools in the Cape Province, it was essential that the salaries of the teachers had to be increased in 1918 on account of the ridiculous pay they were getting at that time. I have been a chairman for years of a primary school, and I remember the time when we were paying teachers from £100 to £120 per year. Those were the salaries you were giving teachers on entering the profession away back in 1917 and 1918, so that if we take into consideration the very large increase in the number of pupils and the increased status of our teachers, I say there has been nothing very extravagant in the spending of money on education so far as the Cape is concerned. But hon. members of this House say: “Oh yes, Provincial Councils are very extravagant, they are robbing the taxpayers to pay for their extravagance in education.” What has the Union done; what has the hon. the Minister of the Interior succeeded in doing? I understand that the hon. the Minister is responsible for higher education, and though I am not quarrelling with his policy, which may be a good one, let us look at the figures with regard to higher education. Since the Act of Union in 1910 till 1922, the cost of higher education in this country has increased by 380 per cent. What does it provide for? Not ten per cent. of the children of this country and not two per cent. of the working classes of this country. Hon. members on tins side say they want to be honest and look at this thing squarely, yet right through, the whole of the Government’s legislation is for the betterment of the men with the well-lined pocket.

Nonsense!

I hope and trust that there are no hon. members sitting on those benches who think they are paying for their boys or girls in the colleges. They are doing nothing of the kind. Surely the hon. member is not unable to go into figures given by the State; any independent member can get the information which I am giving now, that the cost to this State for higher education for educating their sons and daughters has increased by 380 per cent.

About £120 per year, per pupil, paid by the State. Higher or university education in the Union has increased since 1910, by 380 per cent. Primary and secondary has only increased, I believe, 168 per cent., yet the Administrator is always being charged with reckless expenditure, on education.

Yes, I wonder how the hon. the Minister of the Interior squares his conscience with that. I hope he has not got into that vicious circle and is playing up to the rich. Higher education which applies not to ten per cent. of the youth of the population going to school or higher colleges has increased by 380 per cent. against the increase in the Cape, I think, of 168 per cent. for primary schools. I want hon. members just to look this squarely in the face. What is the position in the Cape? I was for a year in the Provincial Council—long enough for me— what did we find? We found in this country of ours thousands of children in the rural areas, the parents could not afford to pay for their education and in many cases could not afford to feed them. Indigent schools were set up all over the Cape; these schools not only educated the pupils but boarded them, and I say it is a very fine thing indeed where, in a thinly populated area where the children have to go long distances, where the people are poor, the Provincial Council did the right thing in establishing these schools and bringing these children in to feed and educate them. Yet this has got to come out of the money which we voted for education. We who have been long resident in this country believe in equality for the two languages, and believe that the two races should be educated as far as possible in their own language. I want to mention these facts because in comparing the figures of Great Britain and Australia with the Union, they have got to take all these facts into consideration. If we are going to have two languages—and I believe in it—I believe that each race has a right to its own language, then you have to pay for it, yet, surely when we are criticizing expenditure on education it is right and proper that we should allow for the whole of this extra expense which is recurring in this country. Conditions in this country are entirely different from the countries with which comparisons have been made re respective costs per pupil. The speeches which have been made by the right hon. the Minister of Finance, lead one to believe that every white child in the Cape was at school. One would really believe that there were facilities in every little village for the children to be educated. Why! in every town, in every village you will find that there is a scarcity of school accommodation throughout the Cape Province. Now I am going to quote from somebody who is an authority on education and knows what the position is. I refer to Dr. Viljoen, and I have his report here for 1922, but before I quote him I want to defend the Cape Administration as far as possible. In the Cape you have 13,536 more European pupils—I am dealing entirely with the Europeans now—you have 13,536 more European pupils on roll than in the Transvaal, yet you spend £414,000 less money on the teaching of these children. Surely as far as the Cape is concerned at any rate, they have been very careful indeed, and we have had good value for the money we spent on education. Some of the speeches would lead you to think that we have provided more schools than necessary, and that every child is at school. This is an extract from the Education Gazette of the 21st February, 1924; this is what Dr. Viljoen says, and let me say that I am an admirer of Dr. Viljoen. I think he has done an enormous amount of good for education in the Cape, this is what he says—

What I want to emphasize is that we have 6,000 European children in the Cape Province to-day; that there are no schools for them; no schools for them at all, and yet we sit here debating this question. That is the irony of the whole debate to me; while we sit here fighting across the floor of the House, the poor children of the Union are suffering. Here you have in February of this year 6,000 children for whom there is no room, neither are there any teachers, and yet hon. members get up in this House and say they are spending far too much in education. To me it is a disgraceful statement to make and proves that hon. members have not gone into this question in a very careful and satisfactory manner, all they have done is to get a few facts and figures and try to defend the standpoint of the Government. These are the facts; there are 6,000 children here for whom there are no schools. I can assure hon. members, the whole of the public of the Union is watching very carefully what the Government is going to do in this very important matter of seeing that our youth are properly educated. There is the report of the Superintendent-General of the Cape for 1922, and this is what he says about equipment. I may say that anybody who knows anything about schools knows quite well that schools are practically useless unless you have equipment—

No machines and yet they have been trying to train typists. That shows that things are in a very bad way indeed when you have not got the equipment necessary to train your pupils in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. What has the cry for economy done? The cry of economy has brought about this state of affairs in the Cape. In 1921 we had 1,500 pupils training to become teachers, but they are providing no schools; allowing our children to run about on the veld and in the streets, consequently no openings for teachers. In 1923 there were only 1,000 pupils, young men and women training to become teachers; that was a drop of 500 in one year, and that drop is getting worse because the teachers to-day know there is no possible opportunity of getting situations. We have stopped all building of schools; there is no opportunity for them, to me there is another thing that is very bad, and I am speaking now of the husbands and wives who are anxious that their boys and girls should go in for the teaching profession. What is the position to-day in the Cape? At one time there used to be bursaries, so that a poor lad or girl if clever enough could win this bursary, which would enable them to be trained in our training schools. That has been done away with, and to make matters worse the sons and daughters of working class people, if they were anxious that their son and daughter should go to the training home, were able to get a loan from the Provincial Council to pay for their education, and assist them to keep them while they were being trained in the training home. That has been taken away. The loan was always repaid whenever a young lad or girl obtained a situation; the first thing that was done, was that they had to deduct a certain sum every quarter from his salary, and the loan was repaid with interest. But to-day the Cape has withdrawn these facilities; put up the signboard again: “No room in our training homes, no room in the teaching profession for sons and daughters of working men.” That is the position, and unless the Government are going to give the young lads and young women some financial assistance to go into these training homes, then it will be impossible for many of our best young men and women to go into the profession of teaching. I say that in itself is a scandal, an absolute scandal, that on the cry of economy you should starve education, and starve young men and young women who are anxious to go into that profession. You are debarring hundreds of them who would like to take up teaching, you are barring them through economical difficulties. This House is called upon to decide a very important thing, are you going to erect a barrier against these young men and women and keep them right down from improving their position, and following the profession they desire. To me it is a very sad spectacle indeed. I can assure you I have never preached rash expenditure; I would be the last man in this House to get up and preach that we should spend money foolishly, but surely we are not going to starve education. There are other avenues in which we can save money instead of permitting education to suffer. Surely the history of this country for the last thirty or forty years has shown the vast amount of money which we have had to spend upon the poor whites, and the reason of the position in which our poor whites find themselves to-day is due to the lack of education. Here is another quotation of Dr. Viljoen—

Seven hundred young teachers and no opening for them, surely this is something which this House should take into consideration. But, no, we are dangling with this question, we say to the Administrators of the Provincial Councils: “You have got to reduce your expenditure,” when there are six thousand of our boys and girls running about the streets because there are no schools for them, and almost a thousand teachers for whom there are no appointments because we cannot build schools. It is a very said sight indeed. The teachers of the Cape had starvation wages up to 1918, and it has been only during the past four years that they have had a decent salary, but now their salaries are going to be cut down again. Are you going to attract the right kind of men and women to teach our young in adopting such tactics as these? It is said that a well educated youth is the greatest asset that any nation can have, but this is not the case to-day in South Africa. We are depriving many of the youths the facilities for getting educated. The hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) said he thought the time had arrived when something ought to be done to abolish Provincial Councils. There were certain parts of his speech with which I agree. Then he went on to say it was a great pity that this matter had not been discussed outside party lines, and he accused members on this side for always debating questions on party lines. Who is the biggest sinner in this House for discussing these questions on party lines? When the Government appointed a Commission to inquire into provincial questions, did it appoint any members belonging to the Labour Party or the Nationalist Party? Nothing of the kind, they were all purely South African Party nominations. If you are going to have this thing dealt with on non-party lines let the Government take the first step. The Government always appoints men who look through the same political glasses as themselves. The Baxter Report would have been a much better report if it had been formed of non-party men. That is the reason you are bound to discuss things from a party point of view in this House, because the Government will not allow you to discuss them outside party lines. It is my own private view that the cost of Government in this country is too heavy. My own personal opinion is—and I speak for myself—that a national convention of representatives of all parties should be held at an early date to deal with the question of either abolishing the Provincial Councils and Senate, or putting these bodies on a sounder footing than they are to-day. If you have a convention, composed of non-party men to examine these things from the point of view of interests of the country, and not from party lines, I am sure something could be done. Your taxable population in this country would not make a decent city in some European countries, yet we have this absurd and costly system of Government prevailing here to-day. If the right hon. the Minister of Finance is sincere in reducing expenditure let him cast his eyes around and devise other means whereby he can save expenditure. Do not save money at the expense of our poor unfortunate children. With his boasted financial superiority, all he has done is to quibble and try and reduce the amount of money spent on education. This is something of which he cannot be very proud. He agrees to a huge expenditure on university education, but when it comes to the great mass of the people who send their children to primary and secondary schools, he is not interested, he has no sympathy with them, and yet he gets up in a superior cynical manner and says this is what has got to be done. This House would be ill-advised to pass the second reading of this Bill as it is constituted. If you do pass it it will be aiming a very heavy blow at the great mass of the people. The policy of the Government is against the interests of the great bulk of the people.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I want to say a few words about this Bill before the debate closes, but before doing so with your permission, Sir, I would like to refer to an article which appeared in to-day’s issue of the Cape Times dealing with Provincial Councils. That article was couched in language which I would not expect to find in the columns of such a “highbrow” paper like the Cope Times. If that article had appeared in a Labour paper or a Nationalist paper one would not have been so surprised, but one was surprised and shocked to see it in such a paper as the Cape Times It is not only the statements which are surprising but the manner in which they are put forward. The language smacks more of the police court than the university. I would just like to point out in connection with these statements that this is an old story which has been brought up from time to time about the Natal and Orange Free State getting doles or gratuities that are paid by the other two provinces. This matter was brought up in 1913 when the other Financial Relations Bill was before this House but it was pointed out that at the time of Union the Cape debt amounted to £52,000,000, of which £13,000,000 was non-productive. The interest on this non-productive debt amounted to £419,000 per annum. The losses on its railway and harbour administration were £616,000. The deficiency in its revenue was about £500,000. Immediately after Union there was a large reduction of railway rates made by the Railway Department of which the Cape Province had the greatest benefit, and in the Financial Relations Bill of 1913 the Cape got another contribution of £160,000. Altogether at the time of Union the Cape Province was relieved of deficits and liabilities amounting to close on £2,000,000. These figures will show that the Cape benefited more by coming into Union in 1910 than any other province, and it is very unfair on the part of the bigger provinces to severely criticise the smaller provinces because they were getting an extra allowance from the Union. In connection with that I may mention that when re-arrangements were being made in financial matters in 1913 it was found that both the Transvaal and the Cape had big surpluses, but there were deficits in the case of Natal and the Free State and it was in order to make up these deficits that the arrangement was made that the extra allowances should be given to the two provinces, so as to save them from imposing taxation. Were it not for this both Natal and the Free State would have been the first to commence provincial taxation. I think therefore the sooner the Cape stops talking about Natal and the Free State, picking the pockets of the Transvaal and the Cape the better. In any case it is a very difficult feat to pick pockets when they are empty. But I want to get back to the Bill before the House. The Government is accused of making the Bill a party matter. I do not find anything in the Bill that merits that description. If there has been any party politics it has come from the Opposition benches; in fact everything that the Government brings into the House is made a party question by the Opposition however simple it is and hon. members will notice that the two opposition parties always vote together. Whatever they say outside in regard to “the pact” hon. members find in this House on every question brought forward the Labourites and the Nationalists vote steadily together, even on questions on which they would have utterly disagreed formerly. To me the whole matter seems a comparatively simple one. For many years the Government has been accused of excessive expenditure, and it has been told that it is spending money wastefully and extravagantly, and I must say there is good reason for this accusation seeing that since Union expenditure in connection with the administration of the Union has more than doubled itself. This being undeniable it devolved upon the Government to take notice, and it has made some rather weak attempts to bring down expenditure, but it complained that its efforts in that direction were hampered by the provinces who have been spending too much of its money. It is recognized and acknowledged that the provincial Councils have been indulging in extravagant expenditure, and that the Government has a grievance against the provinces for taking so much of its money. The Government had in self-defence to appoint a commission to enquire into the whole position and to recommend what should be done in order to bring the financial relations into better form. We must admit that the members of that commission were as good as could be got in this country. The best men were chosen and the members did their work exceedingly well; they spent a lot of time taking and considering the evidence; their report was most carefully drawn up and they brought in an unanimous report. The statements made in that report are based on carefully sifted evidence and I have not yet heard any serious attempt being made to upset or confute them. One or two attempts have been made to show that the figures were not correct in smaller matters, but taking the report as a whole it stands unchallenged to-day. The Commissioners found that the expenditure in the provinces was much too high and that the principal expenditure was for education, and it was on that particular item that money was being most wastefully spent. The matter is dealt with clearly in Clause 302 of the report. After examining all the different methods of expenditure of the provinces the report states—

On that particular point the Commission’s report was very emphatic and I do not see how it could be anything else in view of the evidence before them. The Commission therefore recommend uniformity in teacher’s salaries and some reduction. The Government has decided to give effect to that particular recommendation in the Commission’s report. I am one who regrets that the Government did not go wholeheartedly for the Baxter Report. I think they would have acted for the best had they brought in legislation more on the lines of the Baxter Report. I think in the long run that the Government and the country will recognize that would have been the better course for the country as a whole. I understand that the provincial administrators and their executives were approached in connection with this report by the Government but no agreement was come to. The provinces absolutely refused to accept the Baxter Report as a whole, and the Government refused to accept any alternatives. If the Government had themselves accepted the Baxter Report and brought in a Bill to give effect to it we would have just the same objections from the other side of the House, so practically it does not much matter what the Government brought in as far as the Opposition is concerned. It is my hope, and the hope of many in the country, that the Government will not let the matter drop, but will take up the Baxter Report again, consult with the administrators and try and get a workable Bill, a Bill that will satisfy the country. Speaking as a Natalian, I may say that Natal is in favour of their Provincial Council being continued, the great majority of the people are in favour of it, and at public meetings it has been resolved again and again that there is no good reason that they should not continue. The fact is that the Natal province has carried out the provisions of the Convention of 1909 as it was intended they should be carried out. It is because Natal carried out these provisions in the proper spirit that its council has been successful. In addition we have tried to keep party politics out of the Provincial Council, and it is only recently that the Labour Party has forced them upon the council, which has not improved the position. That is where the other provinces have broken down, so much of their time has been taken up with party politics. I say that the Provincial Council in Natal has been a financial benefit to the province in general. It has enabled them to get legislation dealing with municipal and provincial affairs, which has passed through their council in Natal with an enormous saving of expenditure and time, as compared with getting the same legislation through Parliament. I suggest to those who think they could do better by getting rid of the Provincial Councils to think better of it. People who object to the great expenditure of the Provincial Councils and who suggest that they should be done away with, should think carefully on what they are doing, because if they believe that they would thereby decrease expenditure and taxation, they may be very much mistaken. To attempt to do away with the Provincial Councils altogether and to place their duties in the hands of the Government, may mean higher expenditure and less efficiency. In 1909, when we were considering coming into Union, we were told that the administrative expenses of the country would be brought down to one-fourth. What has been the result? They are twice as great as they were before, and we are not getting any more benefits. Before sitting down I want to call attention to a remark made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) who rather insinuated that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Greenacre) had found it convenient to absent himself from the discussion of this Bill. The hon. member was called back to Durban suddenly on very important business, and that is the reason why he is absent. I think it only fair that I should make this explanation in his absence.

Gedurende die debat het ek nou geluister hoe die verskillende edele lede van die oorkant van die Huis aanvalle gemaak het op die onderwys van die platteland, in besonder die edele lid vir Zuid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset). Hy het opgestaan en gesê, dat die koste van die onderwys op die platteland heeltemal te hoog is. Nou, hy behoort dit oor te laat aan iemand anders. Die edele lid vir Zuid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset) weet baie min van wat plaasvind buitekant die grense van Kaapstad. Ek wil hom graag vra of hy al ooit in die binneland gewees is en of hy beset die moeilikhede waarmee die boer in die binneland te kampe het. Hy sit hier in Kaapstad en het al die geriewe teenoor die platteland, wat verstoke is van al die groot voorregte. Laat ons net ’n bietjie dink, wat vir moeilikhede die ouer van ’n kind op die platteland het. As die kind ses jaar oud is, moet die kind myle ver na die skool gebring j word. Elke oggend moet die kind daarheen gery word en wanneer die kind standaard 6 gepasseer het, dan moet by na ’n kosskool gestuur word, wat vir elke kind op minstens £60 of £70 per jaar te staan kom. Daar weet die edele lid vir Zuid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset) niks van af nie. Hy stuur sy kind elke more na die skool, die kind kry die beste onderwys wat gekry kan word, terwyl die boer buitekant op die platteland al die moeilikhede en ongerief het. Nee, dis duidelik dat daardie kant van die Huis nog baie min simpatie getoon het met die boer op die platteland. En laat ons dan ’n bietjie nagaan, wat die posiesie van die onderwyser op die platteland is in: vergelyking met die onderwyser in die stede. Hier het die onderwyser al die voorregte en geriewe, terwyl die onderwysers daar buitekant miskien ure te pêrd moet ry om by die naaste poskantoor te kom en verstoke is van al die voorregte. Behoort hy nie kompensasie te kry vir al die ongeriewe nie? En dan vind ons dikwels as die kind op die platteland se skool standaard 6 gepasseer het, en hy kom op ’n ander skool, dat die fondamente van die onderwys aan die kind nie goed gelê is nie. En ons weet almal, dat die eerste en vernaamste eis op onderwysgebied is, dat daar ’n behoorlike en deeglike fondament behoort gelê te wees. Daarom verwonder ek my wanneer persone, as die edele lid vir Rondebosch (de hr. Close) en die edele lid vir Zuid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset) so praat as hulle gedoen het, maar hulle weet nie van die moeilikhede op die platteland en het niks geen gevoel vir die boer en al sy ongerief nie. Nou kom ek tot die Wet self hier voor die Huis. Die doel, soos ek verstaan van die Wet, is, in die eerste plaas, besuiniging. Nou vra ek aan die Huis, of ons die reg het om te besuinig op onderwys ten koste van die toekomtige geslag en of daar nie andere bronne is waarop ons kan besuinig nie. Hier word gesê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade roekeloos met geld omgespring het en die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het dit die eerste gesê. Ek dink hy behoort die laaste te wees om dit hier te sê. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies kan seker nie trots wees op sy amp nie, solank hy Minister van Finansies is. Die skulde van die Unie—dit sal niemand ontken—het onder sy beheer as Minister van Finansies geweldig vermeerder. Jaar na jaar is daar grote tekorte en moet nuwe belastinge opgelê word; en op wie kom die belastinge in die eerste plaas neer? Op die arm man, op die boer, op die siek man en op die dooie man word die belastinge gelê.

Hoe wil die edele lid die dooie man belas?

Op die arme mense kom die belastinge neer, terwyl daar genoeg andere bronne is waaruit die edelagbare die Minister geld kan kry. Nee, ons het nie die minste reg om te besuinig op onderwys gebied nie. Ek sê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade, altans wat die Vrystaat betref, hulle bestaan geregvêrdig het en as ons die publieke opienie vandag sou vra, dan glo ek seker, dat ’n oorweldigende meerderheid vandag nog voor die Prowinsiale Rade sou stem en ek sê verder, dat as dit sover kom, dat die Prowinsiale Rade afgeskaf word, dat daar dan geen besuiniging sal wees nie. Ek dink, dat daar baie groter tekorte gaat wees as vandag. Dan ’n twede punt wat die Wetsontwerp betref. Daar moet uniformiteit van salarisse wees. Ek wil daadlik sê, dat ek ten sterkste vir uniformiteit is en ek glo ook nie, dat die onderwysers self die minste daarteen het nie, as maar tegelykertyd ook stabiliteit verkry word. Maar ek vra enige man met die minste greintjie van verstand of daar stabiliteit sal wees, wat die salarisse van onderwysers betref, onder hierdie Wet? Daar is goed gesorg, dat wat die maksimum betref, dat daar uniformiteit is, maar wat betref die mienimum is daar niks vasgelê nie. As die Kaapprovinsie b.v. besluit om ’n vermindering in salarisse te maak, wat dan van die Vrystaat en die Transvaal? Waar is dan die uniformiteit? Nee, daar is nie die minste uniformiteit nie onder die Wetsontwerp en ek sê dat die Wetsontwerp onbillik is teenoor die onderwysprofessie, wat een van die grooste en belangrikste professies in ons land is, en dat die veral onbillik is teenoor die onderwysers op die platteland. Ons het die beste manne nodig om ons kinders aan toe te vertrou. Dis ’n noodsaaklikheid vir die toekoms van Suid Afrika, want die toekoms lê in hande van die onderwyser. Nou gaat ons onsekerheid in die professie bewerkstellig en sal daar een ouer van ’n kind wees, wat sy kind sal laat oplei vir onderwyser as daar geen sekerheid bestaan wat betref die salaris? Daar is al deur verskillende edele lede in die Huis gesê, en ek herhaal dit, dat ons die beste breine en die beste mense moet hê vir die onderwys van ons kinders. Nee, Mr. Speaker, die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het hier gekom met ’n verdraaiïng van feite. Hy het hier gekom en gesê, dat die onderwysers nog in onderhandeling is met die kommissie. Ek wil in alle beskeidenheid sê, dat dit ’n absolute onwaarheid is dat die minste onderhandelinge nog plaas vind. En dan het die edelagbare die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake gesê, dat die onderwysers vandag net so goed af is as in die verlede. Hy het dit gesê. As dit die geval is, dan wil ek graag aan edele lede hier vra, waarom alle lede dan telegramme van protes van die onderwysers gekry het. Ek het telegramme gekry van elke dorpie in my kiesafdeling om te protesteer teen die Wetsontwerp. Is die onderwysers dan sulke gekke, as hulle net so goed af is? Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake is eerlik, maar ek dink hy was in een van die moeilikste posiesies waar hy ooit in gewees het met die verdediging van hierdie saak en hy het daar dan ook maar treurig sleg in geslaag om die Regering te verdedig. Hy weet self, dat hy ’n baie swakke saak het. Hier is gesê, dat die onkoste in verband met onderwys te vinnig opgaan. Ek wil net daarop wys, dat in die jare 1912, 1913 en 1914 daar nog duisende van kindertjies rondgeloop het wat sonder skool was, sonder onderwys. Die Prowinsiale Rade het gekom, het hulle plig gedaan en vandag is die kindertjies op skool. En wat betref onderwys, kan ons nie anders dan verwag dat die onkoste in verband daarmee opgaan, na mate die bevolking vermeerder. Ek sê nogmaals, dat ons nie die minste reg het om op onderwys te besuinig nie. Die maatreël hier voor die Huis is ’n strafmaatreël op die onderwys en bring groot ontevredenheid onder die onderwysers. Ek verstaan goed dat die onderwysers nie onwillig is om ook opofferinge te maak nie maar waarom juis die klein seksie van die bevolking uitgesoek en hulle salarisse verminder om die tekort te dek van die Unie-Regering? As die Regering in die regte rigting iets wil doen, dan is daar genoeg bronne van inkomste. Deur die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) is duidelik gewys op die hoë diwidende, wat die goudmyne uitkeer, en ek vra,‘“wat het die Regering gedoen om die myne ekstra te belas?” Kan iemand ontken, dat die mynindustrie die mees florerende industrie van alle industrie in Suid Afrika is? En wat het die Regering gedoen om ’n ekstra-belasting op goud te lê? Niks nie. Die Regering gaat heen en belas verder die armste dele van die bevolking en lê hulle groter laste op. Dink maar aan die tabakboere wat vandag in die dorpe is as arme blanke. Wie het hulle daar gedryf? Die Regering. Die Regering gaat nog voortdurend in die verkeerde rigting om te besuinig en gaat die plekke waar die groot profyte gemaak word verby, omdat hulle die troetelkindjeis van die Regering is. Daarom sê ek, dat ek vir die Wetsontwerp nie kan stem nie en ek spreek my sterkste protes uit teen die Wetsontwerp.

As ’n mens die kritiek van die anderkant van die Huis hoor, dan moet men sê: “O, die myne en die arm kaffers in die myne, wanneer daardie kant aan die Regering kom, dan sal daar ’n belasting op die naturelie en op die myne kom buite alle grense.”

Wil die edele lid alleen die boer se inkome belas?

Nee, ons wil nie alleen die boere belas nie, maar daar moet ’n gelyke belasting gelê word op alle seksies van die bevolking na hulle draagkrag en daar behoort nie net een enkele party belas te word nie. As men die kritiek hoor van die anderkant van die Huis, dan sou ’n mens dink, dat die Prowinsiale Rade niks verkeerd kan doen nie en nooit iets verkeerd gedoen het nie, dat hulle nooit geld verkeerd gespandeer het nie en dat hulle liggame is, wat in die hoëre regioene woon, waar geen foute gemaak kan word nie.

Hoe kom die edele lid aan die would regioene?

Nou dink ek, dat die toestand waar ons vandag in verkeer, nie verdedigbaar is nie, want die Prowinsiale Rade verkeer in moeilikhede, maar dit het ook dieselfde oorsake as waarom alle Regerings in moeilikhede is, nie alleen die Unie Regering en die Prowinsiale Rade nie, maar die Regering in alle dele van die wêreld is in moeilikhede. Ek erken dat dit so is, maar ek wil my posiesie omtrent die saak duidelik maak. Ek dink dit was in 1905 of 1906 dat in die Kaapprovinsie voorgestel werd om skoolrade in die lewe te roep. Ek het dit destyds bestry, tot die uiterste het ek dit bestry en gesê, dat dit verkeerd is om die skoolrade te set tussen die kinders en die kerk op die een kant en die Onderwys Departement an die anderkant. Die skoolrade het gekom, maar nou is hulle klaar. Die skoolrade verteenwoordig nie die ouers van die kind nie en hulle neem die mag van die ouers en die kerk weg. Later onder die Unie Parlement het ons die Prowinsiale Rade gekry en weer het ek daarteen gewees. Wat ook al die posiesie in die andere prowinsies is, ek weet dit dat die Prowinsiale Rade hier in die Kaapprowinsie geen reg van bestaan het nie. Ons het al die afdelingsrade en skoolrade, waarom dan nog weer die Prowinsiale Rade plaas tussen die skoolrade en die Unie Parlement? Om mag te kry, moes hulle één van twee dinge doen. Hulle moes die mag neem van die skoolrade of van die Unie Parlement. Daar bestaat nie plek vir die twee, vir die skool rade en die Prowinsiale Rade nie. Ek het beswaar teen die instelling van die Prowinsiale Rade van die begin af gehad, maar toe gesê, kyk hierso, ons moet ’n Prowinsiale Raad hê, om die dinge buite die politiek te hou. Die doel was, dat die affêres van die Prowinsiale Rade niks met die politiek te maak sou hê nie, die Prowinsiale Rade moes die politiek uit die raad weg hou. Nou sal elkeen moet erken, dat die Prowinsiale Rade die doel baie ver misgeloop het.

Waar is die politiek ingekom?

In die Kaapprovinsie, in die gebou in Queen Victoria-straat, daar het dit verkeerd gegaan. Ek sê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade hulle doel hopeloos misgeloop het. Een van die edele lede het gedurende hierdie debat gesê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade die broeikaste van politiek is en vandag sit hulle gif teen die Regering, teen die Goewerment en alles word gedoen op die lyne van politiek.

Selfs die Administrateur is ’n politieke agent.

Laat horn dit wees, ek sê, dat hulle verkeerd gegaan het, hopeloos verkeerd en hulle doel misgeloop het. Maar ek wil aantoon, dat die Prowinsiale Rade op finansieël gebied ook hopeloos verkeerd geloop het. Ek praat nou van die Kaapprovinsie, omdat ek daarmee beter bekend is. Toe die depressie al lank begin het en die Unie Parlement al oorgegaan was tot besuiniging, wat doen die Prowinsiale Rade toe? Hulle stryk ’n streep deur die skoolgeld en sê, dat die skoolgeld voortaan nie meer geëist sal word nie. Weet u, dat dit byna £100,000 per jaar beteken? Maar dit was nog nie genoeg nie. Hulle het ook heengegaan en gratis leerboeke verskaf, wat ’n verminderde inkomste van byna £800,000 beteken. Dus verminder die Prowinsiale Rade deur die twee dinge hulle inkomste met £180,000. Ek se, dat die ouers wat kan betaal, en wat ook wil betaal, moet vir die opvoeding van hulle kind betaal. Waarom moet die Staat betaal vir die opvoeding van die ryke man sê kind? En wat was die doel van die twee maatreëls? Net dit, dat hulle die mag wou sentraliseer in die Prowinsiale Rade. Nou betaal die Prowinsiale Rade vir alles en hulle het dus alle seggenskap; die ouers en die skoolkommissies is meteens morsdood gemaak. Wat is die skoolkommissies en skool rade anders dan ’n klomp kamerlinge? Hulle het gestreef na sentralisasie, maar het hulle meer gedoen? Op die vraag van die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) wie dan die werk moet doen van die onderwys, het ek geantwoord: die kerk. Op die kalvinistiese beginsels berus die eerste plig van opvoeding by die ouers en in die twede plaas by die kerk. Die kerk vorder ’n plegtige belofte van die kind, maar nou word die waarde van die belofte verminder, die kerk het nie meer die nodige seggenskap oor die opvoeding van die kind nie, want die het gekom aan die Prowinsiale Rade. Ek sê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade al die mag naar hulle getrek het, en die andere liggame beteken niks nie. Dit is verkeerd.

Wat voor een moet afgeskaf word?

Die Prowinsiale Rade, Ons moet die sentraliseer. Ek het aangetoon, dat die Prowinsiale Rade op finansieël gebied misgeloop het en die opvoeding uit die hande geneem het van liggame waar ek die sorg daarvoor baie graag tuis gebring sou sien. En wat die Kaapprovinsie betref—ek weet nie wat die posiesie van die andere Provinsies is nie—sou ek wil dat die sorg vir die opvoeding weer kom by die kerk en die plaselike liggame. Ek is daarvoor om heeltemal weg te doen met die Prowinsiale Rade en dit kan nog ’n tyd duur, maar hulle sal verdwyn. Van jaar tot jaar word die posiesie erger en ons hier kan daar niks op sê nie, as sake verkeerd gaan nie. Die Unie Parlement moet die geld vind en die Prowinsiale Rade spandeer dit sonder enig kontrôle van die Unie Parlement. Dis nie reg nie. Maar dan wil ek nog sê, dat die Grondwet die spandeer van geld aangemoedig het. Die het die Prowinsiale Rade die £ vir £ stelsel gegee en hulle aangemoedig om nog meer te spandeer. Dis ’n verkeerde beginsel en dit kan nie volgehou word nie, veral wat die Kaapprovinsie betref nie. Laat in die Regeringsbanke sit wie wil, dis onverskillig, maar ons sal terug moet gaan tot die toestande soos die vroeër was, dat die opvoeding in hande van die kerk was, en die plaaslike liggame en die sentralisasie van die Prowinsiale Rade wat enkel en alleen tot ellende gelei het, wegneem. Die ding is verkeerd gegaan. Na die Regering al lank die leus ingestel het en gesê: “stadig oor die klippe,” besuinig, toe kom die Prowinsiale Rade en skaf die skoolgelde af en gee die boeke gratis, en vandag word die edeleagbare die Minister van Finansies die verwyt gemaak, word hy beskuldig, dat hy die salarisse van die onderwysers wil verminder. Maar hoekom het die salarisse so geword, dat die edelagbare die Minister nou voorstel om die te verminder? Dis nie die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies se skuld nie. Die Prowinsiale Rade het dit gedoen op ’n tyd toe dit nie gedoen moes word nie. Hoe jammer vir die onderwysers. Maar wat die uniformiteit betref, so word die nie bereik nie onder Artiekel 2 hie. As ’n mens die berigte in die koerante moet glo, dan is die Kaapprovinsie alreeds van plan om die salarisse te verminder. Dus sal van uniformiteit geen sprake wees nie. Maar die fout sit nie by die Regering nie, nie by hierdie party nie. Die Prowinsiale Rade het sy doel mis geloop. As daar ’n voorstel gemaak word om die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaapprovinsie afteskaf—ek praat nie van die ander provinsies nie—want hulle het geen afdelingsrade, of skoolrade nie, maar as daar ’n voorstel gemaak word, om die Kaapse Prowinsiale Rade af te skaf, dan kan hulle seker daarvan wees, dat ek my stem daarvoor sal gee.

Wat sê die sentrale kantoor daarvan? Wie sal die plek inneem van die sentrale kantoor?

Die Superintendent van Onderwys. Dis die allerbeste stelsel van die wêreld en ek sê dit, dat ek met die grootste plesier sou sien as die onderwys toevertrou werd aan die Superintendent van Onderwys hier in die Kaap. Dan sal ons die regte ding doen. Ek sê, dat hoe eerder hoe beter die Prowinsiale Rade van die Kaap afgeskaf moet word. Daar word wel salarisse voorgestel deur die siviele dienskommissie, maar daar is nie uniformiteit nie, want die Prowinsiale Rade het die reg om die salarisse te wysig. Dis ’n onhoudbaar toestand volgens my beskeie mening. Andere edele lede het daar ook al op gewys, dat die onderwysers tussen die maksimum van die siviele dienskommissie en die mienimum van die Prowinsiale Rade hang. Dis nie reg nie. Ek het telegramme gekry nie alleen van die onderwysers van my kiesafdeling, maar ook van andere dele van die land en hulle het rede tot ontevredenheid. Wanneer die siviele dienskommissie die skale moet vasstel, neem dan die saak van die Prowinsiale Rade af, of anders gee die Prowinsiale Rade die saak heeltemal in hande. Dan sal hulle verantwoordelik wees. Ek moet erken die belastinge is hoog, ons kry swaar, maar deur die verskillende administrasies, die een administrasie oor die andereen, ontstaan ’n enorme vermeerdering van koste.

Dit lyk my toe dat die edele lid vir Wodehouse (de hr. Venter) ouer is as ek. Hy sê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade politieke liggame is en dat hulle hul doel heeltemal gemis het en dat hul saake van die politieke sienswyse beskou. Onthou die edele lid dan nie, dat een van die eerste groot manne in Suid-Afrika, wat geraadpleeg was hoe die verkiesings vir die prowinsiale rade moes plaasvind, Generaal Botha was en sy antwoord was “kies hul op dieselfde manier as vir die Parlement.” En ek sê derhalwe dat as politiek ingebring was, dan was dit op advies van Generaal Botha. En die administrateurs, as hulle aangestel moes word, dan werd hul deur die Regering aangestel, en die Regering het Sappe, lede van dieselfde politieke sienswyse as hulself geraadpleeg, en as daar ’n man was wat reguit gepraat het oor die politieke posiesie van die land, dan werd hy dadelik uitgeset. Hoe kan my edele vriend dan onder die indruk wees, dat dit die skuld was van die Prowinsiale Rade? Dit is deur die Unie Regering gedaan, en ek wil net sê, dat die Regering op sy teenwoordige stadium ’n regering is wat deur agitasie gedryf word, deur die ene agitasie agter die ander, en ek sê, dat die rapport van die prowinsiale finansies kommissie absoluut daaruit gebroei is. Dit was ’n agitasie, wat aangevang was deur die kamers van koophandel en moontlikerwyse later deur die kamer van mynwese, dat daar in ’n ander rigting gehandel moes word in verband met die belastings van die land; ek het geskrik toe ek gesien het wie die lede was van die kommissie. Wat ek graag sou gesien het en wat ek seker is, dat die edele lid vir Wodehouse (de hr. Venter) ook graag sou gesien het was dat daar ’n boere lid van die kommissie gewees was, ’n man van gesonde verstand, selfs al sou hy sy naam nie kan skryf nie. Ek sê, dat die rapport van die kommissie indruis teen die belange van die platteland in die algemeen. Ek sal by voorheeld ’n paar uittreksels lees uit die verslag van die Superintendent van Onderwys, om die toestande min of meer onder die oog te breng in verband met onderwys, en my edele vriende aan die anderkant van die Huis, of hul boere is of nie, sal insien wat die posiesie is—

“The uncertainty of the situation”—presies, die Prowinsiale Rade moet wag totdat die Provinsiale Relasies Wetsontwerp deur die Parlement is om te sien wat hul kan doen. Hul moet altyd wag om te sien wat hul base hul gaat gee. Dan gaat die verslag verder—

En so gaat die skrikwekkende toestand verder—

Wat sê my edele vriend daaroor?

Hulle wil die arme blanke nie wegneem—

Maar wat sê die rapport hier van die Prowinsiale Finansies Kommissie? Plaas skole, wat minder as twintig leerlinge het, sal afgeskaf word. Die ongelukkige boer deur die hele land heen, in die Vrystaat, in die Transvaal, in die Noord Westelike Kaap en deur die hele land heen is ’n haglike toestand; in die Middelandse distrikte is die bevolking werklik verminder, en die vee het werklik verminder en nou sê die rapport van die Prowinsiale Kommissie, dat as ’n plaasskool minder dan twintig kinders het, dan moet hy afgeskaf word.

Niemand is vir daardie rapport nie.

Nee, ek sê, dis altyd die eene agitasie agter die ander; die Regering sê: “Ja, laat ons die arme boer maar belas selfs al is dit op die vermeerderde waarde van sy vee.” Die boer kan nie deputasies stuur nie, tensy hy loop; die spoorweg tariewe is te hoog en hy het nie koerante wat sy saak vir horn sal opvat nie. Maar die Regering sê: “dit kom daar nie op aan nie, ons sal horn belas.”

Hy het baie koerante.

Die agitasie gaat aan en my edele vriend weet, dat door die Kaapse Kamers van Koophandel daar ’n besluit geneem was, dat hul ’n definitiewe versekering van elke kandidaat vir die Prowinsiale Raad wil hê, dat hy instem met die hoof konklusies van die Prowinsiale Finansies Kommissie, vernamelik in verband met die bronne van inkomste, wat geskik is vir die Prowinsiale Rade—en wat is dit anders dan ’n grond belasting? En ek wil weet, hoe die edele lid vir Wodehouse (de hr. Venter) homself gaan gedra in verband met die belasting? Is hy dan nie ’n lid van die Suid Afrikaanse Party nie en was hy dan nie op die kongres van die party nie, en is hy dan nie bekend met die sterke houding wat hul daar opgeneem het nie? Maar ek wil ’n voorspelling maak—so seker as die son buitekant skyn, so seker sal agter die volgende verkiesings ’n grondbelasting voorgebring word—

Nee, daardie eier is buitekant die nes.

Grondbelasting is nog nie so sleg nie as onteiening van grond.

Dis natuurlik net as die Suid-Afrikaanse Party weer aan die bewind van sake kom.

En dis ontmoontlik.

Ek is baie bly om die edelagbare die Minister vir Onderwys hier te sien. Dis ’n eienaardige houding wat hy in verband met hierdie kwessie opneem. Kort gelede het hy op Volksrust verklaar, dat die grondwet nie toelaat dat die prowinsies die myne sal belas nie. Ek glo ek het die Reuter telegram hier. Dis ongelukkig in Engels, maar ek sal dit lees. Dit kom van Volksrust—

Ja, maar dis net voor die eleksies.

En daar is nog iets wat meer buitegewoon is. Ek het altyd met gretigheid die besluite van die Suid-Afrikaanse Party kongresse gelees, en die Minister van Onderwys het op die laaste kongres gesê, dat die belasting op die vermeerderde waarde van vee van die boer onbillik was. Hy het gesê, dat die Minister van Finansies in Engeland was, maar wanneer hy terug was dan sou hy die kwessie met hom bespreek. En die arme verteenwoordigers van die Suid-Afrikaanse Party was daarmee tevrede. Maar hy het verder gegaan; hy het gesê, dat die tabaksbelasting ook onbillik was.

Nee, ek het dit nie gesê.

Wel, ek kan net sê, dat ek die notule nie in die Burger gelees het nie, maar in die Argus. Nou hoor ons hier baie klagtes oor die onkoste van die Prowinsiale Rade, maar een ding is seker en dis dit, dat as ons die state en die syfers van die Prowinsiale Rade nagaan en ons vergelyk dit met die state en die syfers van die Unie Regering, dan sal ons vind, dat die posiesie veel meer skrikwekkend is, wat betref die posiesie van die Unie, dan van die Prowinsiale Rade. Vanaf 1913 het die uitgawe van die Unie van dertien miljoen tot ag-en-twintig miljoen vermeerder en die van die Prowinsiale Rade van drie miljoen tot ag miljoen. En dis in verband met onderwys en ek glo dat ons met vrymoedigheid kan sê, dat ons meer kan uitgee in die belang van onderwys en ons sal blymoedig onse belastings betaal daarvoor. Maar ek vra, is daar enige rekening gehou met die posiesie van onderwysers wat hulle tyd en byna hulle hele lewe opoffer op die platteland, word hul nie altyd op die mees stiefmoederlike manier behandel nie? Word daar rekening gehou met die ongemakke en die verskriklike huisvesting wat hul kry—weg van die spoorweg, weg van die trams, weg van maag en vriend. Hulle huisvesting is van die armste. Hulle omgewing dikwels onhoudbaar. Maar hul kry nie die minste konsiderasie nie. Hier het ons die geval, dat die Administrateur van die Kaap kla, dat soms jong onderwysers, soms onbevoegd, probeer om ’n klas van vyftig te lei, en nou word nog voorgestel om plaasskole af te skaf. As daar nie genoeg skole in Kaapstad is nie, dan kan die kinders tog nog soontoe gaan, dit kom daar nie op aan nie hoe vol hul is. Maar die kinders van die platteland moet maar rond loop sonder onderwys en dan hoor ons nog, dat daar teveel geld uitgegee word op hulle onderwys, en dat daar inkorting moet plaasvind. Dan is daar nog ’n aanbeveling gemaak deur die Prowinsiale Finansies Kommissie. Hulle wil met ’n enkele pennestreek die subsidies afskaf, wat nou gemaak word vir die uitroeiïng van ongedierte. Ek wonder wat die houding van my edele vriend die lid vir Wodehouse (de hr. Venter) op die saak sal wees?

Die kommissie het niks te doen met jakkals nie.

Nee, die kommissie ken nie die jakkals nie. Dit spyt my dat my edele vriend nie getuienis gegee het nie voor die kommissie die rapport gelees het nie. Laat ons nagaan, wat die skade is wat deur die ongedierte veroorsaak is. Op die begroting van die Kaapse Prowinsiale Raad vir 1922-’23 werd dit voorgestel om £25,000 te besteë vir die uitroeiïng van ongedierte. Dit beteken die uitroeiïng van ongeveer 50,000 jakkalse. Laat ons kyk wat die sensus department sê. In 1922’23 alleen het die jakkalse 252,000 skape doodgemaak.

Wat het hierdie Wetsontwerp met skape te doen?

Dit beteken, dat as daardie jakkalse nie doodgemaak was, dan sou hul 500,000 skape verniel het.

Maar die kommissie weet nie wat jakkalse is nie.

Daar is skrikwekkende toestande veroorsaak deur die ongedierte. As ons net sover kan kom, ek sê nie dat ons ’n ekstra lening moet hê nie, die 10s. per stuk is genoeg, maar as ons sover kan kom dat ons 27 miljoen skape los kan laat loop, dan sal ons baie vorder. My edele vriend sal met my instem, dat as ’n skaap vry kan loop, dat hy dan twee pond meer wol gee, en dit sou dan beteken dat ons 54 miljoen meer pond wol van die skape sou kry, en teen twintig dubbeltjes per pond weet ons wat die bedrag sou wees. Maar die Prowinsiale Finansies Kommissie stel voor dat dit afgeskaf sal word. Die belarge van die boere kom daar klaarblykelik glad nie op aan nie. Maar ons het nou nog iets anders hier, die rapport van die Departement van Landbou, en in dié rapport siet ons hoe skrikwekkend die toestande in verband met die verliese van vee is, en hoe haglik die posiesie van die boer is. Maar tog hoor ons hier in die Huis en elders voortdurend die geroep cor die arme myne en voortdurend word ons vertel, dat ons die myne wens te bestraf. Die syfers is deur die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) uitgelees, en ook deur die lid vir Somerset (de hr. A. P. J. Fourie). As ons die verslag van die Kommissaris vir Binnelandse Inkomste nagaan, dan sal ons sien dat die ontvangste van die myne van 10 tot 15 persent hoër is as die ontvangste van die boere.

Nee, dis mos veel meer.

Ek vind in die Cape Times van 11 Maart i.l. ’n artiekel oor “Transvaal Mines Returns.” Ek sal nie alles voorlees nie, maar tog waar dit gaat oor “estimated profits,” geraamde profyte. Daar vind ons “City Deep, £61,000; Crown Mines, £90,000; New Modderfontein, op 111,000 ton, wat gemaal is, £139,000,” en so gaat dit aan met die profyte op al die myne. Maar ek wonder wat die profyte sal wees, as ons die boere in die algemeen neem en die Provinsiale Rade rapport gee tog nog aan die hand, dat daar groter belasting op die boer moet geleg word. Grondbelasting bestaat reeds; dit is opgeleg deur die Provinsiale Raad en deur die afdelingsraad en nou word voorgestel, dat dit nog verhoog sal word deur die Unie Regering. Die Kommissie gee dit aan die hand deur die Prowinsiale Raad rapport, en daar is fluisteringe, hoever die waar is weet ek nie, dat die skoolrade afgeskaf sal word. Ons verstaan, dat dit voorgestel sal word by die eersvolgende Provinsiale Rade sitting. As hierdie afskaffing van die skoolrade aangeneem word, dan sny ons die halsaar af van die boerebevolking teenoor die Departement. Al word dit miskien nie dadelik voorgestel nie, hy is nie dood nie en sal weer opkom. Die skoolrade het nog altoos geveg en opgetree in die belang van die platteland. Maar natuurlik dit geld hier die boer se belange, dit raak hulle syn nie, en dit kan met veiligheid aangetas word. Ek voorsien ’n armoedige toestand vir d(ie Provinsiale Rade as daardie voorstel aangeneem word.

In spite of the eulogies on Provincial Councils by hon. members, there is no doubt that if this Government wants to make itself a little more popular in the Transvaal it should bring in a Bill to abolish Provincial Councils. This may or may not be considered the right thing to do in the opinion of the representatives in this House, but it is a matter which is not a party matter so far as the Transvaal is concerned. I had the unique experience whilst paying my poll tax of meeting in the office of the Receiver of Inland Revenue, two Nationalists and one Labourite on the same occasion. There was a wonderful unanimity amongst us as to the necessity for the abolition of the Provincial Councils, and on that occasion, I think, the representative of the Labour Party, so far as his vocabulary of condemnatory adjectives went, beat us all. I am of opinion that if it were possible to take a plebescite of the people of the Transvaal, especially when it approaches the time for payment of that poll-tax and the additional income tax, there will be no question as to how that plebescite would go with regard to the question of the abolition of the Provincial Council. It has been stated that the stumbling-block in the way of a Bill to abolish Provincial Councils is the attitude of Natal and the Free State, but I submit that it cannot be held that the Act of Union is unalterable for all time. Clause 85, I think it is, of the Act of Union, laid it down that education shall be reserved to the Provincial Councils for five years or for such further period as Parliament shall determine. That may be taken as an indication that certain other matters can also be decided by Parliament, and other sections of the Act of Union may be altered as circumstances justify. This antagonism is not merely because the Provincial Council in the Transvaal is composed of representatives of any particular party or because of the irritating nature of the legislation passed by the majority section. The opinion amongst men who give these matters serious thought is that our machinery of government is too cumbersome and too expensive, and that some less expensive method of administering these provinces and the matters which the Provincial Councils deal with might easily be introduced. There is one matter that we who come from the Witwatersrand and represent the Witwatersrand constituencies must view with alarm that is the tendency in this House and elsewhere to attack the industry upon which so much of the prosperity of the country depends, and on which we as residents of that area are dependent upon for our livelihood. It is quite common to have suggestions put forward to the Ministry that they should add from time to time additional taxation to the mining industry. I have no brief for the industry as such, but I have a brief for myself and others who are compelled for their sins to live on the Witwatersrand area, and I submit this that anything that will tend to reduce the activities of that industry and to prevent further development is something which we must resent and look upon as alarming. Now, what I submit to the House is that we do not want suggestions coming to the Minister of Finance for increased taxation in any direction, whether that increased taxation be on the mining or any other industry or on the individual through his income tax. What we want is to have suggestions put forward as to decreased taxation, and, incidentally, decreased expenditure, because if there is going to be a decreased revenue that must be implied. It has been stated here, and we have had extracts given about the great dividends being made by various mines operating along the Witwatersrand, and I have at some considerable trouble worked out actually what these dividends on four or five of the best paying mines represent, and it will be interesting in view of the actual figures to know how many hon. members in this House who have been attacking the industry would be prepared to put their money in for the development of new mines under the same conditions. If we take four of what I consider to be the best dividend paying mines on the Witwatersrand—the Modderfontein, New Modder, Government Areas, and the Van Ryn Deep. The reasons I picked these four mines is that they have declared the highest dividends for the past year, and since they have commenced paying dividends there has been no break; they have paid dividends each year. If we take the Modderfontein, which is far and away the best paying mine on the Reef to-day, we find that the average dividend, taking the period during which they did not pay anything at the beginning when they were developing, the average dividend works out at 38 per cent., that is a big figure, and the men who have been fortunate to get their money into that mine are doing very well indeed. We now come to the New Modder—the average dividend is 26 per cent. for the period for which it has been paying dividend and for which the shareholders had their money in the concern awaiting the first dividend. Government Areas, out of which the Government and the State get a substantial revenue, also pays an average dividend of 26 per cent. From that we have a material drop, and we come to the Van Ryn Deep, which declared a dividend for this past year at 52½ per cent., but the average dividend received by the individual who put £100 into that property at the date of registration would be 9 per cent. I submit to hon. members that for the four best paying properties on the Rand that is not a very excessive dividend, the average of the four would be 25 per cent.; if from that 25 per cent. we take a percentage for the redemption of the capital then we find that the dividends for the four will come out in the region of 20 per cent. rather than 25 per cent. I know of certain money lenders on the Witwatersrand who would not hesitate to charge that rate of interest per month. Then we come to another mine, the Brakpan, which paid 42½ per cent. this year, but if we go back to the registration of that company the average dividend received by a man with £100 invested at the beginning comes out at about 9 per cent. then you have the City Deep averaging 82 per cent. and the Simmer and Jack which paid nothing last year, the mine on which so much of the prosperity of Germiston depends. It has averaged 6 per cent. throughout. There are other mines which do not show these cheerful returns. We have the case of the E.R.P.M. which hon. members ought to fully know by this time. Then take the Knight Central registered in 1895; it closed down at the beginning of this year. During that period it has paid one dividend of 5 per cent., and one dividend of 7½ per cent., and the shareholders have very little chance of getting their share capital back. The Simmer Deep, another big property, closed down in 1920, after fourteen years, they have paid nothing in the way of dividend, and the shareholders never got one penny of their capital back. The Simmer East, registered 1895, and closed down some few years back, never paid a dividend, and the shareholders lost the total capital, though that mine produced gold to the value of nearly £3,000,000. One could go through the history of many other mines, but I think these examples will suffice. The reason I emphasize this point is that I am anxious that as far as possible, in the interest of that area and in the interest of the company, controllers of capital should be attracted to come in and develop new mines in these areas. We have to-day, I think it is recorded in the Inland Revenue returns, an amount of about 96½ millions allowed by the Department as the mining capital for amortization, which does not include anything for the costs of the ground on which these mines are situated, if you take the 96½ millions only, reckon that, the dividends declared for the year come to 8½ millions, and if you take from that a modest amount of 2½ millions towards the redemption of that capital, you will find that the rate payable for the capital of the Witwatersrand Mines, not allowing anything for the ground on which they are situated, comes out very little over 6 per cent. I heard it stated on one occasion at least, that we have no necessity, or should have no necessity in this country to call upon the foreign financier, or for assistance from capitalistic groups to come and develop our mines, that we should do it ourselves. Again I wonder if many hon. members of this House are prepared to step into the breach and take the place of these capitalists on the prospects as quoted of a possible or even probable 6 per cent. The gamble is too great; it is too much like a horse-race where only one horse can win. Coming more closely to the Bill itself, I wonder did the Minister of Finance closely study Clause 2, for, in spite of the various subjects we have discussed in relation to this Bill —we have even had a reference to jackals —it seems to me the main bone of contention so far as the Bill is concerned, is centred in Clause 2—the question of teachers’ salaries. In the first section of the clause it says—

Down to that point it means that the salaries of all teachers in the service of any province at the commencement of the Act, and also of those who come in afterwards, shall be in accordance with the scale which will be decided upon. Down to line 36 it repeats that the salaries of new teachers shall be according to that scale. From line 36 down to the word “commencement” in line 42, we find that portions of this clause are withdrawn so far as the old teachers are concerned. The old teachers under this clause will still continue to get their salaries on the basis on which they were paid at the beginning of the Act. Then the closing words “unless the executive committee (that is the Provincial Council) shall otherwise direct,” restoring the powers that exist to-day, and those to line 51 provide for an all-round reduction in teachers drawing the higher rate of salaries if the financial condition of the province necessitates it. All that clause, I submit, means is that all new teachers entering the service of the Provincial Councils after the commencement of this Act shall be paid according to the scale laid down. That being so, I submit for the consideration of the Minister of Finance that he might draft a clause stating that from the commencement of this Act all teachers in any province shall be paid according to scale. If he does that he will remove this bone of contention. There is one point not dealt with which is 2 (b) which says that they may reduce the salaries of all teachers in any year owing to financial stringency. The Union Parliament is now making a new departure in regard to the teachers. Up to the present teachers have been in the employ of the respective Provincial Councils which have decided what scale will be paid, but now the Union Parliament steps in and says: “We bring in all new teachers under this scale of salaries, which we lay down as what they may receive.” Speaking from the teachers’ standpoint, a teacher is also entitled to come to the Government and say: “You having interfered and laid down a scale of salaries which we have to accede to, we have a right to ask that you say to the Provincial Councils that this is the scale which you shall pay.” The body that has decided the scale is, to my mind, the body which should be the final arbiter of any departure from that scale. Having drawn the Union Parliament in to fix these scales, and having brought the teachers under the Public Service Commission, it rests with this Parliament to say: “We fixed the scales and we also guarantee that you will receive that scale.” If the question of a financial stringency arises it is for this Parliament to say whether that stringency is sufficiently acute for that scale to be departed from. Having interfered in this matter, this Parliament should reserve the right to see that these scales are adhered to.

Ek is bly, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister in sy plek is. Daar is al baie gepraat oor die Finansiële Verhoudingswet wat ons nou voor ons het maar ek beskou dit nie as ’n Verhoudings Wetsontwerp nie, maar as ’n Belastings Wetsontwerp om belasting op die onderwysers te lê. Nou het die hoogedele die Eerste Minister hier gesê, dat die belastinge wat deur die Prowinsiale Raad van die Transvaal op die naturelle gelê is ’n straf is en dat die belasting op die myne gelê, ook ’n straf is. Ek wil aantoon, dat in al die twee gevalle dit nie so is nie. Die hoofbelasting gelê op die naturel is £2 10s. per jaar en as hy neëntig dae vir die boer werk, dan is dit £1 minder per jaar. Hy kry dan ’n vorm van die boer ingevul en die boer betaal die £1. Die opbrengs van die hutbelasting van £2 kom nie aan die provinsie nie, maar in die Unie Skatkis. Die provinsie het niks daarvan nie, alhoewel die Prowinsiale Raad nog omtrent £45,000 in naturelle onderwys bestee. Bodien lê hulle paaie aan, ens., wat deur die naturelle gebruik word. Die Prowinsiale Raad het billik gewees en ’n belasting van 10s. op die naturel gesit, maar nie op alle naturelle nie, maar alleen op die wat reeds onderhevig is aan Unie belasting. Dus het hulle die voorstel deurgesit en 10s. per naturel belas. Ek dink dis nie meer dan billik, dat die naturel bydra in die laste en dis nie waar nie, dat die naturel besonder uitgesoek is om te belas. Die bewys daarvan is, dat dieselfde belasting ook op die witman val. Die witman betaal £2 10s. en die naturel betaal ook £2 10s. Waar die naturel neëntig dae vir die boer werk, betaal hy maar £1 10s. Dus dis heeltemaal ’n billike en ’n regverdige belasting. Dis geen straf nie. En toe het die Unie gekom en die hele belasting opgehef. Die Hof het dit ultra vires verklaar en al die geld, wat die naturelle betaal het—dit was ’n som van £60,000—het die Prowinsiale Raad terug betaal. En nou wat die myne betref, die Prowinsiale Raad het die myne nie belas as myne nie, maar die inkomste, die profyte belas. Die belasbare inkome van die myne is £15,000,000 en die belasbare inkome van die boere is £3,500,000. Waar kom die onbillikheid in van die belasting van die myne? Verder is die Prowinsiale Raad beskuldig van verkwisting. Ek wil nie sê, dat die Prowinsiale Raad me wat het kon besuinig nie, maar nogtans is die geld goed bestee aan die onderwys van die land, aan die goeie opvoeding van die kinders en om al die kinders in staat te stel om die skool te besoek. Die myne het grote diwidende betaal, soos die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr, D. F. Malan) aangetoon het. Die swakkere myne, die sogenaamde laag graad myne, het 15 persent diwidende uitgekeer, die goed betalende myne tot 140 persent.

Dis nie waar nie.

Waar kom die onbillikheid in?

Waar kom die syfers vandaan?

Die syfers van die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) is nog nie teengespreek nie. Dis ’n feit, dat die myne hoë diwidende uitbetaal het. Nou het die edele lid vir Germiston (de hr. McAlister) aangekom met die myne wat nie betaal nie. Maar die is nie belas nie. Daar is alleen belasting gelê op profyte van die myne, nie op die myne self nie. Ek sê, as daar een nywerheid in Suid-Afrika is wat behoort by te dra tot die opvoeding van die kinders, dan is dit die goudmyne. Ons weet-, dat daar elke jaar honderde van vaders, wat in die myne werk, hulle lewe verloor deur myntering en dan sit die Prowinsiale Raad opgeskeep met duisende kinders, wat hulle moet opvoed. Dus dis nie meer as ’n plig dat die myne iets bydra tot opvoeding van kinders, wie se ouers aan myntering sterf. Nou kom ek weer terug tot die Wetsontwerp. Ek het aangetoon, dat dit nie ’n straf is wat gelê is op die naturelie en op die myne nie, maar hierdie Wetsontwerp lê ongetwyfeld ’n straf op onderwysers en ’n direkte straf. Die onderwysers het hulle plig gedoen in die opvoeding van die kinders en die Departement van Onderwys is prysenswaardig. Ek weet nie of die Regering enigiets teen die onderwysers het nie, omdat hulle hul plig so goed gedoen het, omdat hulle soveel seuns opgelei het tot die matrikulasie, wat nou nie werk kan vind nie en dat daarom die onderwysers moet gestraf word. Hulle het te good gewerk, teveel geleerde mense gemaak en dan moet hulle gestraf word. Nee, een van die laaste ding wat belas moet word is die onderwys. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het gesê, dat in sy opienie daar £400,000 besuinig kan word, dus word daar verwag, dat van die salarisse van die onderwysers in Suid-Afrika £400,000 kan afgaan. Ek dink dis onbillik, dis ’n straf. Ons behoort ons onderwysers goed te betaal. Ek weet, dat die edelagbare die Minister in moeilikheid is, maar hy moet tog nie net die onderwysers uitsoek om die besonder te belas nie. Ek wil my met alle vrymoedigheid aansluit by die amendement van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) en die amendement steun as dit tot stemming kom.

Daar is reeds so baie oor die Wetsontwerp gesê, dat dit moeilik is om nog iets te sê, maar as mens die Ontwerp goed beskou, dan voel ons verplig om iets te sê. Ek sien dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies baie suur kyk.

Nee, ek is net baie moeg.

Ja, die edelagbare die Minister sal seker nog meer moeg wees. Eers het die edelagbare die Minister ingekom en hy het ons vee belas, toe kom hy en hy belas ons tabak, toe die medisyne, maar nou kom hy en hy belas die teerste van alles, hy belas ons kinders, hy belas ons bloed.

Nee, hoe kom die edele lid daaraan?

En dan sê die edelagbare die Minister, dat hy moeg is. Ons is nie moeg as iemand ons kinders kom aanraak nie. Ons is baie moeg van die Regering, maar ons moet maar aangaan. Ek sê, dat die edelaglbare die Minister nou gekom het en ons kinders aangeraak het en ons kan nou nie stil bly nie. Die edelagbare die Minister kom en hy sê: “Daar moet besnoei word,” maar die Prowinsiale Raad is besig ons op allerhande maniere te belas. Ek het ’n telegram hier van die kamer van koophandel van Mosselbaai en hul sê, dat die Prowinsiale Raad teveel verkwis en die Baxter-rapport moet aangeneem word. Die edelagbare die Minister sê, dat die Prowinsiale Raad besnoei moet word. Ek wil nou die edelagbare die Minister iets vra: as ons die skoolraad iets vra, dan sê hul “nee,” hul kan nie doen wat ons vra, Sir Frederic de Waal kan nie die geld gee nie, want die Regering besnoei hom teveel.” Wat gaat die Regering nou maak? As ons by die edelagbare die Minister vir Irrigasie kom en ons vra hom om enig ding dan sê hy: “Nee, daar is nie geld nie,” maar daar is baie geld vir ander dinge wat nie so nodig is nie; en nou kom hul en sê daar is nie geld vir ons kinders, nou moet ons daar besnoei. Ek sê, dat daar geld moet wees vir die onderwys van ons kinders, want as ons kinders na die Spoorweg Departement gaan om werk te kry, dan kan hulle niks kry as hul nie Standaard 6 gepasseer het nie. En nou sê die Baxter-rapport, dat op plaasskole moet daar 20 kinders wees in plaas van 10. Moet die ander skole dan toemaak?

Ons het nie die Baxter-rapport hier nie.

Ja, ek weet, maar edele lede probeer nou om dit bespotlik te maak. Ons hoor so baie oor die myne, en edele lede aan die anderkant word baie seer as die myne aangeraak word. Hoekom bring die Regering nie ’n Wet in dat die boere nie belas kan word nie net soas die myne? Nee, hul is net allenig besorg oor hul troetel kind—die myne. Die myne en die kamers van koophandel is hul troetel kinders. Dis hulle wat die Regering op die kussing hou.

Wie het so gesê?

Ek weet dat dit die waarheid is. Ek het nog baie te sê, maar die tyd is kort; lede op die regeringsbanke is teen die Wet, dit weet ek, maar hul stem maar net slaafs met die Regering saam.

I want to say at the beginning that I am not in favour of the Baxter Report, and I have no particular love for the Bill now before the House. It seems to me to be devised by economic experts who are always wanting to» economise at someone else’s expense. The Bill which is before the House now, seems to me to be an attempt on the part of the Government to go as far as they can in the direction of putting into operation the Baxter Report without alienating public opinion or sacrificing too many votes. There is something decidedly distasteful about men in a privileged position, who are able to count their salaries in thousands, economising on the salary of people whose income is counted in hundreds, and who are forced, in these conditions, to live at a lower standard of life. The hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon), in his very illuminating speech, said that the teaching profession, being an honourable profession, those engaged in it should do their work because of the honour of the work. The unfortunate thing is that these men and women have to live by their profession. They have ambitions and tastes, just as others have, and have a right to satisfy them. I might say that the hon. member loves his work, and takes an interest in it, is enthusiastic about it, but he also gets something out of it. So far as I can see, there is a level below which no member of a profession should be expected to go, so far as his income is concerned. The members of the honourable profession of teachers have a duty to the children, and the future of the country, and they certainly should have a standard of pay below which we should not expect them to go. If the teaching profession is an honourable profession, it should be put in an honourable position, the members should be treated with respect by men who claim to be honourable gentlemen. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said that the intention was to have a uniform scale laid down, but if any Provincial Council was unable to find money for that scale, the scale was to be made lower in that province. I think that was the substance of the remarks he made. I want to ask if the hon. member calls that uniformity? What a teacher may receive this year he may not receive next year, owing to financial stringency, yet the hon. member says that the Bill makes provision for uniformity, and the standardisation of salaries. The question is, how are they going to get uniformity? The Provincial Council may not raise the salaries of the teachers, nor can they interfere with their present status. I understand also that this Bill does not refer particularly to the present teachers, but only refers to new entrants. To get uniformity I suppose it is the intention of the Government to put it in the hands of the Provincial Council to lower the rates. It seems to me it is the only way out of it, since you cannot get uniformity if you cannot raise the salaries, except by lowering them. The only possible way is therefore to lower the rates in certain provinces in order to bring about uniformity and standardisation. The Government is putting the odium on the Provincial Councils in asking them to carry out this very objectionable clause, and I ask, is there any better way of killing the Provincial Council than by asking them to carry out this objectionable clause. Now the right hon. the Prime Minister said it would be impossible for the Union Government to deal with all the legislation that would come before the House with the abolition of the Provincial Councils. If the Provincial Councils were abolished this Parliament would have such a formidable amount of work that it would not be able to carry on without a large increase of time being given to that work. That, I understand, is the substance of the Prime Minister’s remarks. In my opinion the Provincial Councils are here to stay, as a form of administration in this country, and the question is, how to make the best use of the present system. In many respects. I believe, they can be improved, but we shall never improve them by giving them tasks so objectionable nor by restricting them as we do. What is the real object of this standardisation of the emoluments of teachers: is it primarily to create a position which will eliminate competition? It has been generally stated in this House that such is the case, and no one objects in so far as that is the object it would be satisfactory, but is it the real reason? No. As far as I can see the real reason is that teachers’ salaries are to be standardised in order to economise. The real reason is not to eliminate competition, but the object is the saving of money within the provinces; to save the pockets of those poor people who are earning thousands of pounds, and putting taxation on teachers by reducing their salaries. Why was this scheme not tackled some years ago when the provincial finances were not as they are to-day. We have here the old, old story. It is another case of drift, in which the Government fails to act until it finds itself in a difficult position so far as its finances are concerned. There has been nothing done to improve Provincial Councils, nor to make satisfactory relations with the Provincial Councils until we get into this impossible financial position. When things change, and money becomes tight, a commission is appointed with one though in its mind —“We are in a difficult financial position, and we have got to get out of it”; and I want to put it to this House, when that one thought is in the mind of a commission, what is that commission likely to find? It is likely to find that we are in a difficult financial position, and we have to get out of it, and the easiest way out for the moment is to reduce the salaries of those State servants who, according to the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon), are doing a very noble work in this country. The one thought has been to cut down; that has been the idea of this commission, and they immediately inclined to the reduction of the teachers’ salaries. I want to say a word for the Transvaal. A good word has been said on behalf of the Cape. When I come to examine the record of advance in the Transvaal for the past twenty years, I think it could very reasonably be said that you have no such advance in educational work in any part of the world as you have had in the Transvaal for the last twenty years. Most hon. members who have known that province will remember the chaotic state in which education was immediately after the Boer war. My experience as a member of the school board and chairman of school committees, for many years, brings back to my mind the condition of education in the country places. I recall the scarcity of schools, and the difficulties of getting children to school. Some of the children were travelling most of the day. I remember boys and girls of 16 and 17 years of age in the second standard, and they had to come, in some cases, by goods train or ox waggon, such distances that only two hours of the day were spent in school, and the rest was spent in travelling. In 1907 we had 503 schools in the Transvaal and 37,500 children attending them; in 1922 we had 1,187 schools and 131,500 children attending them. In these years we have had to more than double the number of schools in the Transvaal, and we have had to place them in such centres that they would be convenient for all the children within certain areas to attend. Now my experience in the country brought home to me that there was just a danger of developing our schools in the towns at the expense of those in the country. We had to make enormous strides in the country districts in order to cope with the difficulties of education. That has accounted for the abnormality of expenditure during the past few years, and we have been building the foundations of our educational systems; we have been laying down what is to be of use for the future in this country, and to-day we are charged, in laying that foundation of education, with being extravagant. I know mistakes have been made; even the Union Government makes mistakes from time to time, and one may reasonably expect a body like the Transvaal Provincial Council, in doing a work like this, to make a mistake here and there. But, taking it altogether, one of the finest pieces of work for education that has ever been done in any country has been done in the Transvaal during the last four years while building up that system. We were importing our teachers; to-day we are training our teachers, indigenous to the soil of this country, and a very fine type of teacher, too. We know that in this country we can turn out, and are turning out, teachers which are second to none in any part of the world. And, looking at it from this point of view, this laying of the foundation of our educational system was a costly thing, but it had to be done. We have lifted education out of the chaotic condition in which we found it at the time of the Boer War to what it is now, and at a reasonable cost under all the circumstances. Yet we are charged to-day with being extravagant! If we look at this question in the right way I think we shall say that in laying the foundations of our educational system in this country, even though it may have been, in its initial stages, an expensive undertaking, it is one of those reproductive works which is going to hand a legacy to the children of this country which will be of great value in years to come. There is just another matter which I want to deal with. It is a personal opinion and I am not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself, but I am so interested in the question of education that personally I have no objection to taxation for educational purposes. I realize that the cost of education has been borne by the people, and I believe that education should be borne by the State, and that taxation should be levied on the people by direct methods for this purpose. I have no objection in the Transvaal, to the taxes being collected for educational purposes, but I have an objection to the paying of fees. I do not believe in snobbery in education, and I think that the fee-paying system certainly does create snobbery in education. It has a tendency to divide up the classes, and to rule out very many deserving brainy children of the working classes. I know a little of the difficulties in Europe, with regard to gaining education, and the difficulties are far more real to me than, perhaps, they would be to many in this country. But we have a good system of education, and we ought to see that it is not starved. I believe we have got now the foundations of an excellent teaching staff in this country, and we ought to see that our staff is paid good rates, and that they are so paid that the best brains of the country will be attracted to that form of State service. I do not hold that the best brains of the country should become politicians. The best brains of the country should go into this work of teaching, and, as far as we can, we ought to make it so attractive, that they will go into it, and render to the State an honourable service—a service which will be of value for all time. I am against the measure which is before the House. I think it is unnecessarily interfering with the prerogatives of the Provincial Councils, and I think it is striking a blow at, and is a breach of faith with, the teachers of the various provinces. We have no right to break faith with the teachers of the provinces, and we are breaking faith with them if we take steps to lower their salaries, we shall be lowering the standard of efficiency in the profession in this country.

What the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) has said has simply been a string of platitudes as regards education. The charge of breach of faith is one which in its essence would be most extraordinarily serious if it were true, and I feel it difficult to give a vote without saying something on the matter. The first thing that strikes me is that this particular demonstration against the Bill has been confined very largely to a certain group of teachers who were in negotiation with the Public Service Commission. I cannot help feeling that those gentlemen have left out of sight and have entirely forgotten the present condition of the country, and the condition of the Provincial Councils’ finances. I was rather fascinated to find that the same gentlemen have been the protagonists of two utterly diverted principles during the course of the last few months. I had the pleasure, a short time ago, of hearing a certain Mr. Vaughan, a gentleman of very high talent, who has inspired, initiated and controlled the considerable agitation against this Bill. I had the pleasure of hearing him address a women’s suffrage meeting on the vexed question of whether the South African Party deserves support in the Provincial Council because the brutal Provincial Council had raised certain fees; the increases were small but serious. Mr. Vaughan put it with considerable eloquence that it was the sacred duty of anybody whose fees were raised to refuse to pay those fees. In other words, he said that under no circumstances was there to be increased taxation on that particular line. But we come to the potentialities of that situation, and it is said that as it is proposed that no further sums of money must be received by the Provincial Council on that point, and that point and that these things must be strongly objected to. The question of the possible insolvency of the Provincial Council is simply the other side of the shield, and there one gets a curious impasse in which hon. members attacking this Bill invariably find themselves. Those hon. members spend most of their spare time putting motions for new railways. They support every form of State expenditure, and they complain under expenditure at every angle and turn. It is because of that weakness in the position of the teachers that I for one do not propose to pay any serious attention to the multiplied representations by teachers in my constituency and elsewhere. I for one am persuaded that they could only charge the Government with a breach of faith accurately if they make two assumptions. The first is this: that every consideration or proposition put by them in the process of argument before the Public Service Commission is not a basis for further discussion, but is a final proposition which forms a final and irrevocable basis binding on the State. That assumption is absurd, and it is on the basis of that assumption that there could be no allegation of breach of faith. We have had to cut down a good many salaries in this House during the last few years. These things have been sheer necessity as everybody, except the vote-catching rabble, knows perfectly well. They have had to be done to prevent us from slipping down the slope of national bankruptcy, and it is perfectly reasonable that if the position becomes untenable in the provinces then the Provincial Council should make the necessary reducations. I am certain that the teaching profession will never slip back into the condition it was years ago when it was shockingly paid, but to-day concrete examples Could be given where headmasters in country schools are in receipt of salaries which are £100 and £200 more than that of the local magistrate.

Where are these places?

The teachers have most difficult positions to fill, but they have things which a hard-working artisan and labourer would give a great deal to have, and one of these things is the leisure they get.

The children want holidays.

With that tremendous capacity for hitting on the right point, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) says the children want holidays, but the teachers benefit by these conditions, which are perfectly reasonable. While I trust they will never slip back to the horribly ill-paid conditions in years gone by. I feel that they should face this temporary setback as every industry in South Africa, and every business man has had to face it, that they will face it as men and as brothers. We look to them in South Africa to give us a high professional standard of responsibility, and while sympathising with the teachers I deplore the intellectual dispute as to the rights and wrongs of this Bill, a dispute which has been carried on by lesser intellects in the platitudinous manner that has been so evident.

We have just listened to the sort of speech that we expect from such hon. members as the member for Tembuland. They were born with silver spoons in their mouths, or have struck it lucky in their lives, and they have the effrontery to say that the teachers are overpaid and should gratefully accept reductions of salaries. I want to say in regard to this particular question the moment the Commission was appointed it became somewhat open to suspicion. The members were not supporters of the Provincial Council system, and from that point of view I have to criticize the actual personnel of the Commission. It has been stated, and without any attempt of denial, that the members were of a particular political profession and they were opponents of the Provincial Council system, and if it could be proved by the Minister that there were some members supporters of the system I may say that as far as I am concerned the report would be far more valuable from my point of view than it is at the present time. [An Hon. Member: “Their finding was on the evidence.”] We know from the Martial Law Commission what can happen in a matter of evidence, people can interpret it somewhat differently. I myself have great doubt about the personnel of the Commission which was nominated, as I know that they were prejudiced from the start. Mr. Duncan Baxter is not a person I should consider who should be chairman of an impartial commission of that kind. In my opinion he could not be impartial, as he was prejudiced against the Provincial Council system, and we know what power and authority the chairman of such a commission can have. I want to know with regard to the Cape Province if the Government is of opinion that this report is fair and unprejudiced? If it is I want to know why they did not get rid of the services of the Cape Administrator, as from the report it would appear that the Cape Administrator was Hopelessly incompetent. If that was so why did they retain his services and reappoint him for a further period? If the Cape Administrator was_ incompetent why did they not get rid of him? With regard to education, I want to deal with one or two vital matters. I want to know if the Director of Education of the Cape is as capable a person as he is supposed to be? I remember when he came from the Free State we were told he was a man of very high standing from an academic and from an administrative point of view. I do not know how many hon. members have read the report of the commission, and if they have, they will come to the conclusion that we are not living in a civilized country. Here there are hundreds of very wealthy people, and yet there are statements in this report that there are thousands of children, without school accommodation, and hospital accommodation is hopelessly inadequate. This is a statement made by the Superintendent-General of Education. I do not know of any other civilized country which cannot afford to educate its children. Here is a country which says it cannot afford to educate its children. I am sorry for South Africa. What does Dr. Viljoen say? He is not a member of the Labour Party or of the Nationalist Party; I do not know whether he is in favour of the pact, and I suppose he is a faithful and obedient servant of the South African Party. I do not want to do him an injustice. [An. Hon. Member: “You are doing so.”] He is supposed to have no political opinions, but I want to emphasize the fact that he does not belong to my Party, that he is not a Labour man or a Nationalist. He says on page 1 of his report—

That from educational point of view does not say much for South Africa. Further on page 4 he speaks about the number of pupils—

And here this hon. House has discussed for some days whether they could afford to pay the teachers a decent salary, and whether they could afford to go on with the education of their children.

Can the hon. member tell us where to get the money?

Here we have got what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) calls an “orthodox man” asking where the Government can get the money. Hon. members know perfectly well that if a war broke out to-morrow in South Africa—no matter of what sort, it might be industrial or native, in Europe, France or the Argentine, money would be forthcoming. Money is credit, and hon. members know perfectly well that the credit of this or any other country is always good for war purposes. The productive capacity of a country is the fountain from which money is drawn for war purposes, that is to say, you take your real credit, your real wealth, your production, for war purposes and put it in pawn. I say that the argument that there is no money absolutely goes by the board, and that every time a war breaks out you will have money available for destructive purposes. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Buchanan), I have no doubt, does not grasp what I am trying to get at. I have not had the advantage of a college education, and I am not a K.C., but I know that hon. members of this House cannot stand up and contradict me when I say that the credit of any country is always good enough for war purposes, and why should it not be good enough for peace purposes?

I asked a simple question and I have not had an answer.

A simple question from a simple man.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) replied to the comparison of the Minister of the Interior with regard to the average cost of education, and he holds, as I do, that it is not a fair comparison unless you take all the children in this country. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out that in Australia you have to take in a class of child who, to all intents and purposes, is comparable to the coloured child here; they are living in inaccessible places and undeveloped, and, therefore, you must make your average cost spread over all the children. It is an unfair comparison to make, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior whether it was fair to make a comparison with Australia, where they have one official language and when we have two.

We have what?

Two official languages and there they have one. Every hon. member knows we do not begrudge the money, but we must take into consideration the fact that the conditions are different. One does not know what difference it makes, but the fact of the two languages will greatly enhance the cost.

The hon. member can take Canada, and the comparison will be the same.

Apart from that, in Australia, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out, the greater part of your population is concentrated in large towns.

Not in Natal, the proportion is just the same.

I am not speaking of individual provinces.

But I am.

I am speaking of the Union as a whole. In Australia you have a system of education which is fairly efficient; they have probably worked hard for several years to make that machine efficient, and to-day it is fairly efficient, but it should not be compared with the conditions in this country, where not many years ago one had the spectacle of thousands of children leaving school at Standard 4. These comparisons are very unfair; I think we should stick to South Africa, as far as possible, and if hon. members can prove to me that we are throwing money away on education, I will be quite content to agree that there is a necessity for investigation. I know perfectly well the real test is: Are you getting real value for the money? That is the only test, as far as I am concerned. Speaking of this report, I would like hon. members to read it. In conclusion, Dr. Viljoen points out in these words—

Some of these overpaid teachers are teaching over fifty children in one class. Is that a fair thing to do? To ask a teacher to teach over fifty children in one class, can it be done. I want to turn to the question of medical inspection of school children because it has an important bearing on whether the country is getting full value for its money or not. Hon. members who were with me in the Cape Provincial Council will remember that in 1917 a commission was appointed to go into the question of the medical inspection of school children, and Dr. Leipoldt, from the Transvaal, came down and gave some valuable assistance with regard to the Cape Province. Every authority in the world, and, incidentally, there was medical inspections of school children on the continent in 1873, agrees that unless the children are periodically inspected, unless certain defects are removed, adenoids, bad teeth, and so on, that these children do not get the benefit of the money spent on their education. That is to say, it is money wasted. Now if the commission was going into the question at all, why did it not go into the question of how much money is wasted by trying to put education into children who were unfit to absorb it. The commission has not touched that aspect of the case. Why? Because it would cost more money. They would have to spend money to medically inspect the school children, and what do the medical inspectors say of the Cape? We have two highly qualified doctors from England, Dr. Vaughan Brown, and a lady doctor, Dr. Elsie Chubb, who say in their report—

The Cape Province has a school population of 297,666 children, practically 300,000. We throw £200,000 into the mud trying to put up an elevator at Durban, but here you have two medical officers, one a man and the other a woman, and four nurses carrying out medical work in connection with 300,000 children. I do not think it can be done. They go on to another paragraph dealing with the medical inspection of school children. They say—

This is not a very nice subject, but girls cannot imbibe education unless they are in good health. The report further states that in some of the schools 50 per cent. of the children had unclean heads and bodies. These children are physically handicapped and cannot receive the benefit of the money you are spending on education. With regard to teeth, the report says more than 80 per cent. of the school children suffer from dental caries, which is by far the most prevalent disease among school children and interferes with the proper working of body and the proper functioning of brain. The report also says—

With regard to eyes, I remember when I went through one of the schools in the Peninsula, it was pointed out to me that the school was very badly designed, with the result that if the children were not changed in their positions periodically, in a large percentage of cases their eyesight would be permanently damaged. In a certain school they found three children suffering from inflammation of the eyes, and in one case one child became permanently blind. Hon. members may know that on the Continent and in England there are school clinics. What is done is, the child is taken and treated if the parents cannot afford to do it. This report proves what I have said, that if we are wasting money on education how much has been wasted in neglecting the health of the children. It has been said that we have no money in the country, but, judging from the official return of the Commissioner for Ireland Revenue, it seems that in spite of bad times there are many people who are doing well. Today, in spite of the bad times, you have 482 individuals enjoying incomes between £2,000 and £2,500. These individuals derive their incomes from industry and from labour, and in regard to these individuals who draw such huge profits from the industry of the working people it is but an act of common justice to see that the children of the common people are looked after. Sixty-nine people receive an income of £5,000, and yet the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Buchanan) and others get up here and say there is no money, and yet you have a large number of individuals receiving large sums of money like these. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) stated in regard to the teachers that what was wanted in the teaching profession was the institution of a system of plums for the profession. That is to say you have your cycle-track theory, the competitive idea, in which you have a large number of persons working in the same avocation, but there are plums to be offered. This system of plums is similar to that of bursaries, which should not be permitted. Looking at this subject generally, the proper way is to give your teachers some security of tenure like you do your public servants. Give them a promise that they will be treated on the same basis as the public servants. If it is true that when the Provincial Council again meets the Administrator is going to save money by reducing the salaries of teachers, then I say the day that is done there will be a deliberate breach of faith as far as the Government is concerned. If the scheme of the Administrator goes through to bring about the reductions of teachers’ salaries then it will be a betrayal of the best interests of the country. For these reasons I cannot support the Bill.

Ek denk, dat die vorige spreker voortdurend in ’n maalstroom was. Hy wou die gallerye se mense sekere dinge wysmaak, b.v. dat die Regering en die Sap die Baxter-rapport aangeneem het wat die geval nie is nie. Maar so word onjuiste dinge die wereld ingestuur en uitgebasuin. Ek stem in met die lede wat verklaar, dat die Provinsiale Rade broeineste van politiek en masjienes vir partystryd is. Transvaal ly swaar onder die belasings, wat die liggaam daar opgeleg het, en nog steeds opleg. Die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) het, as ek horn goed verstaan het, beweer dat die hoofbelasting net tien shillings is, terwyl dit £1 10s. vir ’n getroude man is, en op die ongetroude druk dit nog swaarder. Sekere mense het my vertel, hoe hulle hulle enigste koei moes verkoop om die geld vir daardie belasting in die hande te kry. En dan word die mense nog gedruk deur die afslaersbelasting. Elke ding, wat ’n mens na die mark of vendusie toe breng moet hy op betaal. So gaat dit nie, die publiek word helemaal in die grond gedruk. Dit is al wat ek wou sê.

Ek was nie van plan om aan die bespreking deel te neem nie, maar ek voel, dat die edele lid vir Losberg (Lt.-Kol. Dreyer) gaat met ons saamstem oor die saak onder behandeling as sekere misverstand van hom uit die weg geruim word. Hy is onder die indruk—

Harder, harder.

Daar is sekere ezels, wat jy net so hard voor kan skreeu as jy wil, hulle hoor tog nie. Die edele lid vir Losberg (Lt.- Kol. Dreyer) is onder die indruk, dat die Regering die Baxter-rapport nie aangeneem het of gaan aanneem nie, wat volstrek nie die geval is nie. As dit so was, sou sy moeilikheid sig vanself oplos. Dog waarom is die opsteller van daardie rapport, die heer Hofmeyr, aangestel as Administrateur van Transvaal? Dit is tog nie oor sy intieme kennis van die land nie. Wat weet hy van Transvaal af; het die edele lid vir Losberg (Lt.-Kol. Dreyer) hom b.v. al in sy kiesafdeling of op sy plaas gesien? Ken hy die mense van die land van naby? Daardie administrateur is eenvoudig aangestel om uitvoering te gee aan die Baxter-rapport, dat hy help opstel het. Niemand sal sê dat hy aangestel is vir sy landskennis. Nee, hy is terwille van daardie rapport aangestel. Edele lede aan die ander kant moet nie denk, dat hulle ons van streek of van ons punt sal afkry nie. Ons sien baie goed deur die aanval op die provinsiale rade en die vraag by ons bly: wat gaan die Regering doen? Wat staan in hierdie Wet? Ek het die laaste tyd dikwels met aandag geluister na die toesprake van die edele lid vir Zuid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset) want hy slaag daar nou en dan in om oortuiging in een goed inmekaar gesette toesprake te bring, iets wat min edele lede van die oorkant dien; maar sy toespraak in hierdie debat kan ons nie aanneem of so hoog aanslaan nie; beoordeeld as toespraak, wat weldeurdag is, moet dit op sy gesit word. Hy is die Baxter-rapport simpatiek gesind en wil die mense diets maak, dat die Kommissarisse, wat die rapport opgesteld het, een grondige kennis van die saak het en dat die rapport nog nooit aangeval is nie, dat die hele land dit aangeneem het. Die edele lede aan die anderkant het nog nooit daaroor nagedenk nie, dat die hele provinsiale eleksie in Transvaal altans laaste November op daardie Baxter-rapport uitgeveg is; dit was een van die grootste vraagstukke en die land het duidelik verklaar, dat hulle daar niks mee te doen wil hê nie. Die edele lid het verder verklaar, dat hy die Regering gaan steun, want sê hy, van hierdie kant van die Huis is geen alternatief aan die hand gegee nie, en dan gaan hy voort om die Regering te kritiseer omdat hulle teen die Baxter-rapport is, hy sê hulle neem ook die rapport nie aan nie en kan nie daar meestem nie en hy sê die Regering het ook nie een alternatief nie. My leier, die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het duidelik geseg: ons neem die Baxter-rapport nie aan nie maar hy het ’n goeie alternatief in die plek gestel. Ons soek die oplossing van hierie vraagstuk nie in afbreek nie, maar in verder bou op die Wet van 1913, daar is ons basis, en ons sê daardie basis was een gesonde, en ons val die Regering aan omdat hulle daarvan afgedwaal het. Ek sien ook nie in waarom edele lede ons mosie nie sal ondersteun nie, want ons gee die gronde aan van ons alternatief. My indruk is inmiddels, dat die toespraak van die edele lid van Zuid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset) meer bedoeld was om die swakke figuur toe te wryf, wat die edelagbare die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake geslaan het. Daar het ’n stroompie oorkant begin te vloei teen die Regering en die edelagbare die Minister moes keer en sy heftige manier van optrede en aanval op die onderwysers was net bedoeld om leiding te gee aan die lede oorkant, hoe hulle moes praat. Die edelagbare die Minister het by sy aanval gemaak of hy baie kwaad is en die edele lid vir Kroonstad (de hr. Werth) die verwyt gelewer, dat hij geen reg had nie om hom van troubreuk te beskuldig.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

Toe die Huis opgebreek het, was ek net besig om te sê, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake dit voorgedoen het, as of hy baie kwaad was, omdat hierdie kant van die Huis hom tereg beskuldig het van troubreuk. Hy was vreeslik verontwaardig, maar die edelagbare die Minister het glad geen rede om verontwaardig te wees nie, as hy net ’n bietjie dink aan die antwoorde wat ons aan hierdie kant van die Huis gekry het op vraë deur ons gestel. Dis nie altoos sulke antwoorde nie, dat hy reg het om verontwaardig te wees, as hy van troubreuk beskuldig word nie. En wat is nou ons posiesie teenoor die onderwysers? Daar is gesê, dat die heer Vaughan nie die mening van die onderwysers verteenwoordig. Ek kan die edele lede anderkant die versekering gee ek geautoriseer is om te sê dat hy die mening uitspreek van die onderwysers en dat hy opgedra is om namens die Federasie van Onderwysers te praat. Die onderwysers is van mening, dat daar troubreuk gepleeg is deur die Regering. Dus waar ons die Regering hiervan beskuldig, doen ons dit met hulle instemming en gesag. Wat sê die Administrasie van die Transvaal? Is hulle tevrede met die Wet? Nee, hulle het ook protes aangeteken daarteen. Dus is daar ook weer ’n liggaam wat nie tevrede is nie met die besluite van die Regering en met die Wet. Maar hierdie berugte of beroemde Baxter-rapport het aan die Regering destyds aan die hand gegee, dat die skale van salarisse in een Wet moet vasgestel word en ons vind, dat altans aan daardie aanbeveling geen gevolg gegee is nie. Hierdie Wet voor ons lê geen salarisse vas nie maar sê dat die sal later gereguleer word. Ons weet genoeg wat die regulasies is en hoe dit daarmee gaan. Die edelagbare die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake moet nie so verontwaardig wees nie, maar ’n bietjie dink aan die moeilike posiesie waarin die Regering is en liewers probeer om die Regering te red uit die netelige posiesie waarin hulle verkeer. Wat is die toestand? Aan die een kant vind ons die hoogedele die Eerste Minister en hy sê, dat hy beslis daarteen is, dat die Prowinsiale Rade afgeskaf moet word, want sê hy, dit sou troubreuk wees teenoor die kleinere Prowinsies, die Vrystaat en Natal, maar as die hoog edelagbare die Eerste Minister werklik oortuig daarvan is, dat die Prowinsiale Rade nie afgeskaf behoort te word nie, hoe verklaar ’n mens dan die aanstelling van die teenwoordige Administrateur van die Transvaal, want hy is een van diegene wat die rapport opgetrek het en hy is verantwoordelik vir die aanbevelings van die rapport; byvoorbeeld vir die aanbeveling om die salarisse van die onderwysers te verminder en om minder hoëre skole aan te hou. Daar word van die kant van die Suidafrikaanse Party, aanvalle op ons gemaak, omdat ons een ooreenkoms gemaak het met die Arbeiders en omdat die Arbeiders, so sê die Suidafrikaanse Party, voorstanders is van die grondbelasting. Maar hier het jy nou vier Sappe, vier absolute Sappe van onbesproke gedrag, uitverkorene manne volgens die edele lid vir Zuid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset) en wat sê hulle? Hulle sê baie definitief in die rapport op bladsy 87: “De plaatselike besturen behoren fbndsen byeen te brengen hoofdzakelik door middel van belastingen op vastgoed.” Dat is jou Administrateur van die Transvaal, jou opregte Suidafrikaanse Party man, wat ’n grondbelasting voorstel. Nie die Arbeier nie. Die edele lid vir Rondebosch (de hr. Close) se toesprake is maar baie swak, maar sy toejuigings vir hierdie saak gee baie duidelik sy bedoelinge. Maar wat kon ons ook anders verwag? Hier het ons ’n saak wat nie alleen die stede raak nie, maar ook die platteland en wat het die Regering gedoen? Net vier stedelinge is uitgesoek en aangestel om te beraadslaag en verslag uit te bring op een van die ernstigste en belangrikste kwessies wat ons ooit gehad het. Waarom is daar dan nie ook ’n verteenwoordiger by van die platteland nie? Of is die Suidafrikaanse Party op die platteland so arm in talent teenswoordig, dat hulle nie eens meer ’n man op die platteland het met genoeg kennis en genoeg talente om in die kommissie te sit nie? Daar is hier baie gepraat van die vermindering van salarisse. Dis ’n punt wat ek ook net wil aanroer. Aan die Prowinsiale Rade word onder hierdie Wetsontwerp die mag gegee om onder sekere omstandighede die skale wat voorgestel is, te verminder. Maar die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies staan geleentheid na geleentheid op en sê: “We have turned the comer.” Daar is nou al so baie “kornertjies” wat ons omgekom het, dat die edelagbare die Minister dit self nie meer gelowe nie, want nou word voorsieninge gemaak vir nog slegter tye. Hy glo horn self nie, hy sê hy moet voorsiening maak om salarisse te verminder as die tye slegter word. Wel, hy ken hom self. Maar wat ek hom wel kwalik neem is, as hy nie meer in homself glo nie, dat hy dan ook nie meer in die edelagbare die Eerste Minister glo nie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het onlangs by die opening van ’n tentoonstelling gesê, “We are now at rock-bottom.” Nieteenstaande dit, word voorsienige gemaak vir nog slegter tye. En nou wat betref die promosie van die onderwysers. Daar is ook troubreuk gepleeg, daar—kan ek byna sê—is dieself de verraad gepleeg as wat verlede jaar gepleeg is teenoor die siviele amptenare. Hulle moet vyf tot ses jaar wag, voordat hulle ’n werklike promosie kan maak. Dieselfde toestand gaan ons kry met die onderwysers. Wanneer ’n onderwyser nou promosie maak, dan gaan hy in salaris kry minder als wat hy trek. Dis troubreuk. Ek sê, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister in ’n baie moeilike posiesie is. Hy sê, dat hy teen die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Rade is, maar hoe klop dit dan met wat die edele lede oorkant sê, byvoorbeeld wat die edele lid vir Parktown, (de hr. Rockey) hier gesê het? Die edele lid is kwaad omdat daar nie volgens sy wens ’n pad aangelê is virby die Springs myne naby Johannesburg. Hy sê daar is nie een behoorlike pad nie vir sy motorkar. Hy kwoteer sekere syfers uit die Baxter-rapport om aan te toon hoe die prowinsiale raad van Transvaal geld gespandeer het op onderwys. Ons het ook daarie syfers gesien en na beskouwing van die syfers, is ons tevrede met die werk van die Prowinsiale Raad. Ons is oortuig daarvan, dat hulle hul plig en bes gedoen het in die belang van die onderwys. Hulle besef, dat die groot stede baie voordeel gehad het in die verlede bo die platteland en dat dit nou hoog tyd is, dat die platteland ook ’n kans kry, dat daardie kinders ook toegerus word vir die groot kompetiesie in die lewe. En dan word die storie vertel van die 80 persent van die opgebragte belastings wat gespandeer is aan die platteland. Dit is net weer so’n ou storietjie as ons al so baie gehad het. Hoe gaan dit met die storietjies? Daar verskyn ’n storietjie in die Star, dit word oorgeneem deur die Cape Times en verskyn later ook nog in die Argus en so word dit herhaal totdat een lid in die Parlement kom en sê, “dis nou absolute waarheid.” En dan word dit aangeneem als waarheid. Dis presies dieselfde met die 80 persent storie. Die edele lid vir Parktown (de hr. Rockey) het gesê, dat te veel geld gespandeer is aan onderwys; ek vra edele lede om net ’n bietjie uit te reken wat gespandeer is in Johannesburg byvoorbeeld verlede jaar op skoolgebouwe en skooltuine. Ons verstaat die posiesie heeltemal goed. Die prowinsiale raad het uitgevind waar hulle geld kon kry en omdat hulle ou die sak klop van die edele lid van Parktown (de hr. Rockey) daarom moet die prowinsiale rade afgeskaf word. Nou gaan die edele lede anderkant tekeer teen die ooreenkoms van die Nasionaliste met die Arbeiders. Hulle vergeet dat hulle in 1920 hopelose pogings aangewend het om saam een Regering te vorm met die arbeiders, en hulle vergeet hoe ek nog weer in November 1923 hopelose pogings aangewend is om in die Prowinsiale Raad in Transvaal saam te gaan met die arbeiders. Daaroor vertel hulle niks en hulle sê niks van die gekonkel wat toe plaasgevind het met die arb eiders deur Sir Julius Jeppe namens die S.A. Party. Hulle was nie bang vir die grondbelasting nie, toe hulle in 1923 gekonkel het met die arbeiders. Maar, Mr. Speaker, al het ons nou al baie gepraat oor die tekortkominge van die Prowinsiale Rade, dis nie die eintlike punt pie. Die groot punt onder debat is die toestand wat die Minister aanleiding gegee het om te verklaar, dat die Regering lam en magteloos is om iets goeds te doen vir die Staat. Dit is die punt en nou vra ek edele lede aan daardie kant van die Huis, of hulle lam en magteloos is om die Wetsontwerp, die prul wat ons nou voor ons het, te kritiseer? Is hulle lam en magteloos om aan die Regering iets beters voor te stel as hierie Wetsontwerp, hierdie dwaasheid? Wat ’n verklaring, dat die Regering lam en magteloos is! Die posiesie is, dat ons ’n Regering het wat verklaar dat hulle magteloos is om die volksmening te verteenwoordig, en dat hulle nou niks kan doen nie, daarom bring hulle hierie Wetsontwerp in. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het gesê dat hy nie weghardloop nie. “Oh nee sê hy ek hardloop nie weg nie, ek gooi my maar net in die arme by die edelagbare die Minister van Landbouw, sy idee sal my wel voed, en my sterk hou om op die kussens te bly sit.” Is dit nou selfrespek van ’n party, om te kom sê by monde van die Minister van Finansies “ons is lam en magteloos.” Gaan dit die tradisie wees van die S.A. Party? Ons weet wat die oorsaak is, dat die Regering nie meer die volk verteenwoordig nie. Vat nou b.v., die Baxter-rapport. Hulle durf die rapport nie aanneem nie, omdat hulle weet dat die publieke opienie daarteen is. Vandaar hierdie Wetsontwerp, maar hulle durf ok nie die rapport verwerp nie, vandaar die aanstelling van die Administrateur van die Transvaal, wat verantwoordelik is vir die rapport. Stem hulle saam met die rapport of nie? Aanvaar hulle die aanbevelings omtrent die grondbelasting of nie? Hulle het nie die moed om dan die salarisse van die onderwysers te raak nie, en stel dus een Stoats Diens Kommissie aan om die salarisse van die onderwysers te verminder en sal uiteindelik daaragter verskuil en sê: “Die kommissie het dit gedoen, dis nie ons nie.” Die enige antwoord wat gekom het op die amendement van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het gekom van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, en sy heele antwoord fittery. My edele leier het voorgesteld om terug te gaan na die basis neergelê in 1913. Daar is die grondslag gelê en ons wil daarop verder bou. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister se antwoord was spitsvondigheid en fittery. Verbeel hy hom, dat hy op die manier en met behoud van waardigheid die volk oortuig dat sy Regering wil die reg behou het om te bly regeer, en dat die Regering wat ons non het, die enig goeie is. Wel, die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het gesê “The Provincial Councils lived in a fool’s paradise.” Waar die lede oorkant in leef weet ek nie, die Regering egter leef in een groter “fool’s paradise.”

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) stated this afternoon that Mr. Vaughan, at a meeting of suffragettes, had stated certain things in regard to Provincial Councils, but I have had a tele phonic message from the lady who was secretary and she said that that did not occur.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation—

The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) is not prepared to give way.

I may say, sir, that I am satisfied that if the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) had known that fact he would not have made the statement. He has been misinformed. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) this afternoon told us a tale, and a very dismal tale. The statement that he read, which I had read previously, shows that a very great deal is needed in regard to the Cape, and the same applies to other places, but the question which one has to ask himself is: is there sufficient spent on education? In the comparisons that were made, I think a very good point was made when it stated that this country was bilingual. I admit that there is something in that, but let us take the province of Quebec. I have been informed since that statement was made that the expenditure there was £10 per head. Those who are opposing this Bill seem to think that those who are in favour of it are not in any way sympathetic with education. There are men in this House whom I know have been taking an interest in education for the last thirty or forty years. They may be mistaken in their views, and mistaken in their attitude towards this Bill, but it is doing them an injustice to say that they are against education. I want to confine myself to the subject, but it is impossible with this triangular duet going on about party, and Chamber of Mines, and things of that kind. I do not want to enter into the Chamber of Mines, I want to deal with the subject. I have very little doubt that the Chamber of Mines has very few virtues, but I want to say that what we are discussing here to-night is the contention that it would be a pity that a person who has most to do with the making of men and women of the future, after the parent, that person is a teacher. We have to consider first whether this Bill is going to hinder education. I have not heard a single advocate say, if we are paying £19 per child in the Union, how much we should pay. Lay it down and give us something tangible if £19 is not sufficient. We all know that the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) made the statement that teachers should do it for the honour of the thing. I do not think he has spent his life doing things for nothing. He certainly has not spent his life teaching in South Africa. We should not lower the standard in the slightest so far as the education of a child is concerned, and I am sure hon. members in this House who are going to vote for this Bill, if they thought it would injure a single child, would not vote for it in any circumstances. What we want is to get an opportunity of raising money. A point has been made, not without reason, that you cannot lay too much stress on the Baxter Report. Charges were made of, unfairness, but I do not think Mr. Baxter capable of being unfair. He did however start that Commission with preconceived notions that Provincial Councils are not right, and no man would put a judge on a bench with preconceived ideas. But I am afraid he started with a lamp in his hand to light the way along. It was also said that it was a party thing. Look at the four men. Two of them might be named as South African Party men. What we want to ask ourselves is this, whatever can be said about the report, two of the men had no connection with the Party whatever, and these two men had never made a declaration of party. A great many attacks have been made on provincial government. Whether Provincial Councils are right or wrong they form part of the Union; they were part of the agreement of Union, and it would be entirely wrong of us as a party sitting here not to give the people to-day the same opportunity as was given to the people at the time of Union to say whether these Provincial Councils are right or wrong. What caused these Provincial Councils to be in the unfortunate position they are in to-day is taxation. Take the Administrator, Sir Frederic de Waal. His sales tax is unfortunate, but let them throw as many stones as they liked at Sir Frederick de Waal, when the time is past and future generations come to judge him, they will pay the highest tribute to his judgment, whether you agree with him or not in politics. I knew him in the old Cape House when he had charge of the same department, and though his enthusiasm and zeal possibly carried him beyond the bounds of discretion, so far as education is concerned, he was a factor for good in South Africa. Everyone of us knows as the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) has said we could at any rate get schools in the Cape and these things have got to be considered. Now, when we come to consider this question of teachers we should move very slowly. We should apply any measure that we are going to apply with the greatest possible care. I am informed from the highest authority in the Cane that there are over 11,000 teachers in the Cape Province, and that there are in the other provinces possibly another 6.000. That makes 17,000 persons, and this House should be very careful in taking any action that would be likely to injure those persons, or to do them the slightest injury, and I feel that there is a very great deal in the argument that the Public Service Commission, however competent they may be in judging the public service, where they have all been themselves, should have some teachers upon its body when dealing with teachers’ salaries. That is fair and reasonable, and I feel that while I am going to support the Bill and vote for it—[Laughter]. Yes, I have no doubt the hon. member will be pleased to hear it, so far as Clause 2 is concerned; I read that clause as many hon. members in this House do, that there is nothing in it that might give a rise to the teachers. As I read that clause there is no opportunity for the teachers to get a rise, and in Committee I will move an amendment to that clause. It has also been suggested that £15 per child is not sufficient. Experience will show that, and I feel confident that any Government that is in power whether South African, Nationalist or Labour Party must give every consideration to the education of the child. I must try and raise every feeling in that direction, and I intend to vote for this Bill with the feeling that the Bill does not seek to do injustice to teachers. If it did an injustice to teachers Clause 2 must be left so that if any injustice is done justice could be done at the earliest opportunity if it is seen that teachers are affected. Is the scale of teachers’ salaries sufficient? I have not sufficient experience to say whether they are or not. I have read the manifesto issued by the teachers, and I have had telegrams from teachers in my own district, but I say the teachers are not the best to judge. I am positive if you were to ask the world they would say that for the services rendered it was far too much, and I say that the question can be raised at any time, and due consideration can be given to a clause being inserted in Clause 2 that the teachers shall get a reasonable salary. We do not want to ask teachers to live upon their honours or give them salaries out of reason compared with other persons, but if our teaching profession is to keep up the high standard it should seek to attract to it men and women worthy of the position of taking charge of the children. As an hon. member said this afternoon there is no higher calling than in seeking to educate the mind of the young. I, personally, would like to leave the door open so that if there is not sufficient provided under this Bill an opportunity will be available, and I hope that when the Public Service Commission deal with this question again they will have a teacher upon it as a representative of a class most affected.

May I rise, sir, on a point of personal explanation? I stated that Mr. Vaughan had taken up a certain attitude at a certain meeting. I had a meeting with him to-night, and at that meeting about an hour or two ago, I told him that I should ask the opinion of another person who was present at that meeting, and that person’s opinion coincides with mine’. This is my own statement of what occurred at that meeting. The speech I heard was a long and deliberate attack, not only on increased fees, but on all fees. At the beginning of his speech the speaker declared that as a teacher he could not make a political statement. At the end of his speech he was asked, whether they should pay increased fees and what was his advice? The speaker replied: “I am not a politician, I am a teacher and can give you no advice.”

Gelukkig het die edele lid vir Drie Riviere (de hr. Brown) naderhand ernstig geword, maar dit het eers gelyk of dit sommer ’n komedie sou wees. Die hele debat draai om die punt, virsover lede aan die anderkant daaraan deelneem, dat die magte van die Prowinsiale Rade ingekort word deur die Regering. Dit is hulle sterkste argument, maar hulle is in gebreke gebly om op te noem waar die magte dan ingekort is. Inteendeel begint die edele aan die anderkant, noudat druk op hulle uitgeoefen word, om te wys waar daardie magte ingekort work, ’n geskreeu aan te hef, dat die onderwysers nie aan die willekeur van die Prowinsiale Rade moet oorgelaat word nie. Aan die een kant pleit hulle vir die magte van die Prowinsiale Rade, en waar die Regering besig is om daardie magte vas te lê deur ’n Wet in te dien om hulle die magte te laat, wat hulle besit om te beskik oor die salarisse van die onderwysers, skreeu hulle oor willekeur. [Een Edele Lid: “Om dit af te trek.”] As die Prowinsiale Rade nodig geag word, laat die edelagbare die Minister dan hulle die magte gee, maar dit wil edele lede aan die anderkant nie toelaat nie en beweer, dat dit beteken, dat die onderwysers aan die willekeur van die Prowinsiale Rade oorgelaat word. [Een Edele Lid: “Praat van iets, waar die edele lid iets vanaf weet.”] Ek weet van die Wet meer as die edele lid daar, want hy praat uit twee monde; as die plan is om die Prowinsiale Rade hulle mag te laat behou, dan wil hulle nie dat die kans gegee word nie en gaat dan skreeu en verklaar, dat die onderwysers aan hulle willekeur oorgelaat word en aan die anderkant het hulle dit oor die inkort van daardie einste magte. Hulle verklaar ook, dat die Regering die Prowinsiale Rade onpopulêr gemaak het by die bevolking, maar ook in hierdie verband het die edele lede in gebreke gebly om aan te toon waar en hoe die Regering dit doet. Inteendeel het die Prowinsiale Rade hulleself onpopulêr gemaak by die volk. Ek praat natuurlik nou van Transvaal. Laat my ’n paar feite noem en ek hoop, dat die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) my sal kan volg. Daar is die venduafslaerbelasting; hier raak hulle die boer en wel die arme boer, die gedwonge word om sy goedjies op vendusie te set, maar die welgestelde man, wat nie nodig het om dit te doen nie, maar sy mielies en dinge per trein na ’n koöperatiewe vereniging stuur, die raak dit nie. Maar die man, wat sy dertig stuks vee of sy meubeltjies moet laat opveil of sy ou stukkie grond moet laat loop, die tref dit. Maar ek, wat my grond aan die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (de hr. Geldenhuys) verkoop vir £6,000, val daar nie onder nie—maar die arm man. Die belasting is 1, 1½ en 2½ persent. Die lede weet wat is vaste eigendom n.l. 1 persent; los goed, soas meubels 2 persent. Nog een punt: edele lede het aangehaal van die tien sjielings belasting op die naturelie. Wat het daarmee gebeur en wie se skuld is dit, dat hulle dit nie kon inkry nie? Die bewering van die anderkant hou vol, dat dit die Regering syn is, wat die magte van daardie liggaam ingekort het, soas mens kan lees in die program; hulle kan nie meer belasting oplê nie. Die Wet sê daar niks van nie. Wat gebeur het met die tien sjielings, is dat hulle ’n hoofbelasting opgelê het van £2 10s. op wit en swart, om op die manier die naturel in te sleep vir tien sjielings, omdat hy reeds belasting aan die Unie betaal. Daardie wetgewing van die Prowinsiale Raad het gesê dat waar ’n Europeaan te oud is of te arm, kan hy vrygestel word, maar van die naturel, wat in daardie omstandighede verkeer, word niks gesê nie. Die naturelie het na die Hof toe gegaan en gevra of dit reg is. Die uitspraak was, dat dit ultra vires was.

Wat is dit?

Ek het gedag ek sal iets noem, wat die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) nie verstaan nie; hy moet maar sy skoolgeld gaan terugvra. Die hof het bepaal, dat hulle die geld moes terugbetaal aan die volk, maar hulle had die geld nie en die UnieRegering het die geld uitbetaal, £50,000. Die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) het verklaar, dat die Regering dit uitbetaal het om teenoor die naturelle die houding van grootmoedigheid aan te neem. Die Prowinsiale Raad wou dit betaal, maar hulle moes solank teruggaan, maar ek vrees, dat hulle dit skuldig sou gebly het tot in der eeuwigheid. Die ordonansie, wat hulle gebaseer had is gebaseer gewees op onreg. ’n Nasionalis het my gesê—ek sal sy naam nie noem nie, maar hy weet van die dinge ruim soveel as die lid daar aan die oorkant—dat die persoon, wat daardie wet voorgestel het is gek. ’n Ander ding, wat aan die onpopulariteit bevorderlik was, is die 15 persent op die inkomstebelasting, wat hulle opgeset het en die het hulle onpopulêr gemaak. Ek kom by nog ’n stuk wetgewing, nl. die werkgewers belasting. Die ondernemende man, wat sy geld steek in ’n kleine industriële onderneming en ’n aantal mense huur en employeer om dit te ontgin, word belas deur daardie belasting. Vir elke persoon, wat hy bokant die ag employeer, moet hy een pond betaal. Is dit nie skreiend nie? Is dit nie die kleine industrie doodmaak nie? Daar is mense, wat tot 800 mense in diens het op hulle tamatieplantasies en daar ’n goeie wins uit maak, maar hulle word so gedruk deur die belasting, dat hulle in baie gevalle dit moet opgee. Die klompe skape, wat meer as een lid aan die anderkant mee boer, is minder wêrd as ’n paar honderd morg, vol tamaties geplant. Die edele lid vir Riversdal (de hr. Badenhorst) eet miskien baie van daardie tamaties en word daar vet op en weet niks van die manier, waarop dit gekweek word nie. Dit is daardie soort belasting, wat die Prowinsiale Raad onpopulêr maak en nie die Regering, wat dit doen nie. Edele lede moet nie, waar die Prowinsiale Raad ok sy foute maak, klippe na ander gooi nie. Dit is moontlik, dat die bebelasting populêr sal wees, as ’n mens geld in ’n saak steek en ander werk gee. Daar word baie oor die onderwysstelsel gepraat. My gevoele oor die onderwysstelsel is, dat die geleerdheid in ons land besig is om topswaar te word. Ek weet nie of daar een ander land is wat, na verhouding van die skrale bevolking, soveel geleerde mense het as ons nie, onder onse stelsel.

Dit is ’n flater daardie.

Die stelsel bring b.v. ’n hele aantal kinders tot by matriek, terwyl hulle dan geen aanleg het vir iets hogers nie en vir die boerdery is hulle ook nie meer goed nie. Stuur hulle na ’n dorp toe en hulle is nie in staat om daar vir een van die firmas boek te hou nie. ’n Groot fout by die onderwys is nog daardie beurs-stelsel. Die kind wat matriek gemaak het, kry ’n beurs om na die kollege te gaan en dit is net die ryk man, wat daar gebruik van kan maak, of die kind bekwaam is of nie. Hy bly daar enige jare en is onbekwaam vir alles. Die arm man, wie se kind molik die nodige talent besit, kan daar geen gebruik van maak nie. Die Wet is vir ons ’n las. As hulle meer werk wil maak van landbouonderwys en daarvoor skole oprig, sou dit baie beter wees vir die land en die bevolking. Dan kan uitgevind word vir welke vak ’n kind begaafdheid het. Ek wil graag van die lede daar anderkant ’n antwoord hê op die vraag, waar die regte van die Prowinsiale Rade ingekort is. Noem een. Wat die edele lid vir Boshof (de hr. C. A. van Niekerk) en andere edele lede daar dink, kom daar nie op aan nie. Sal ek nie aan die lede voorlees wat in 1922 gesê is deur iemand, wat aan daardie party behoort en van myne en syfers meer weet, dink ek, as enigeen daar of as wat hulle ooit sal weet? Hy verklaar, dat die myne te hoog belas is. Dit is nie nodig om verder te gaan nie, die koël het getref op die regte plek. Ek hoop dat lede my nie sal kwalik neem waar ek miskien ’n bietjie skerp was nie, want die waarheid is soms bitter om aan te hoor.

Avery serious allegation has been made against a public servant, against Mr. Vaughan, the acting chairman of the South African Teachers’ Association. The accusation was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) and if the endorsement of this evening is true, then that statement renders this public servant liable to dismissal. Mr. Vaughan takes a very serious view of this position. The member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart), whom I am sorry is not in his place, when he made that statement this afternoon, was approached by Mr. Vaughan to substantiate it or withdraw it, and he said he would do neither until this evening as he wanted to consult someone to-night. Now he has informed this House that he has consulted this person who was present at the meeting, and that person endorses the statement which he made this afternoon. I understand the person he consulted was his wife. He will correct me if I am wrong. But here we have the evidence of three responsible officials of that society who were present when Mr. Vaughan addressed the meeting, and who have testified that Mr. Vaughan made no such suggestion in any shape or form that parents should not pay increased school fees. This is the statement subscribed to by Mrs. Councillor Walsh, Mrs. Professor Jolly, and Mrs. Louis Herman—

All I ask on behalf of this public servant, who has been certainly maligned, if not libelled, is that the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) who made the accusation and endorsed it, will make that accusation outside this House so that Mr. Vaughan will have an opportunity of seeking redress. He should either withdraw it or give the public servant concerned an opportunity of defending himself and taking action in the courts of this country. I will leave it at that. Having finished with the member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) I now come to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance and the Government in shelving the Baxter Report, have made a confession of failure, the most historical confession of failure to deal with its work, to tackle its job, that has ever been recorded in this House. For many years the Minister of Finance has preached about the extravagance of Provincial Councils. He has told the House time and again of the iniquities of the various Provincial Councils, how they have been getting completely out of hand, how they were losing control of their finances, and how it was impossible for this Government to control finances effectively unless we passed suitable legislation which would put the finances of the provinces on a proper footing. We have had this time and again, but without having some evidence on which to base their legislation, they could not, of course, proceed. Eventually, they adopted the old methods, and so we had a Commission and then the Baxter Report. The report was acclaimed by all the Chambers of Commerce throughout South Africa. It was said that the report was the one thing that was going to put South Africa on right lines. The Government said: “Now we have got something on which to base our legislation. Now we can go ahead.” But what did the hon. the Minister bring forward? When the hon. the Minister of Finance, the other afternoon, introduced this provocative Bill with a countenance as cheerful as a wet Sunday afternoon, he said: “We have to admit that we cannot carry out our intended legislation for the fly in the ointment is that the people of the country will not have it.” So we have had to shelve it.” Whether the report will ever be taken down from the shelf remains to be seen. It must be a case of it being Mr. Burton’s bitter pill. What emerged in the debate? I see the hon. the Minister is going out, but what emerged in this debate during the Minister’s speech? The one thing was, that Natal was the villain of the peace, Natal was the obstacle to the hon. the Minister’s progress. At every turn Natal refused to budge. Now, what has Natal done to deserve all this? Take the position of the Budget. Natal balances its finances more satisfactorily than any other province. Education is better there than in any other province. Natal provides bilingual teachers for the children, no matter how few, who desire to learn the two languages. Natal has tried to do the right thing, and the Minister of Finance, who is also a member for Natal, instead of getting up and expressing his appreciation of what Natal is doing, instead of his saying Natal is the only province that balances its Budget, he sneers and jibes at Natal like this. Natal expects something better than this from the Minister of Finance. It has placed its finances on a sound basis. It does not ask this Parliament to wipe off any deficit.

Remember the first hundred thousand.

What is a hundred thousand in a million and a half expenditure?

It goes a long way.

The hon. member is referring to that foolish, trumped-up argument which appeared in the leading article of a local paper this morning. Natal’s expenditure is something like £1,250,000. The trouble is that Natal seems to be the only province that has done the right thing; the only province that has paid its own way, that has its education in a satisfactory state. It has done the very things the Minister of Finance should have given it credit for. One would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have stood up in the House and said: “Here is an example, Natal has paid its way and its finances are on an even keel, and is going on as a Provincial Council should go on.” Instead of that Natal gets nothing but sneers and jeers and gibes from the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is entitled to something more. Natal is made famous in one respect, that it found refuge for a politician of another province who was rejected and defeated and turned down in his own province, and when he could not get into Parliament for the Cape he came to Natal, and she found him a seat in this House. He is now the Minister of Finance, so Natal is entitled from the Minister of Finance to something more than sneers and jeers. She has balanced her expenditure and put her house in order. One thing Natal does want, and that is to be left alone by this Parliament. Leave Natal alone. Because other provinces have made a mess of their finances—

They have not!

I refer to the Cape. We hear a lot about the good old Cape days, but what is the Provincial deficit in the Cape? £1,600,000. That is the accumulated deficit in the Cape, and that is the only province which up to a few months ago has been entirely governed by the South African Party. To-day, although the Nationalist Party is in power it is busy mopping up the mess which the South African Party has made in the Cape Province. If they are in the terrible financial way the Minister said they are, the fault is the fault of the South African Party, and not that of Natal. Why should Natal suffer because of the misdeeds of the Cape? The Transvaal could have got out of the difficulties if the Government had sanctioned the legislation which was proposed by the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. It passed certain taxation measures which would have given it all the money it required in order to pay its way. It passed this legislation and it would have found the money to pay for its education but the Government came along and vetoed it. Then when it found itself financially behind, the Government came along and said they must stop this extravagance in the Transvaal and the other provinces. Now there is one thing Natal does pride itself upon, end that is its educational system. Natal has a good educational system. We did not neglect education in Natal as they did in the Cape before Union. We therefore did not have such leeway to make up as they had in the Cape Province. Above all things Natal asks this Government, that it should reap the fruits of its own efforts. Let Natal manage its own education as it wants to, and it will make a good job of it, and also look after its own teachers. Natal does not ask the Government to cut down the salaries of the teachers as this Bill proposes to do. They have taken away enough powers from the Provincial Council; every year they are chopping this power and that power away. Natal only wants to be left to manage its own affairs in its own way under the constitution given to it by the Act of Union. Could anything be more reasonable? If the other provinces do not do right it is for them to be dealt with and for the people of those provinces, as they think fit, but for heaven’s sake do not interfere with Natal. We expected some big legislation this year. It was foreshadowed in the Governor-General’s speech. We were going to have momentous things done to have the financial position put right, and because the Government have not been able to face the position, and I appreciate their difficulty, that is no reason why the Minister, in not being able to have his own way and feeling humiliated at the position of the Government, should vent his spleen on the whole of the teaching profession in South Africa. It is no reason why, because the Government cannot do as it wants to do, it should turn round and attack the teaching profession in this country, because they do not deserve it. The Minister says he has done it for uniformity. He is out for uniformity. I ask him what sort of uniformity are they going to get under this Bill when they allow any province, according to their financial, position to make any reduction it thinks fit in the teachers’ salaries. The only object of the Bill, he said, was to establish uniformity. They have established uniformity by making drastic reductions in the salaries, and by laying down a schedule which the Public Service Commission has drawn up. By laying down this schedule it means that in Natal the teachers’ salaries will be reduced by something like 29 per cent., in the Transvaal they will be reduced something like 15 per cent., in the Free State by 11 per cent., and in the Cape they will be reduced by about 4 per cent. Having made all these reductions according to the scale laid down in the Public Service Commission’s report and established uniformity on the lowest possible basis, the Minister then says we have still got to do something else. The provinces demand that they should retain the power to control their own salaries, and we have to give them that power. They have pressed for the power over the salaries of their teachers, but what for? Not to increase, but to decrease them. The Prime Minister, when he made his speech the other night, said the Provincial Councils were left with exactly the same powers they had to-day. He was not then making a true statement, because the Provincial Councils to-day can raise or reduce the scale. He was not making a true statement, because they can only reduce under the Bill, and they cannot go above the scale laid down and passed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. I cannot understand the Prime Minister when he said that: either he said it in ignorance or else he wilfully distorted the position; either he did not read the Bill and said it in ignorance, or if he had read it and understood the position, then he wilfully distorted it, because he said no power was taken away from the Provincial Councils which they have got to-day. Before they could increase—under the Bill they cannot increase, they can only decrease. I only want to touch on one other thing, that is this breach of faith question. The Minister of Finance last year said when the teachers salaries were to be adjusted, that they were to be treated on exactly the same basis as the public servants, and that is to say that those who are at present in the service would not be affected, that the reduction would only take place with regard to new entrants. That was what the right hon. the Minister of Finance said last year. That promise he has broken. He is held by the teachers to be guilty of a breach of faith: they do not say that the Public Service Commission has been guilty of a breach of faith in the letter. In Section 21 of the report it says—

By that they were carrying out their promise which they made to the teachers at the meeting in Pretoria, but in the very next section, Section 22, they state that if the financial position of the provinces demand, it may be necessary to carry out the provisions of rule 21. Section 22 reads—

In the letter there has been no breach of faith by the Public Service Commission, but in Section 22 there has been a breach of faith in the spirit. The right hon. the Minister of Finance last year distinctly stated that the teachers would be treated the same as the other public servants, and that the present teachers would not be affected, only the new entrants. I ask the right hon. the Minister why the teachers’ profession should now be treated different to the other public servants. It is only a few months ago that the public servants came on a new scale—a new scale to apply to new entrants only. Having treated the public servants in that way, I ask the Minister why should he now treat the teacher in South Africa different to the public servants? I am more concerned with the children of South Africa even than I am concerned with regard to the teachers’ salaries, but this reduction in the pay of teachers in South Africa is bound to have a detrimental effect on the education of the children, as we will not be able to get teachers to remain in the profession, Where they do not receive sufficient remuneration to live a decent life and to bring up their children in South Africa. The teachers’ profession is less paid in this country than any other trade or profession; they get less than the mechanic—

More than the parson?

If the parson does not get his reward in this world he gets it in the next. The teachers’ profession is not treated reasonably. It is bad for the education of the children in South Africa if one is going to drive these people out of the profession. If they do not get enough to live on it makes them discontented, and makes it impossible for them to do justice to their work. In my opinion, the future of this country largely depends on the standard of education given to the children, and if we are going to lower that standard we are striking a blow at the destiny of South Africa. I protest strongly against the Bill. I think it is a most undignified Bill, and I ask why are the teachers so singled out when they do not deserve it? I am afraid that the party whip will be cracked, and though many members opposite disagree with the Bill, they will fall into line and vote for something which is an injustice to the teachers and unworthy of South Africa.

I do not intend to traverse all the discussion which has taken place on the Bill with regard to the teachers’ salaries, because I think that has been so thoroughly thrashed out in the course of the debate that it will be unnecessary for me, and it would simply add a burden of further discussion to go into it again. I would just like to make one or two points about the matter, and that is, in the first place, to emphasize what I think my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior did state, and that is that the Bill does not lay down any scale of salaries for teachers at all. It establishes the principle. There has been a good deal of doubt, in many people’s minds about that; they have an idea that there is a scale laid down:, and that that scale will operate. There is no such thing. There has been a provisional scale framed by the Public Service Commission in consultation with the educational authorities of the provinces, and that has been laid on the Table of this House; but when this Bill is passed further opportunity will be given for further consultation with the provincial authorities and the teachers’ representatives before the scale is finally laid down and recommended to the Government by the Commission and dealt with. As a matter of fact, even in these scales which have been very substantially criticized—as to the volume of criticism, at all events—even under these scales there are numerous instances in which the salaries laid down are higher than the existing salaries. I do not pretend to say for a single moment that that is the case in every instance, far from it; but there are numerous instances, both in the Cape and in the Transvaal, where the provisional scales are actually higher than the existing scales. Now hon. members have criticized the Government action under this Clause. They have said that we do not entrench the teachers’ salaries, and they ask us not merely to provide here the principle of uniformity, but to go the further step of entrenching the teachers’ salaries. They ask us to do what they say we did for the Public Service. The Public Service of this country was dealt with by Parliament, which is the proper authority to deal with them. It laid down certain scales and entrenched them to some extent, but the ultimate power and the right of dealing with these public servants still rests with the Parliament of the country. Now hon. members will see that if we were to endeavour under this Bill to entrench the teachers and their salaries we should be depriving of that power over them the authority which has been constituted over them by our law. Supposing we were to entrench them in this Bill, and supposing some Provincial Council found itself compelled to act by way of reduction of salaries, it would be a perfectly fair thing for that Provincial Council to say to us: “Well, we should have been able to save so much money on our budget by taking the action which we all desire to take; you have deprived us of that power, and we now ask you to supply us with the extra subsidy.” It would be a fair thing to say, and it would be a demand which I could not easily resist. If you carry out the action which it is proposed to take in this Bill, where will it lead? I quite admit that if you say in the Bill there shall be uniform scales, but that the Provincial Council may under certain circumstances have the power to reduce the salaries below that scale. I admit the argument that you do not provide for actual uniformity because of the possibility that there may be action taken, but there can be no doubt that you lay down the principle of that uniformity and you lay down the principle for the Provincial Council which they will follow except in emergencies, and they will find it impossible to depart from that because of the scales to be laid down, those scales lay down the lower limit as well as the upper limit, except in this matter of financial stress, when the proper authority is left free, as it is to-day, but they may not go down below the bottom limit of these scales, just as much as they may not go up above the higher one. I will not discuss that at any length, but I want to refer briefly to the manner in which this question has been dealt with by members of the Opposition, gentlemen who have for years past posed here as the advocates, the strenuous advocates against a grasping and tyrannical Government, for the rights of the provincial councils. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) told us that these salaries should not be left to the “willekeur” of the provincial authorities. Well, they have to be left to somebody’s “willekeur.” You cannot have these things floating in the air. There must be an ultimate authority. Is that authority to be this House, and if that is to be the authority, then what becomes of the hon. gentleman’s championship of the Provincial Councils against the tyranny of the Government?

Nasty, that.

The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) in one of his most eloquent flights, attacked the Bill because he said that it provided for a reduction of teachers’ salaries. The hon. member comes from the Free State, and he represents a Free State constituency. The Free State Provincial Council is almost entirely, if I am not mistaken, a Nationalist council. The Free State Provincial Council, I do not say wrongly, in all probability quite rightly, have already taken steps to reduce their teachers’ salaries because they are faced with financial necessities which leave them no other opportunity.

By agreement with the teachers.

Oh, is that so?

Yes, that makes all the difference.

What a confession! That is to say, that the Provincial Council of the Free State is now at the dictate of the teachers of the Free State. So if they did not consent the Provincial Council could not have done that?

They believe in the round table conference.

Well, the hon. member went on further. He worked himself up into such a passion of hysteria, and there has been plenty of hysteria about this matter, both inside and outside the House, he worked himself up into such a terrific passion that he said we were now handing over our teachers to two lean and hungry jackals—

Quite right.

Who had the right to touch their salaries and deal with their salaries without any reference to Parliament—

Quite so.

Well, who are these lean and hungry beasts of prey? Who are they? Yes, are they the same bodies which the hon. gentleman’s eloquence has rung in defence of, Heavens knows how many times, are these the jackals? They are now lean and hungry jackals.

I have never said a word in defence of the right hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan), who is not in his place, told us that we were the slaves of the mines, we were the slaves of the commercial community, and our actions show that.

And so the Government is.

Well, it is rather an extraordinary thing that with regard to this measure, I may say that it is roundly condemned by both these bodies. We have taken a line with regard to this measure which is roundly condemned by both these bodies. It is roundly condemned by the mines, and it is roundly condemned by the commercial community. We have left the commercial community entirely to the mercy of the Provincial Councils, of which they are rather apprehensive. I do not think it can be fairly said that we are the slaves so far as this matter is concerned, the slave of the mines or the commercial community. If we had been, we should have come here and attempted to give effect to the Baxter Report. May I say a word or two with regard to the general question? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) raised the point of improper control or lack of control by the treasury of the Provincial Councils. He suggested there should be some better system of control. One would very much like to see that, but I need hardly point out to the hon. member, as the law points out, there can be no more control by the Treasury than what is exercised. The constitution lays down that there are certain subsidies to be paid by the Treasury, and once they are paid we have no further control as to how that money is spent, and we cannot have that control unless you go in for a radical alteration of your whole system. It has been pointed out in the course of this debate, that we have endeavoured to obtain some greater measure of control by reduction of the subsidy or modifying the old pound for pound system. We have been attacked roundly, and I do not complain of it, over our attitude of what you may call the big issue. I do not doubt for a single moment that that attitude is open to criticism. It is open to criticism on the ground that we have missed a great opportunity of making substantial financial reform in the affairs of this country. But surely, sir, I admitted all that frankly and fully enough, even in my opening statement. What sort of criticism have members of the Opposition brought to bear upon that? The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and his faithful echo, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga); for I am rather afraid he is becoming little else now, if a stranger had heard the speeches of these hon. gentlemen, he would have thought that they were attacking us, because we had not brought the Baxter Report into operation, and that they thought that was a true solution of all our difficulties, and that we were cowardly and impotent, because we did not grasp the nettle in the proper way. But that stranger would have been completely deceived. The true origin of this heated invective was that we had not embodied this Baxter Report in the Bill, so that these gentlemen might have the pleasure of destroying it. I have noticed, some of us have noticed, during this session, a rather unusual mildness of the general attitude of hon. members opposite for the first month or so of our meeting. It seemed rather mysterious, but I understand it now. They said—

And that frame of mind was encouraged by what they read in the Governor-General’s speech. You can imagine how they studied that report, how they gloated over what was said about Provincial Council reform and assured themselves that their time was coming nearer and nearer. They proceeded to train their guns, such as the are, for weeks they proceeded to train their guns on the spot where this enemy had to expose himself, and on the day they opened fire there was no enemy there. What cowardice is was on the part of the enemy to get away like that. I quite understand that they are peevish about the business, and that they are irritable about this thing. It has not gone the way it should have gone. I can understand why they call us all these bad names, this abject cowardly impotent Government, which dare not grasp the nettle but runs away. That is what the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) said, but our experience remains the same with regard to these hon. gentlemen. If you allow them to go on debating a subject long enough they will destroy each other’s arguments. We have been described by these two hon. members as being a cowardly, object, and impotent Government, who ran away. But the hon. members for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan), Edenburg (Mr. Beyers), and Somerset (Mr. A. P. J. Fourie) had quite a different tale to tell. They said—

They seem by the way to be remarkably uncertain about the results of this election, but what I would like to see is under which thimble this pea is. Are we a set of pusillanimous fugitives or a gang of wily conspirators? We cannot be both. The whole fact of the matter is that hon. members have shown once more in the course of this debate their old traditional character, and it is a character which is responsible for why they can never get the ear of the country. They never approach a thing in a straightforward, decent way. It is always misrepresentation, if is twisting a thing round in the wrong light, and you cannot go along in that fashion too long without being found out. They are found out every time. What really amounts to simple political hypocrisy lies at the bottom of their whole attitude to-day. Now I come to the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). The hon. gentleman who was described by the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. Scholtz) as the Rupert of debate; a description which exactly hits off the hon. gentleman’s fiery impulsiveness. He said the Government was expected by everybody in this country, including himself no doubt, to bring forward a “behoorlike regeling.” But what “behoorlike regeling?” The Baxter Report we all know, was the only plan that had been put forward. Did the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) want the Baxter Report? Far from it. He, would have damned the Baxter Report with bell, book and candle, if he had a chance. What “behoorlike regeling” does he suggest? The real criticism that these gentlemen have made against the Bill, and our position is this—that we did not leave the provincial councils to do just as they liked, and we did not supply them with all the money they wanted. That is the very groundwork of their attitude. They are always criticizing our alleged extravagance in the country side, but they are always opposing our efforts in this House to induce the Provincial Council to economize. When we approach this subject they say the Government also have been extravagant. Time and again I admitted during the war that money had to be spent, as was the case in every country throughout the world, but afterwards we endeavoured to put our house in order, but at every step we have tried to get the provincial council to follow us, hon. members opposite have hampered, harrassed, and opposed us. The hon. member’s whole speech was an objection to economy. He said: “Why do you force the Provincial Councils to make unpopular economies.” I am afraid most economies are unpopular, and it is precisely because some of these councils have not dared to face unpopularity that economy has not been effected. Then he said: “Why do you force them to impose unpopular taxes?” Surely unless you have economy or taxation you are going to get into difficulties, but the hon. member wants neither. Then he announced the astounding doctrine that before you economise you should see that everybody is properly taxed. I thought the true doctrine was that before you tax, make proper economies. Of course that brought the hon. member to the favourite theme of the gold mines, and that they should be properly taxed. I will not detain the House very long at this stage on this subject, because it is not really relevant to the matter we are now discussing, but I propose at a later stage to go into the whole question of mining taxation fully. The hon. member quoted from an article in the Economist to show that in a few cases the mining dividends for 1923 had been very large. Of course he did not say a word about what the article went on to say about cases in which the dividends had been very small, nor did he say a word about the interesting comment made by the Economist that one of the most remarkable features of the situation was the re-entry to the list of several companies that had not paid for several years. The list published in the Economist gives the dividends for two years of 29 mines and six finance companies. The number of mining dividends for. 1923-’24 above 15 per cent. is fifteen, and the number which paid fifteen per cent. and lower was fourteen. There are over forty producing mines and a considerable number not producing, so if you look to the total result you will not find that number of plums in this industry, even in to-day’s favourable circumstances of a high premium on gold, you will not find the plums very unusual or attractive to the outside investor. The proof lies in this that we have the lease of a gold bearing Government area which has been on offer to the public for months, but it attracts no buyers. Let me make this statement, and I have had it carefully enquired into, the dividends paid for 1923—a particularly good year for the mines-—amount to a little more than eleven per cent., not on any watered capital or inflation, but on the actual money spent on the mines. I have taken it in this way: It is the actual expenditure on shaft-sinking and development, and things of that kind, which rank for amortization purposes. The capital I refer to is money spent on shaft-sinking, development, etc., ranking for amortization. It does not even include the cost of the ground, and the bulk of these cases do not refer to Government leases. On this restricted capital the return on the money so spent averages about eleven per cent. [An Hon. Member: “Will the right hon. the Minister lay the statement on the Table?”] I have some notes of my own, but the hon. member is quite at liberty to see them. In this statement of the position there is no watered capital and no inflation of capital accounted for at all. I take the cost, and I say on the cost you get a return of eleven per cent. on the outlay. When you consider that out of this you have to return not merely interest but the capital as well, eleven per cent. is not a very wonderful showing. I have said I am not going to discuss the whole question of mining taxation at length to-night, because this is not the proper time, but this is relevant, that is if there is one thing that is clear it is that the taxation of this source of revenue must be left to the Central Government of the State. If there is anything that we have done right this is clearly right.

The National Convention made a mistake.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) put a point to me as to having given in to the British Treasury. His statement is a wild and sweeping statement full of error, because in the bulk of cases the head offices of the companies are in this country and the British Treasury will not be affected. I have not gone into the figures, but in the great bulk of cases this thing does not happen. Now, sir, let me return to the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). He got on to the land tax and he said that Government had compromised itself about the tax, and that we were committed to a land tax. Of course we are nothing of the sort, and I said nothing of the sort. Hon. members must have a very curious apprehension of words if they think they can read into my statement that the Government was committed to a land tax. I said nothing of the kind. I quoted the report on the subject, and I said I was not going to say that the report was wrong. When we do commit ourselves we should be here with the report, but we are not here. We said last year what our position was on the question, and I need not go over all that again. It would be quite possible to construct a working out of the report without this element in it. What I said was that I was not going to say they were wrong. I spoke for myself, personally, not for a single one of my colleagues nor the Government. Is this another disappointment? My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior holds the same view; my hon. friend the Minister of Railways holds the same view. It is not a question of the Government having committed itself to the policy—that has not been done, for we had seen that the country is not yet right for it. So far as I am concerned there is no need for me to deny or pretend that I am against a rate on immovable property for local purposes—none whatever. Hon. members are quite welcome to make what use they like of that. I have no doubt that they will try. This principle is one which is accepted and acted upon in almost all these civilized countries of the world. Throughout Europe, and the United States particularly for educational purposes, and here we have got it in the Cape Province. We have grown up with it, the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) grew up with it; and since when has he developed this tremendous political opposition to this idea? He knows perfectly well there was no opposition; the people of the Cape Province were perfectly used to this system, it operated in respect of roads and bridges, but it has now become a political fetish. I agree with this that I think a tax of that sort, the getting of funds by that means, is not suitable for State purposes. It is not, perhaps, a suitable tax to be levied by the State, but for local and provincial purposes. I say it is employed all over the world, and there is very little to be said, certainly I am not going to say anything against it, in that respect, but it has become a regular fetish. At the same time, I am quite sure, and it is clear to us, the country is not ripe for anything of this sort, and the Government recognizes it, and is not going on with that as a matter of policy.

Na die eleksie sal dit ryp wees.

Maar dan is julle mos in Hon. members can see the uncertainty on the part of these gentlemen about the result of the election. They have got so used to their present position that their minds run ever on the certainty of their being in opposition after the election, and I think they are quite right.

The right hon. the Minister is nicely caught.

As a matter of fact, I am quite sure in my own mind that the effect of this old fetish, which is always worked for all it is worth, is beginning to die out. The thing has been examined, and I have been struck on many occasions by the attention with which it has been examined by our young farming South Africans. The bogey is beginning to lose its terrors, and this old “spook” is gradually being discovered to be our old familiar friend the scooped-out pumpkin with the fat candle inside. Let me give an illustration of the increasing attention which is being given to matters of this sort: the attitude of one of the most representative young South Africans on that side of the House. I refer to the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). Is he to be expelled from the fold? Is he to be driven out as a heretic by the decree of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), who has grown up with this thing? The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) said he quite agreed with the principle of a tax on immovable property for local purposes, so there seems to be something wrong with this thing. The hon. member was quite honest enough to say he quite agreed. I saw a shiver go through the spines of some of his leaders at this statement: they were afraid their case was being very largely spoilt. The hon. member was perfectly honest about that; then he also said something else that I am going to refer to, which I did not like so much, and which I was sorry to hear, but the hon. member, I will say this for him, whatever his shortcomings may be, is honest. He is very honest; he is so honest that he is even an unconscious meter of the opinions of his party. He said one thing, which I regret very much, and that was his reference to native and coloured education. The hon. member said that as a white man he resented the statement in the report that too much money had been spent on European education and not enough on coloured. He said that the truth was that the native was being pampered at the expense of the white man. Are these the views of his party? Is this what hon. members also think, because I shall be very much interested to know? They are extremely busy now trying to ingratiate themselves with the coloured people of this country, and I should like to know whether these are their views. Are they real views which the honest member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) gives out so bluntly? Let me say this that when I read that statement in the report I could not resent it; I had to feel ashamed because I recognized the melancholy truth of both those statements. I cannot feel otherwise than ashamed. Our record in this matter, and I speak once more for myself, this is my own feeling, our record in this matter is not creditable to us. If there is one thing as white men that we should lay most deeply to heart it is our duty not only to the native and coloured people of this country, but to the best interests and to the honour of our race that we should rectify these injustices. It is only by our conduct in this matter and in matters of a similar sort that we shall decide the future destiny of the white man in South Africa. The Government has shown its bona fides in this respect. We have had to take action both with regard to the natives and coloured people to provide additional funds for their education, and I only now mention the matter further in order to say I sincerely trust the provincial authorities will give their earnest attention to carrying out some further improvement in this matter. Then the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) went on to say, he is an honest Nationalist whom I am able to quote; he went on to say that he was in favour of the abolition of provincial councils. This is a most dreadful business. I am afraid the hon. member’s seat has gone; I do not know what he can do in order to preserve it with the honoured pundits of his party if he goes saying he is in favour of the abolition of Provincial Councils. The hon. member is too honest for his party; he is so honest that he really ought to be the leader of his party; he is so honest and shows so much enlightenment about these matters. Let me say this in conclusion, that I never suggested that we were taking up an heroic attitude. We are not. We are taking up an attitude forced upon us by the logic of events, but the matter does not lie in the hands of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and his friends. What single constructive idea have they put forward for the improvement of the position in the relations between the provinces and the Union? No constructive opinion has been suggested by them; they have never had one, and I suppose they never intend to have one.

Why should we?

Because hon. members have not got one. They have not got one except simply to come here and tell us that we should let the Provincial Councils do as they please and let them have all the money they want. That is their policy. We have docked their subsidies and so on, and forced them to unpopular measures. The idea of the proper regulation is simply to let the Provincial Council for their own purposes go on as they please, but of constructive policy to meet the inherent and important and tremendous difficulties that are in this question not one single tittle has been said. No, Sir, it is quite clear that if they were in our place to-day they would do even less than we are able to do. They would do less in the right direction, and I am quite sure that they would do a great deal more that is positively wrong. Nobody regrets, as I have said before, and as I repeat, nobody regrets more than I do, that we have not been able to act in a larger way in this matter. I have quite frankly explained what it is—we bow to the logic of facts. The country is quite clearly not yet quite ripe for this, and can anybody doubt the correctness of our view after having heard the discussion in the course of this Bill? You know that there is not any Government, either this Government or any other Government, that could have taken any other action at this stage. You know that. We have acted if not heroically at any rate as practical men, and we acted wisely in confining ourselves to this small thing, of which I now propose the House to take the second reading.

I beg to move, as an unopposed motion—

Order No. V involves a matter of very great urgency. The Bill has been introduced by my right hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, and it involves a matter in its first provision which is most urgently wanted, and I hope it will be possible for us to dispose of that little matter here to-night. I hope therefore that these Orders will be allowed to stand over until Order No. V has been disposed of.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Ek verstaan van die edelagbare die Minister vir Landbou, dat hy alreeds onder die bestaande Wet die mag het om besmette produkte van plante uit die land uit te hou. Hij sal outhou, dat ek die punt opgebreng het by die tweede lezing. Die edelagbare die Minister kry deur hierdie bepaling nie magte nie om te verhinder dat die produkte van plante in sal kom nie. Wat hy onder die Wet kan doen is, dat wanneer produkte van plante in die land is, dan kan hy na die Goeverneur-generaal gaan en dan kan hy ’n proklamasie kry, maar dan is die skade reeds gedaan. Sy antwoord was dat hy die magte had; wel, as hy die magte het, waarom vra hy dan nou om die amendement hier. Hy het vir my gesê, dat ek die Wet nie ken nie; dit skyn hy ken die strekking van sy amendement nie, anders kan ek hom nie begryp nie. Of hy het die magte of hy het hulle nie.

No, I can go, at any time and get a confirmation in regard to the introduction of certain plants. The moment experts of the Department, from information here or from elsewhere, realize the danger of the importation, we can by proclamation arrange either for the treatment of the plant, its stoppage or destruction. The reason why this amendment was put in the Bill is, that under the Agricultural Pests Act of 1911, there is no provision for dead portions of plants, and our experience has been, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, within the last few days urgent representations have been made by the Entomological Department that there is a possibility, that there is a danger in regard to dead portions of plants, about which we cannot issue a proclamation, being introduced. The one was the “Broom Corn.” I am extremely anxious that there should be no disease introduced in connection with cotton. The “Broom Corn,” to which I have referred, was imported into Durban, and, although we had not the power to do so, we made provisions to restrain it, as there was danger of the disease being introduced. It was never thought before that there was danger in the by-products of “Broom Corn.” It was on that account that it was thought necessary to introduce this Bill, and I hope that the House will pass it as quickly as possible. With that idea, I propose to withdraw Clause 4, dealing with locusts, as I believe the discussion on that would be very long, which would delay the passage of the Bill. I am anxious to get the Bill through the House at the earliest possible moment, and to get it through another place as quickly as possible, so that I might get the officers of the department at work as soon as possible.

My point is, I have never discussed the question. I know perfectly well that the plant can be stopped under the Act of 1911. The product of the plant is here already and the damage has been done. Under Clause 14 you can go to the Governor-General, who, by proclamation, can have the product put in the definition. Before that, you can do nothing, and that is the difficulty.

Surely the hon. member does not think we are going to issue a proclamation to stop everything coming into the country. The moment you get the idea that any disease is likely to be introduced by any plant or by-product, we would at once issue a proclamation whereby we would have power to stop that product.

Clause put and agreed to,

On Clause 4,

I propose to withdraw this.

Ek wil net iets sê oor hierdie seksie.

I withdraw this clause.

Ja, al word die teruggetrek, so wil ek graag die vraag tog stel. Waar hulp verleen word aan boere by die uitroei van sprinkhane, daar wil ek graag weet hoever die Regering die politiek gaan dryf om vir die hulp, wat die Regering verleen, die boer te laat betaal en later ’n rekening vir die hulp te stuur? Ek kan die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee, dat in my distrik die boere hulle beste gedoen het en ook mekaar gehelp het by die vernietiging van sprinkane. Maar ek wil weet—

We will have another opportunity to deal with this matter.

Ja, maar hierdie klousule maak bepalinge vir die okkupeerders van grond. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister weet, hoe die boer moet betaal het vir die hulp van Regeringswege nie. Ek weet van gevalle in my distrik en ek het persoonlike ondervinding daarvan. Ek wil weet, wat die politiek van die Regering gaat wees in verband hiermee. Dit lyk vir my onbillik om die boer vir regeringshulp te laat betaal, as hy sy beste gedoen het om sprinkane te vernietig en ook sy bure gehelp het en hy die hulp van die Regering alleen gekry het, omdat hy die sprinkane nie baas kan word het nie. Ek weet van gevalle waar die boer £18, £19, moet betaal het vir ’n week hulp op sy plaas, waar hy die werk nie sonder dié hulp kon doen het nie. Ek het die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies die vraag gestel, maar geen antwoord daarop van hom gekry nie; daarom vra ek dit nou aan die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou.

I may say this is a question we will have an opportunity of discussing later, as the circumstances the hon. member referred to are provided for in the existing legislation. An owner or occupier of a farm is obliged by the existing statutes of the country to destroy voetgangers on his property. It has been suggested that the owner of adjoining property should be obliged by law to render assistance. There has been a good deal of difference of opinion about that, and as I am so anxious to get the Bill through. I am prepared to vote against the clause dealing with locusts for that purpose. It is very necessary to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. As to the question of the payment for the destruction of locusts, we will have an opportunity of discussing it later on.

Ek wil net vra of dit die bedoeling is van die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou, dat die kwessie van die sprinkhane later weer ingebring sal word, of dat dit net moet oorstaan tot die Begroting.

As at present advised, I think I should not he induced to introduce this little clause.

Clause put and negatived.

stelde voor—

1. (1) Wanneer de Minister kennis gegeven wordt dat sprinkhane eieren in aanmerkelike mate in een distrikt gelegd hebben, laat hij een publieke vergadering van bezitters van grond binnen het distrikt bijeenroepen.
2. (2) Van zodanige vergadering moet veertien dagen vooraf kennisgeving in een nieuwsblad dat in het distrikt in omloop is worden gepubliceerd.
3. (3) Bij zodanige vergadering treedt de magistraat of bij zijn afwezigheid de additionele of assistent-magistraat van het distrikt als voorzitter op.
4. (4) Zodanige vergadering stelt drie personen aan die te zamen met twee andere personen door de Minister benoemd, een raad vormen, die tot plicht heeft toezicht te houden op de vernietiging van sprinkhanen binnen het distrikt.
5. (5) Na de vorming van zodanige raad wordt geen sprinkhaanbeambte aangesteld ten aanzien van het desbetreffende distrikt tenzij de raad zodanige aanstelling heeft aanbevolen.
6. (6) Wanneer voetgangers in zulk aantal op grond verschijnen dat de bezitter ervan ze zelf niet kan vernietigen, moet hij de raad dadelik daarvan kennis geven en wanneer de raad overtuigd is dat dit het geval is, neemt hij zodanige stappen als hij nodig oordeelt om zodanige bezitter te helpen om de sprinkhanen op zodanige grond te vernietigen.

Hij zei: Ek dink, dat na die gesprekke wat plaasgevind het in die Huis en na die petiesies wat ingekom het en waarvan daar nog ’n menigte sal kom, het dit duidelik geblyk, dat die toestand nie kan bly soos die nou is nie. Ek wil nie herhaal wat ek gesê het nie. Ek dink dis duidelik, dat dit ’n onmoontlike toestand is om dit op ’n paar persone te laat neerkom, om al die sprinkane te vernietig wat op hulle lande uitgekom het. Daar is al so dikwels hier gesê, dat die ’n nasionale-kwessie is, maar dan moet dit ook op ’n andere manier aangepak word. Dit word gedurig gesê, dat as die edelagbare die Minister ’n sukses wil maak van die vernietiging van sprinkane, dan moet hy die saamwerking hê van die boere. En ek is daarvan oortuig, dat hy dit die beste sal kry, op die manier as aangegee in hierdie amendement. In die eerste plek is hier herhaaldelik gesê, dat die amptenare nie altoos die regte manne is nie wat aangeistel word. Hulle word feitlik aangestel op aanbeveling van die magistraat. Ek erken, dat in baie gevalle die magistraat die man is wat van sprinkane afweet, belang in die moeilikhede stel en in verbinding staan met die boere. Maar in vele gevalle is dit ’n man wat op sy kantoor sit en daar sy werk doen en aan die persoon word dan opgedra om die amptenare aan te stel, tenminste aan te beveel en dis dikwels nie die regte manne wat hy aanbeveel nie. Dan sê die amendement, dat wanneer die edelagbare die Minister kennis kry dat sprinkane in aanmerkelike

ERRATA.

WEEKLY EDITION No. 7.

Page 765.—In line 26, first column—for “ finding” read “fining”

Page 766.—In line 5, second column—for “ Liniment, not taxable; embrocation, taxable —read “Liniment, taxable; embrocation, not taxable; and in lines 5 and 2 from end of column—for “Mosquitore” read Mosquitone”.

Page 767.—In line 2, first column—for “Mosquitore” read “ Mosquitone; and in line 19—for “prepared” read “prescribed”.

WEKELIKSE UITGAVE No. 7.

Bl. 765.—In regel 26, eerste kolom—in plaats van “finding” lees “fining”

Bl. 766.—In regel 5, tweede kolom—in plaats van “Liniment, not taxable; embrocation, taxable” lees “Liniment, taxable; embrocation, not taxable”; en in regels 5 en 2 van het einde van de kolom—in plaats van “Mosquitore” lees “Mosquitone”

Bl. 767.—In regel 2, eerste kolom—in plaats van “Mosquitore” lees “Mosquitore”; en in regel 19—in plaats van “prepared” lees “prescribed”.

mate eiers in ’n distrik gelê het, laat hy ’n puiblieke vergadering van besitters van grond binne die distrik byeen roep. En verder, dat van sodanige vergadering minstens 14 dae van te voire kennis moet gegee word in ’n nuwsblad wat in die distrik in omloop is. Die magistraat tree by die vergadering op as voorsitter en die vergadering stel drie persone aan, wat saam met twee andere persone, te benoem deur die edelagbare die Minister, ’n raad vorm, wie se plig sail wees om toesig te hou op die vernietiging van sprinkane binne die distrik. Verder word geen sprinkaan amptenare aangestel in die distrik, sonder dat hulle aanbeveel is deur die raad van die distrik. Die aanstelling bly nog in hande van die edelagbare die Minister, maar hy kies uit die persone wat aanbeveel is deur die distriks raad. Dan verder, wanneer voetgangers in sulk aantal op grond verskyn, dat die besitter van die grond die onmoontlik self kan vernietig nie, dan moet hy die raad daadlik daarvan kennis gee en wanneer die raad oortuig is, dat dit die geval is, dan neem hy sodanige stappe as hy nodig oordeel om sodanige besitter te help om die sprinkane op sodanige grond te vernietig. Ek dink, dat elkeen sal sien, dat dit ’n poging is om die saak ’n sukses te maak. Ons weet hoe verbasend veel daarvan afhang, dat die regte persoon aangestel word en dat die amptenare die vertroue het by die publiek en invloed onder die algemene publiek. Ek is oortuig daarvan, dat as op die manier gewerk word, dan sal ons meer doeltreffend werk en die, onkoste aanmerkelik verminder word teenoor wat die in die verlede gewees het. Dis dieself de as ’n boer wat ’n swaar vrag het, wat die osse nie kan trek nie, en wat dan meer mense kry om die osse aan te drywe. Maar ’n verstandige boer sal nie meer manne huur nie om die osse aan te drywe nie, maar hy sal ’n ander span osse huur. So ook met die amptenare. Toe die sprinkane baie gekom het, is daar baie inspekteurs aangestel en het die land groot onkoste veroorsaak. Die edelagbare die Minister moet ook meer spanne osse huur en nie meer drywers aanstel om meer te slaan nie. Die amendement neem hoegenaamd die verantwoordelikheid van die persoon nie weg, om as die sprinkane op sy plaas kom, die te vernietig nie, maar dit het keer op keer gebeur, dat sprinkane in sulke menigte op ’n plaas gekom het, dat dit onmoontlik wais om die te vernietig. Gevolglik spring ’n menigte op die buurman se grond en as daar een ding is wat ’n mens nukkerig en oplesierig maak, dan is dit, dat wanneer hy die sprinkane op sy grond vernietig het, dat hy dan ook nog sy buurman sene moet vernietig, en selfs sy twede en derde buurman sin. Nou word in die amendement voorsiening gemaak, dat ’n boer wat meer sprinkane op sy grond kry as hy kon behartig, moet hy kennis gee aan die Raad van die distrik en als die Raad vind dat dit so is, moet die Raad die boer hulp verskaf.

Dan is die sprinkane al lank weg, dan is hulle al van Colesberg na Fauresmith gevlieg.

Ek dink, die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga), het nie die amendement gelees nie. Daar word gesê, dat wanneer daar sprinkaan eiers in aanmerkelik getal op die grond is, dan moet die besitter van die grond dadelik kennis gee aan die raad. Die eiers van sprinkane is hie soos die eiers van vlieë, wat daadlik uitkom nie. Die sprinkane broei eers uit na die eerste reën wat volg Sodra eiers in aanmerkelike getal gevind word, moet voorsorge geneem word sodat alles gereed is, as hulle uitkom. In die Huis is gesê, dat ek teen die uitroeiïng van sprinkane is. Dis nie die geval nie. Ek sê, dat alles gedoen moet word, wat vermoë is. Maar dit moet te regter tyd gedoen word, as ons die grooste sukses wil hê. Hulle moet vernietig word wanneer hulle nog die klein swatertjies is en ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal my voorstel aanneem, dan sal ons sien dat meer bereik word as in de verlede en dat meer doeltreffend gewerk sal word.

Ek is geneigd om die voorstel van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) te ondersteun, maar wil ’n kleine verandering daarin voorstel, die ek hoop dat die edele lid sal wil aanvaar. Daar bestaat geen twyfel nie, dat as die vorstel van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) aangeneem word, dit die edelagbare die Minister aanmerkelik sal help by die kontrolering van die verkwisting deur ambtenare, wat nou aangaat, deur hulle in toom te hou. As die voorgestelde raad aangestel word, sal hulle nie soos nou kan handel met die geld van die Regering nie. Ek wil horn vraag om die volgende veranderinge aan te breng: In sub-artiekel (5), waar staat dat “wordt geen sprinkhaanbeambte aangesteld ten aanzien van het desbetreffende distrikt, tenzy de raad zodanige aanstelling heeft aanbevolen.” Ek stel derhalwe voor—

Ek voorsien dat die Minister baie moeilikheid sal kry, as daardie voorstel deurgaan. Die edele lid denk aan kleine distrikte, waar die mense dig op mekaar woon, maar wat van grote distrikte, wat ongeokkupeerd is, en waar niemand is om die nodige mededeling te doen nie? Die voorstel maak buitendien geen melding of dit magistraats distrikte moet wees of anders nie en hoe gemaak in die westelike dele van die Kaap Provinsie met sy groot distrikte, wat so yl bewoohd is? Daar mag iets goeds in die voorstel wees, maar dit sal grote moeilikheid afgee in daardie westelike dele.

Dit spyt my, dat die Minister van Landbou nie van plan skyn om die voorstel van die edele lid van Colesberg (de hr. Louw) aan te neem nie, maar hy sou dit doen, as hy self meer ondervinding had vail sprinkhane en hoe vinnig, dat die goed vermeerder; dan sou hy ook meer gebruik maak van die hulp, wat hy van sulke liggame, as wat daar voorgestel word, kan kry. Ek het onlangs twee briewe, die ek ontvang het, gegee aan die Sekretaris vir Landbou, waarin meedeling gedaan word van groot uitbroeiïng en instroming van sprinkhane en teleglyk wys hy my briewe van sy beambte dat dit net klein swermpies is, wat uitgebroei was en is goed onder beheer. Onlangs werd ’n vergadering gehou op Prieska, waarop baie boere teenwoordig was, en hulle het sterk ten gunste gepraat van die afskaffing van die sprinkhaanbeambte en om die werk in hande te stel van die boere eelf. Daar werd geklaag oor die slegte behandeling, wat van die inspekteurs die mense aandoen, maar ek wil dit nou nie alles herhaal nie. Sommige inspekteurs doen goeie werk, maar ander ry net van plaas tot plaas en gee nie om hoe die werk gedaan word. Dit sal in die algemeen meer bevrediging gee, as daar ’n blywende raad aangestel word om raad te gee, en dan sal daar ook meer hulp verkry word van die boere.

No doubt the object which the hon. member has in view is a very laudable one, and I am sure that all that can be done to destroy the “voetganger” in the earliest possible stage should be encouraged by the House. In the first paragraph it says—

I want to get this thing through, that is why I was prepared to withdraw the former clause.

Then there is no need for me to make any suggestions.

Dit spyt my dat die edelagbare die Minister daardie artiekel in die Wet opgeneem het, want as sprinkhane eers ter sprake kom, dan kry ons nooit die Wet deur nie, en dit is noodsaaklik, dat daar beskerming verleen word in verband met sekere landbouplage. Ek sou die edele vriend vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) vra sy voorstel terug te trek, opdat ons die Wet in derde lesing kan aanneem; hy kan dan nog altoos ’n gelegenheid kry om met sy voorstel voor die dag te kom.

I regret that this amendment has been put forward.

Let us get the Bill through before five minutes to eleven.

The object of the amendment is laudable enough in its place, but in the very first clause it says a meeting shall be called, but everyone knows what that means. How many farmers will come to a meeting? After all, the last campaign in regard to locusts has been a very satisfactory one and a very organized one. You must have legal authority to carry out this work in the districts, and I don’t think this clause will help us.

Dit spyt my dat lede van Transvaal daardie houding aanneem, want hulle posiesie is soveel anders as ons syne. Hulle wil nou, dat ons die sprinkhane doodmaak vir hulle: wel, gee ons dan die kans, want ons is net so begerig as hulle of wie ook om dit te doen. Laat ons die ding ’n kans gee die volgende keer.

Dit is nie reg van die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou om, as hy nie met ’n voorstel saamgaan nie, soas met hierdie van my, om my bespotlik voor te stel en belaglik te maak nie. Dit help nie en ek sal my ook nie daardéur laat afskrik nie. As een saak van sulk gewig is, dan verwag ek dat daaraan ’n kans sal gegee word, om dit behoorlyk te bespreek.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed.