from Lady Gallwey, of Primrose Bank, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, widow of the late Sir Michael Gallwey, K.C.M.G., formerly Attorney-General, Chief Justice and Acting Governor of the Colony of Natal, praying for the consideration of her case and for relief.

from Amy A. Spotswood, a teacher in the Huguenot Girls’ High School, Wellington, who has been engaged in teaching since 1903, and whose name was placed on the official list of Government teachers in 1912, praying that her services from 1903 to 1912 may be added to her Government service for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from R. Miller and others, residents of the parochial district of Heidelberg, praying that the said district may be constituted either a fiscal division or, alternatively, a centre of a detached Assistant Resident Magistracy, or for other relief.

To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “this House do not now proceed with the consideration of the Financial Relations Bill, but recommends that the Government should undertake the work of equalising the taxation in regard to Transfer Duties and Trade and Professional Licences throughout the Union; and, further, that in the opinion of this House the Government should take into consideration the advisability of appointing a Commission to consider the question of Provincial and Local Government with special regard to the requirements of the smaller Provinces.”

To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “the order for the second reading be discharged and that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee with leave to bring up an amended Bill which shall make provision for regulating the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces according to fixed principles applying equally to all the Provinces and enabling the Provinces, if they so desire, to remove the existing discrepancies in regard to transfer duty, licences, school tax, and all other sources of Provincial revenue, and in regard to the salaries of teachers and school inspectors without imposing fresh local taxation; the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to consist of eleven members.”

said the House had listened for several days to a long and very interesting discussion upon this Bill. He thought the House was indebted to some of the speakers, and to none more so than the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), whose speech was very instructive and very impressive. In the few words that he (Mr. Quinn) would have to say, he proposed to refer to some of the suggestions that had been thrown out by several of the speakers. Indeed, had it not been for the speech of the hon. member for George he did not think that he would have troubled the House on the subject at all, but the point of view that the hon. member had taken up, together with what had been said by other speakers had alarmed him very much. The financial aspect of the Bill had been very fully dealt with, and he would not deal with that. The financial burden distributed in the Transvaal was most unsatisfactory, and one would have thought that seeing the Transvaal had two such shining lights as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, they would have seen that some more consideration would have been given to the Transvaal from the financial point of view, but it was a testimony to the patriotic spirit of the Transvaal, that there had been no complaint from a single member about the bearing of these financial burdens, and he was not going to be the first to start it. If the burden of taxation was so apportioned out that it fell upon those who were best able to bear it, then that principle had been borne out in the Financial Relations Bill. He felt, however, rather proud that they had not complained about this. The part of the speech of the hon. member that startled him was that his views were supported by the hon. member for Cape Town, and by members opposite. The cool way in which the possibility of getting rid of the Provincial Councils was spoken about, and substituting something else, had startled him. They were all impressed with the importance of this measure, and he thought that the Natal members’ protest begun in a very moderate speech by his hon. friend the member for Durban, Berea, was reasonable, although some of the Natal members had spoken strongly and rather harshly upon this subject. Let the House remember that Natal came into this Convention not as willingly as other parts of the Union. Natal was induced partly to come into Union by the establishment of these Provincial Councils. They took it for granted that no one would want to alter the Constitution. Regarding the Provincial Councils, he thought some members had been harsh in their judgment. They had been twice told that the best members in Natal were members of the Provincial Council. They quite agreed with that. (Laughter.) A large number of the best public men found it impossible to come away a thousand miles down to Cape Town and sit in Parliament for five or six months.

These Provincial Councils ought to be, and he believed would be, made very desirable indeed. They were not encouraged; they were discouraged. He did not think they had sufficient work to do. They were like the members of that House—they were willing to work, but they could not get work. It seemed to him a very sad thing that almost within three years of the establishment of Union they in that House should already be talking of tinkering with the Constitution. (Hear, hear.) He sympathised very much with the view put forward by the Natal members, and he thought that if they went into the question of doing away with the Provincial Councils they were just as much entitled to go into the question of the two capitals, the two languages, or anything else they liked. Surely this Constitution ought to remain a sacred thing for a few years at all events. They ought to regard it as the Ark of the Covenant. There was nothing that that House could not do under the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution kept that all-important matter in their minds all the time. He pleaded that the Constitution should be left intact for a reasonable time, and that they should not lightly in that House look forward to the time when they could tinker with the Constitution. It was wicked within three years of the time when the four colonies had been brought together to start now and say they were going to reconsider things. He thought all this talk of interfering with the Provincial Councils was unsound. He agreed very strongly with the gentlemen who had urged that they should have more local government. (Hear, hear.) What was it suggested they should put in place of the Provincial Councils, supposing they agreed to entertain the idea of doing away with the Provincial Councils? No constructive suggestion had been made. Reverting to the Natal position, he did not think that sufficient consideration had been given to the position of the Natal members. Representing practically all shades of political opinion in that House, each one seemed to go beyond what the other had said in his demand that the interests of the Provincial Councils should be safeguarded That fact the House could not ignore. (Hear, hear.)The Convention had produced probably the finest Constitution in the world, and he thought the time would come when the men who came after them would point to their fathers and grandfathers and say that their chief and perhaps only merit was that they were members of the Convention. In regard to the Bill, he thought the Government had had an extremely difficult task, but on the whole he considered that there had been an attempt to deal fairly and squarely with the question, and he should, therefore, support the second reading. (Hear, hear.)

said one could divide the objections to the Bill into four parts. Some asked for equality of taxation, some objected that the Bill made no provision for a check on provincial expenditure, others that it would strengthen the Provincial Councils, and the remainder disliked the small special allowances to Natal and the Free State. The Government, however, had had no option, but was obliged to bring a Bill before the House under the terms of clause 118 of the South Africa Act. As regarded the objections, he pointed out that the fathers of the Constitution had not intended that all taxes should be equalised before anything else. He thought that under the Constitution a financial relations measure had to be introduced as soon as possible. Some people had short memories, and in this respect he wished to remind the House that in 1910 the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had moved for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the financial relations. In those days he had not said a word about equalisation of taxation coming first. By voting for this Bill they voted that the recommendations of the Commission should be carried out, as that Commission had recommended that certain revenue should be handed over to the Provinces, and the Government had adopted those recommendations. As regarded transfer dues, he held that this was a matter which should rest with the Central Parliament. At any rate, such transfer duties should first of all be made equal. Notwithstanding all the objections which had been raised, he thought that under the Bill Parliament would still keep the “key of the Treasury,” and the Provinces would get nothing until they had first produced the half. The hon. member proceeded to deal with the arguments in favour of the abolition of the Provincial Councils, and held that no one who carefully thought over this matter could advocate such a course being taken. (Hear, hear.) They had too many ruling authorities in the Cape empowered to levy taxation but during the five years in which education remained in the hands of the Provincial Councils there could be no question of abolishing those bodies. As regarded the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage, he contended that these remarks might be made if at the end of five years Parliament decided to take over primary education. For the time being that was not a matter to be dealt with here. Touching upon the arguments in regard to the subsidy to Natal and the Free State, the hon. member referred to the benefits which had accrued to the Cape as the result of Union. It would be a blurr on this Parliament, he urged, if after they had considered everything they refused this small subsidy to these two Provinces, for they would never have entered into Union if they had been told they they would have to contribute £80,000 extra taxation in a few years. Dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), he said that the hon. member had criticised the Bill but had not placed anything in its stead. The Cape was better off under the Bill to the extent of £359,000. Subject to the amendment promised by the Minister, he was prepared to give this Bill his hearty support, and was prepared to go back to his constituents and submit it to them, feeling satisfied that they would agree with his attitude. (Hear, hear.)

said that before Union many members of the Cape Parliament, including himself, thought that Provincial Councils were not necessary, because the Cape Colony had its local self-government already, but when it had been pointed out that the other Provinces did not have such self-government they were in favour of giving the system a trial. After having two years’ experience, and especially in regard to the time it took to get measures through that Union Parliament, he had changed his opinion, and he wished to state, as a Cape member, why he would vote for that Bill, or why he did not agree with some of the statements made by some Cape members as to the Provincial Councils. He considered that a solemn agreement had been entered into by the several Provinces, and that, at any rate, they should give the system a five years’ trial before they altered it. He was also of opinion that the Provincial Councils had not had a fair trial, and had not even had granted to them the powers stipulated in the Act of Union. If they had not got that power and had failed to carry out what they expected them to do, it was not the fault of the Provincial Councils, but the fault of the Union Parliament for not granting them that power. He considered that Bill an improvement on the present system. In the past two years the Provincial Councils had granted to them a lump sum from the Union Parliament without being responsible for raising their own revenue, and if that Bill did not pass the Provincial Councils would have again to obtain all their revenue through the Union Parliament. He considered that the Provincial Councils had done good work already. They in Griqualand West had received many benefits since they had come into Union, not only from the Union Government, but also from the Provincial Councils. If there had been one part of the country more heavily taxed than any other through the railways before Union it was Griqualand West; and that heavy burden had been taken away from them since they had come into Union. Since the Provincial Council had taken over education the school buildings in Griqualand West had been improved, and they now had suitable buildings erected instead of the hovels they once had. The Provincial Council had already passed several Ordinances which were of great advantage to local self-government. If these measures had been introduced into the Union Parliament he would ask hon. members where they would have been at the present time; the local business of the Cape Province would be at a standstill because they in the Union Parliament had no time to attend to those local matters. Although he was supporting the second reading of that Bill, he was not entirely satisfied with all its provisions, and hoped that some of the provisions would be altered when they came to the committee stage. The Bill made no provision for unifying taxation throughout the Union, and left Provincial taxation in a very unfair and very unsatisfactory condition. They did expect, when the Government introduced a Bill dealing with one section of taxation, they would do away with inequalities; but, instead, that Bill continued the unsatisfactory state of taxation of South Africa. If Parliament decided to hand over several forms of taxation to the Provincial Councils, it should say that those taxes should be equalised throughout the Union before they were handed over. As to the transfer duty, if it were decided to fix it in the Cape Province at a certain amount it should be fixed at the same amount in the other Provinces of the Union.

In his opinion, that also should apply to the licences. He could not understand why a firm in one part of the Union should have to pay £100 for a licence as importers, while others in other parts of the Union should have to pay nothing at all. He was not saying that the licence should be £100, but it should be equal throughout the Union. Another objection he had to the Bill was that the Government professed to adopt the £ for £ principle laid down by the Financial Relations Commission, but in this Bill they broke away from that principle. They had agreed to pay a pound for every pound contributed, but here they were voting a lump sum. The position in ten years’ time would be exactly the same as it was to-day, and the same objections would be raised to the Provinces taxing themselves for their own requirements. It might be argued that there was no intention for these two Provinces to make machinery for raising taxation for their own requirements. They could not ask one part of the Union to provide for its local requirements, whereas the requirements of other parts of the Union were met by the Central Government. Directly the Government began to tamper with the Provincial Councils, then they would find themselves in another difficulty. Unless they were going to bring every Province into line with the other Provinces, then they must do away with the system in the Cape Province; and in doing away with that system, they were going to go from one difficulty to another. He believed that the pass fee was a very fair system of taxation, and people who used this class of labour should pay from 1s. or 2s. per month. He would like to know whether it was not possible to introduce this tax all over, because he believed that it would be a great advantage to those employing natives. He had already touched upon railway rates and upon school fees, but whilst he was thankful for benefits received he would not be doing his duty to his constituency unless he stated that people were more heavily taxed in Griqualand West than in other parts of the Union. They had the disadvantage of local taxation, as in the Cape Province, and they had the disadvantage also of paying pass fees, and paying much more for the carriage of their goods than in the Transvaal. He believed that there was plenty of work for the Provincial Councils, and he believed also that they already had done very good work.

said it would be a breach of faith at this stage to abolish the Provincial Councils. Although the National Convention consisted of the most capable men in the country, they were unable to fix their financial relations with the Provincial Councils. These had to be done by a Commission. He held that these bodies should be given a chance to show what they could do. However, at the same time, he did not think that without further investigation they should make the Provincial Councils permanent. If they did not prove satisfactory, he thought that eventually there would be no alternative but to abolish them. If they were satisfactory, they would continue to exist. At a period like this they should be careful, and not be unjust towards one Province. Proceeding, the hon. member warned the House against the pulling down of the Provincial Councils, as this might lead to their pulling down other parts of the Constitution. As regarded the remarks of the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), he had understood the Minister to say that he was in favour of the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the best system of local government. He (Mr. Currey) seemed to have misunderstood the Minister on this point. The question of the equalisation of taxation was an important one, and in a matter like this they should go slowly. After all, equality on paper was not always equality in reality. As regarded the Divisional Councils, he did not agree that these bodies represented the best form of local government, as under this system the rich districts had a great advantage over the poorer districts. Some hon. members continually held that the Cape was being so unjustly treated in regard to education. Well, he only wished to say that, so long as the Transvaal, with its surpluses, could help the other Provinces, he would not object. But he certainly would object to the Transvaal having to be further taxed. They had made the greatest sacrifices, and he maintained that in the circumstances the Transvaal was entitled to consideration. By equality of taxation, some hon. members apparently only aimed at increasing taxes in the Transvaal. Real equality of taxation should be aimed at without too great delay. In railway matters, for instance, no matter what they did, the inland Provinces would always have to pay more highly than the coastal Provinces.

said that he should vote for the second reading of this Bill, with the explanation that had been made by the Minister of Finance. There were some points in the Bill connected with the municipalities which were not satisfactory to those bodies, but he gathered from the Minister’s speech that he was prepared to modify the arrangements in the Bill in order to meet their objections. Continuing, he said that it was only when a referendum was taken that Natal agreed to the Act of Union, and it should not be forgotten that only one-half of the electorate voted at all, and that of the other half some 4,000 men voted against the Draft Act. Dealing with the Provincial Councils, he said he would like to say on behalf of Natal, that he was quite sure that that Province would strongly insist upon the retention of the Provincial Council system and the increase of their duties and powers. Speaking as a member of one of the municipalities of Natal, he could assert from experience he had found the Provincial Council exceptionally useful. If he thought that the Bill would as amended tend to do away with the Provincial Councils he would vote against it, but in view of the assurance of the Minister, he would support the measure, and hoped that the House would follow suit.

said he thought that four years was not a long enough period to determine whether the Provincial Council system was the best. He thought they required far more experience than they had had up to the present to determine upon the best course to pursue. He had been told that the administrative expenditure of these Divisional Councils was very heavy indeed, and he thought that a good deal of saving would be effected if they were centralised. He thought it would take more than four years to evolve a system of local government that would give satisfaction throughout the length and breadth of the land. He was sorry that the Minister had recommended that the system should only last another four years. In the course of the debate a number of members had talked about the extravagance of the Administrators, their Executive Committees, and the Provincial Councils. In every walk of public life they would find some men who could not distinguish between increased expenditure and extravagance. Those who had brought the charge of extravagance should remember that the Estimates for 1911 were based upon the last Estimates of the various Colonies. In the two years preceding Union roads and other works had been starved in Natal, and was it any wonder, when money became a little more obtainable, that there should be an increase in the Estimates? The hon. member pointed out that the money which came into the Union Treasury was money which came from the people of every Province, and it was only right to expect that consideration should be shown to the people of the Provinces, and that things should not be cut down to the lowest limit, in order to build up Union surpluses. In conclusion, the hon. member said he also wanted to raise his voice against the proposal to abolish the Provincial Councils, and he hoped that they would be able to satisfy the people of Natal that there was no intention of departing from the Act of Union in that respect. Referring to what the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) had said, he asked what attitude the hon. member had adopted in regard to the judicial capital when that matter had been before the House the previous year?

said that what was now before them was different from what had first been introduced by the Minister, and he took it that they were considering a temporary measure, which cut away much of the ground of the opposition to the Bill as it stood when placed on the Table of the House originally. Anything would be better than the continuation of the old system of “block votes,” and there was no rhyme or reason in that sort of thing, and it was bound to lead to dissatisfaction throughout the Union. Any system which did away with that system would be an improvement. It was an essential matter to put the financial relations of the Union on a proper footing, if only to give the Provincial Councils a fair chance, because the Provincial Councils had not had a fair chance as yet, and had been distinctly handicapped from the moment of their birth. Dealing with the financial aspect of the matter, he said that the measure was going to perpetuate taxation which was unfair and antiquated. The transfer duty was a direct impediment to the progress of the Union, and in no Province of the Union had it been more severely felt than in the Cape Province—(hear, hear)—and if there had been anything to prevent the property market of the Cape Province from reaching its normal state again, it had been the transfer duty. (Hear, hear.) Then, if they took the pass fees, he had heard from one of the members of the Transvaal that he did not object to those fees, because those who had to pay them were able to pay them, but the pass fees were precisely open to the same objection as the Transfer Duty—when they were going to make one section of the Transvaal Province pay for the taxation of the whole. It seemed to him a fatal thing, if they accepted the principles of equalisation of taxation throughout the Union, to give to the Provinces the right of fixing the amount of the licences. By handing over to them these channels of taxation, they were practically inviting them to perpetuate them. If they were hard up, they would look to these for taxation. In the Cape Province some of the licences had always been a source of great irritation, and if they had a list of the licences which had to be paid in the Cape Province, why, it was almost as long as his arm. (Laughter.) (An HON. MEMBER: Who did it?) Mr. Baxter replied the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had imposed many of these licences, as a temporary measure, in very bad times. The income-tax had gone; the patent medicine tax and other taxes had gone; but the licences remained, and were going to be handed over to a body which was going to perpetuate these taxes. If there was to be Free Trade throughout the Union, as the South Africa Act provided, in a clause which had been quoted by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben) the other day, he submitted that there must be freedom of opportunity between the different Provinces of the Union, and there could not be such free opportunity if traders in one Province had to pay for certain licences while traders in another Province escaped scot free. If they only thought about the matter they would see that licences might be used as Protection, of Province against Province. It was said that that would not be done, but there had been instances, and there were instances at the present day. In that respect the hon. member referred to commercial travellers’ licences, imposed to protect traders in one fiscal division against competition from other divisions. Then as to the licences for agents of foreign firms, if a man was domiciled in the Cape Province he paid £25, while if he were not domiciled there he had to pay £50. If they had that principle already, why should not the Provincial Councils extend it? They had left in the Provincial Councils’ hands a tremendous power which was making against the equalisation of taxation throughout the Union, and was against the sense of Union. He submitted that the Minister now that he had agreed that the transfer duties should be assigned that he should apply this principle to the trading licences. What reason was there for an importer in Bloemfontein, who imported his goods through Port Elizabeth, having to pay no licences, while an importer at Cradock had to pay perhaps £100. An importer in one Province should not be made to feel at a disadvantage as compared with an importer in another. He hoped that the Minister would differentiate between these licences. His objection to the measure as it stood was that it was going to make the Provincial Councils spending bodies for a very little responsibility. They were going to spend up to the limit of their income.

It seemed to him that the proposed system was open to this objection that it was not going to bring home to the people who elected the Provincial Councils that they had to find the money for them. He had taken as an illustration the Transvaal. How were they going to bring home to that Province that it was being taxed for the Provincial Councils? Could anyone argue that the transfer duty could bring home to anyone that he was being taxed by the Provincial Councils, and the same argument would apply to the pass fees and licences. They were nearly all paid by certain sections only of the electorate. If they did not bring home to the electors in the Provinces that they were individually responsible for taxation, then they were never going to have economy or any responsibility. Anyone who had anything to do with municipal estimates of expenditure recognised that if these were left to the officials, they would spend as much as they could, and their expenditure would only be limited by the amount the Council was going to provide for them. The only one thing that made for economy in municipal affairs was the fear of the ratepayers. That was a very salutary fear, but he did not find it in this Bill. A Provincial Council was not going to be judged in country districts by what it had spent, but by what it had not spent. It seemed to him a pity that they did not adopt the Majority Report, and that they left out the main principle laid down by the Report. In that Report it was laid down that while Parliament was to find £ for £ subsidies for various Provinces and assigned certain revenues, these revenues were purposely limited so that the Provincial Councils should be forced to impose some direct taxation forthwith. As it was, they were giving the Provincial Councils a blank cheque, and that was not sound finance. He made these criticisms not in any sense because he wanted to break down the Provincial Councils. He could not join with these prominent members of Parliament, who were also members of the National Convention and who would lightly wreck the Constitution. If they were going to wreck the Constitution in a vital point like this, where was the knife going to stop? (Cheers.) Provincial Councils had not had a fair chance, and it was foolish to sit and judge upon a system which was devised by the best 33 men of South Africa. It was not a compliment to these men that they should be discussing this now. They could not disregard this unanimous protest from Natal. What was more, were they in a position to say to-day that the work of the Provincial Council was unnecessary. The work of the Provincial Council was carried on under disabilities; but there was a very good case made out for them remaining.

One of the good things the Provincial Councils had done was to do what the various municipalities throughout the Cape Province had demanded during the last ten years or so, viz., pass the Cape Municipal Ordinance. What chance, he asked, would there have been in this Union House of passing this year a measure to provide for the unification of the various municipalities of the Cape Peninsula? (Hear, hear.) They might as well have tried to federate with the moon. They would not get it through any more than they could get any of the measures through which appeared on the paper. His experience of this Union House during the last three years was that there was not much hope that it would for many a long year be possible to do away with Provincial Councils as Parliaments. They were intended to be subsidiary Parliaments. What was the tendency of things in parliamentary matters? It seemed to him that if they did away with all the four Provincial Councils as subsidiary Parliaments they were going to reduce this House to the state of the House of Commons. Heaven forbid that that should ever happen! He did not want to see Ministers bring in Bills and pass them without any discussion. He did not want to see the Legislature of the country carried on by closure compartments. He did not want to see a state of things in the Legislature of this country which was going to mean that the Ministers in power for the time being were going to be the autocrats for the whole country. He wanted them to have free speech and free discussion. He did not want to see anything done now by the abolition of the various Provincial Councils throughout the Union which was going to mean that they were going to have in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa such a deplorable state of things as had come about in the House of Commons in recent years. (Cheers.)

said he wanted to look at this matter not from a provincial or financial point of view, but from the point of view of the way in which it was going to affect South Africa. He agreed that we must have Provincial Councils for the purpose of local government, but he did not like the constitution of the Provincial Councils. He thought they could not do away with the Provincial Councils immediately, but he certainly did not favour continuing them in their present form for a moment longer than was absolutely necessary. With the information before the House, he felt very chary about voting for a measure for even four years, because he felt, what the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had referred to as the “Old Man of the Sea,” he felt just that dread of continuing Provincial Councils on their present basis. All the evidence tended to this, that these Councils were called into being for the purpose of decentralising Government and the administration of local affairs, and that they should have the power of supplementing their resources by local taxation for local purposes, subject always to the approval of Parliament, and augmenting such a fair share of what every locality was entitled to out of the general revenue for the purposes of its local needs. Looking to section 85 of the Act of Union, it seemed to him that the system of Divisional Councils was in the minds of the members of the Convention. He did not think the Provincial Councils as they were constituted at the present time answered the purposes for which they had been created. His first objection was that, as they had been created, they were great factors in perpetuating provincialism, which he thought they wanted to get rid of as soon as possible. He thought that section 89 of the South Africa Act clearly showed that it was not intended that the Government should pay over lump sums to the Provincial Councils, but certain moneys for “particular purposes,” as well as moneys for “general administration.” They were definitely asked by section 5 of the Bill to enforce the £ for £ principle, and to this he objected because it took out of the hands of the House the power of assisting localities that required favourable attention. By perpetuating this system of Provincial Councils the Bill was not creating a healthy state of affairs. It meant that they were practically placing vast sums of money in the hands of one man to spend as he liked by the delegation of the power to levy and collect taxation as proposed in the Bill, they would be striking a blow at the prestige of the House which would take years to right. They could not abolish the Provincial Councils else the gentlemen of Natal would wreck Union, and that would be a calamity. He pointed out that the Provincial Council system was a most expensive scheme, and so expensive a scheme was not contemplated by those who were responsible for building up the Councils, and who certainly thought that Union would lead to a curtailment of the huge expenditure that went for the administration of the country. He thought that Parliament should determine the amount for which the £ for £ principle should be applied. Then Parliament should assign the proceeds of certain taxation to the Provincial Councils, which must be collected by and remain under the control of the Union Government. Then it should subsidise them for any further expenditure year by year. Then it should control the capital expenditure, leaving the Councils to suggest local taxation which they would be prepared to go into. He intended to support the second reading, but he did hope that the Minister, when the second reading was passed, would send the Bill to a Select Committee to decide upon the many issues that were involved. He hoped that the House would get an undertaking from the Minister that afterwards he will take into consideration the appointment of a Commission to consider that portion of the report of the Financial Relations Commission referring to the constitution of these Provincial Councils. He felt that the Provincial Councils had had a fairly good trial. They had had all the money they wanted, and he did not see by any alteration in their constitution how they were going to take away any of the powers held by the Provincial Councils at the present time. He thought they should be very careful before they stereotyped a system which everybody agreed had not worked satisfactorily.

said he would like to associate himself with those hon. members who had urged that the Provincial Councils should be continued, and that the powers conferred upon those bodies should be in practice given to them. The hon. member who had just spoken seemed to forget that the constituents who sent him into the House also sent his colleague into the Provincial Council. The suggestion was altogether wrong that members of the Provincial Council were not responsible. They were just as responsible to their constituents as the members in that House. The responsibility was the same in both cases, and the electors were the same. If they bore that in mind they would not treat Provincial Councils with the contempt so many members had poured upon them.

The only logical result of doing away with them would be that the country would be having centralisation very much worse than at present. Provincial Councils were there for a definite purpose laid down by the Act of Union. As emphasising the value of the work they were doing, the hon. member pointed out that the Administration might disallow a Provincial Ordinance. It was a peculiar fact that although these Provincial Councils had been in existence for 2½ years and had passed many important Ordinances, not a single one had been disallowed. It was clear, then, that these Ordinances must have fulfilled a good and useful object so far as the Administration was concerned. It was by no means the people of Natal only who wanted to retain their Provincial Council. If the Provincial Council were proposed to be abolished in the Cape there would be a great outcry against that abolition. There is by no means a general opinion amongst the people in the Cape in favour of doing away with the Provincial Council. What they objected to was that the Provincial Councils have not been given the amount of work they ought to have under the Act of Union. They were quite prepared to take responsibility as well as power. The reason why responsibility had been divorced from power was that the Government had neglected to bring forward a Bill to determine these financial relations until 2½ years after Union. The Provincial Councils were not to blame for that. The question of time was a matter of great importance. When a great measure of reform was brought in in connection with the railways, four years were given so that the principle should be carried out. After the House had passed the principle and that had been settled, this period of four years was given, because it was felt it would be so long before they could get this principle properly guaranteed. Now, for the first time, a Bill was brought forward to deal with the question of financial relations, and instead of giving them four years, some members wanted to sweep the Provincial Councils away altogether. If the Provincial Councils were tampered with the whole of the South Africa Act would have to be altered. They were not only going to amend the Act of Union, but, in addition, to sweep away a number of its provisions. Immediately they began with the Provincial Councils they would find that a good deal of the structure would also have to be dealt with. The hon. member for Clanwilliam had said that no expenditure was initiated except by the Administrator, whom he described as autocratic. The Administrator in the Provincial Council, however, was guided by his Executive Committee, although it may be that any particular Administrator may dominate his Council by virtue of a virile personality. If that were so it was a testimony to the personality of the Administrator.

He would like to ask the hon. Minister to reply to the matter, touched upon by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, how soon it would be possible for the Government to take steps to make taxation as far as possible uniform throughout the Union. It was now 2½ years after Union, and members of the Government were reasonably asked when some general measure making for uniformity of taxation would be brought in. Something had been done, and the Cape Colony was much better off under Union than before, though that was not entirely due to Union, for other causes had contributed. At the same time there were certain disabilities, especially those licence fees which were referred to, transfer duty, and the heavy local taxation that existed in the Cape and did not exist elsewhere. Those were matters on which they ought to get some expression from the Minister as to how soon it would be possible to take some steps. He (Mr. Alexander) was glad that the House was going to vote for the second reading. The great moving principle was that all relations between the Union and the Provinces should be placed upon a sound financial basis, but these financial relations should not be settled upon the basis of taking away from the Provincial Councils the powers that they had, but rather upon that of adding to these powers so as to do away with any further tendency to centralisation.

said the Minister’s announcement in regard to transfer duties would give general satisfaction throughout the Union. He hoped the Minister would at an early date introduce a measure for the equalisation of licence fees— otherwise when once they were handed over to the provincial authorities he feared that they would never be equalised. He pointed out that in various parts of the Union there were thousands of children who were without education, and hoped that before this Bill was put into force the Minister of Finance would make some provision for these children. With reference to reduction of transfer duties, to 2 per cent. in the Free State, he wished to know whether it was the Government’s intention to make up for this reduction of revenue in the subsidy from the Treasury.

said that he had always been a federationist and not a unificationist, not for mere theoretical or academic reasons, but because of his practical knowledge of the conditions of South Africa, and of the bedrock differences of ideals, opinion and practice in certain parts of South Africa. He had felt that it would have been better that any of these matters on which there were these tremendous differences of opinion should be left in the hands of the old Parliaments; therefore, he was glad that the National Convention, against the opinion of some of its most important members, had been forced to set up a kind of federal system, only there was that difference between the present system and the federal system that in the present system power devoluted from the higher to the lower body, and the higher body had the sway and the whip-hand of the lower body, as was right. In the Cape Province, in his opinion, the Provincial Council had justified its existence, and had proved itself a most necessary and useful portion of the scheme of Government set up by the National Convention. The needs of the land had been attended to, in those departments given to the care of the Provincial Council, in a way in which they had never been attended to before, and he instanced what had been done with regard to his own constituency (the Transkei). Still, the Transkei had received no doles, as had been averred by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). Anyone who had noticed the bedrock differences of opinion amongst members of the House, coming from different Provinces, must recognise that the differences were so great that what the Union Parliament could not deal with, owing to these differences, should be relegated to the Provincial Councils. He did not agree with the attack which had been made on the Administrator of the Cape Province, who was an energetic and competent man, and it would be found that most of the great, energetic, and competent men of the world had been a bit autocratic; and so had the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) been when he had been Premier of the Cape. (Laughter.) A competent and somewhat autocratic man could do much good. It. was not surprising that the Provincial expenditure had increased, and it was only natural, because immediately prior to Union the Cape had been absolutely starved, owing to the bad times. What more natural that, now that times had become better, their expenditure should be increased? It seemed evident from the South Africa Act that in the minds of the members of the National Convention the Provincial Councils were to go on for ten years at least, as their members had to elect Senators in case of a vacancy in the Senate; and the present Senate had to go on for ten years, at least, before there was a new Senate. As to the Bill, as first published, he could not agree with it, for two reasons, one of which was that, if they granted the Provinces these grants for ten years, they might not at once begin to set their house in order in regard to provision for local self-government, but delay it to the last. What the hon. Minister of Finance had since proposed made an end to the difficulty, however. There was another matter that he would like to refer to, and that was with regard to the amount collected from the native pass fee tax of the Transvaal. They would recollect that in the splendid report of Judge Laurence he recommended that £150,000 should be used for education, and he would like to see this done; but he felt also that something should be done to create a sufficient area of ground in the Transvaal as a Native Reserve, to which people who were moved under the Squatters Law might remove. What he would like to see was that this £350,000 or £200,000 of it should be used for the expropriation of land in some proper place in the Transvaal, and then this difficulty would be removed. He would like to ask the Minister whether the four years’ limit as to subsidy should not apply to all the financial arrangements. He did not know whether it was going to apply to grants in aid or to assigned revenue. He did not know whether all was going to come into the melting-pot after that period. Personally, he thought that would be best. Provincial Councils had not had fair play. They were labouring under difficulties, but it should be made plain to them that they were on their trial for four years. He was going to vote for the second reading of the Bill, but he hoped that certain changes, would be made in it before it was passed.

said that in discussing a matter of this kind, one was apt to run the risk of being thought Provincial. The public of South Africa had hoped that the first step of the Government would have been in the direction of equality of taxation. In his constituency this had been a question raised by everyone, and especially in a constituency on the border of a Province. People felt very strongly if a man just across the border had to pay no taxation at all, while the man on the other side had to pay a heavy tax. What was the difficulty, he asked, in introducing a Bill equalising transfer duties? The fact that no such Bills had been introduced was due to the hon. member for Barberton, but he held that if there had been another Province excepting the Cape which had such a large direct tax on fixed property, there would soon have been an alteration. As regarded the Provincial Councils, he held that the feeling was that these bodies did not represent that local government which it had been hoped they would. In the circumstances, he felt that it would not be right to bind the next Parliament to a further lengthy term of Provincial Councils. The Provincial Councils did not supply that local government which was required, and it was essential that they should have bodies representing local government in its true form. The Provincial Councils should be superseded by a kind of Divisional Council. He thought the official allowances to be made to the Free State and Natal would only lead to waste, and it was a wrong principle. Dealing with the Bill itself, the hon. member contended that the far-off and undeveloped districts had not in any way been taken into account. Under this measure these districts would never get on. Furthermore, he argued that under the provisions of this Bill the expenditure of the Provincial Councils would increase by leaps and bounds. South Africa was not a rich country, and people realised that they could not afford so many Parliaments. (Hear, hear.) He did not feel justified in binding this country for a period of four years, and in the circumstances he would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt). They should await the report of the Commission, and then convert the Provincial Councils into local governing bodies as recommended.

said he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, but held that an injustice had been done to the Cape Province by the National Convention, and he thought the delegates of the Cape should have taken up a stronger attitude. He thought the Bill was a step in the right direction, although he did not think it did away with all injustice. He regretted the provincial spirit which had been displayed by some hon. members. After all, they were representatives of the country and not of the Provinces. The Bill would give the Provincial Councils four years in which to show what they were made of. The Parliament could then decide what to do.

pointed out that 24 clauses of the Constitution dealt with the Provincial Councils. That, he thought, pointed to the fact that it was the sense of the National Convention that the Provincial Councils should be permanent. Instead of abolishing these bodies, he held that it should be laid down that they should be permanent. The Union comprised a very large territory, and different conditions prevailed thoughout. Provincial Councils, the members of which had local knowledge of local conditions were necessary to deal with these different parts. In this House a very provincial spirit was often displayed by hon. members. It was essential for them to take a broader outlook. The Free State members could also have taken up a provincial attitude, and perhaps could make out a better case than the other members. (An HON. MEMBER: No.) In support of his contention, the hon. member pointed out that the Free State had entered the Union with a much smaller debt than the other Provinces; viz.: £54 per head as compared with an average throughout the Union of £95 per head. This had been due to the fact that they had paid their way as they went. (Mr. VAN NIEKERK: Hear, hear.) Mr. Wilcocks held that equality of taxation was the first necessity; without that he could not see a proper basis for this Bill. As regarded the remarks made by Mr. Jagger, he held that his remarks showed that he was not acquainted with the conditions of the rural districts. Did the hon. member know that the up-country districts assisted in paying for the loss on the harbours? Did he know that there was a deficit every year on the management of the harbours? The hon. member for Umlazi had said that Natal had had compulsory bilingualism forced upon it. He was surprised at this statement, and advised the hon. member to read the report of the Education Commission, and in future weigh his words more.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said that they were to come to a vote now, and it was not the intention to adjourn the debate.

on putting the motion, declared that the “ Noes ” had it.

said he had always contended that they were actually on a federal basis, and that it was very wrong to call it Union. However that might be, they could not alter things now and abolish the Provincial Councils. He would vote for the Bill, trusting to the Minister’s promise that he would equalise all taxes not only transfer duties. One matter he wished to refer to was the unjust taxation on natives in the Free State, a taxation of £1 per head. This tax fell very heavily, and when it fell due natives crossed the border so as to evade it. In the Cape Province a hut tax of 10s. only had to be paid. He would support the Bill, but hoped the Government would remove the great variation in taxation in the different parts of the Union.

also held that it was necessary to have equality of taxation. He agreed with the hon. member for George, and said that he could not go to his constituents under the provisions proposed in the Bill A good many members had spoken about the deficit of the Cape, but none had said anything about its funds. He hoped that this measure would be sent to a Select Committee so that a fairer measure might be put before the House. He would vote for the second reading on that understanding.

regretted the attitude of the representatives of the largest Province when they favoured the abolition of the Provincial Councils. The Free State and Natal would never have entered Union without the Provincial Councils. As regarded the question of taxation, he wished to point out to hon. members that the rates of the Divisional Councils were applied for the benefit of people in whose divisions those Councils were. It was absolutely impossible to have equality of taxation everywhere. There must be some inequality somewhere, he argued. He wished to thank the Government for having made the reduction in transfer duties, but regretted to see the lack of confidence on the part of some hon. members in the Provincial Councils. They should not start breaking down the Constitution now, because they did not know what it might lead to. If they started here, he would point to the existence of the dual capital—a nonsensical and expensive state of affairs.

said that he would like to associate himself with the remarks made by some of the hon. members from Natal, and he regretted that the debate had been side-tracked, as to whether the Provincial Councils should be abolished or not, and. that hon. members had not confined their remarks to the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces. He thought that the £ for £ system was the lesser of two evils, and it seemed to be the happy medium. He contended that the people of the Union did not desire any alteration in the Act of Union with regard to the Provincial Councils, despite what a number of hon. members, including the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said, and he thought that the system should be continued. In Natal the majority of the people had desired a federation rather than a unification. They were therefore so much in favour of the retention of the Provincial Council, which secured to their Province a measure of local self-control. This Provincial system of government might not have been the best, but it had been decided upon, and they should give it a fair trial. If they wanted a change in that respect let Natal decide for itself what the change should be.

in reply said it was the intention to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

said the question before the House was that the Bill be read a second time. Two amendments had been moved, one by Mr. Fichardt and another by Mr. Fremantle, but before the amendments could be dealt with they would have to get the words out of the main question. “That the Bill be now read a second time.” He would put the question that all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, remain part of the motion.

This was affirmed, and the original motion was agreed to.

The Bill was thereupon read a second time.

had been absent from the House for a little time, arrived at this point, and asked if the question had been put.

“There was no need to put the question.”

suggested in order to expedite business that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

promised to give that suggestion consideration.

The Committee stage was fixed for Thursday.