House of Assembly: Vol14 - FRIDAY MARCH 14 1913
from G. A. Jenkin, who, in 1904, was retrenched from the service of the Central South African Railways and was five weeks later re-employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs at Bloemfontein, praying for the condonation of the said break in his service, or for other relief.
brought up the report of the Select Committee on the petition of G. D. Smith.
moved that the report and evidence be printed and considered on Wednesday.
The motion was agreed to.
Before the report is considered, the consent of the Governor-General will have to be obtained.
Estimates of Additional Expenditure year ending 31st March, 1913, from Railways Revenue and Railways Capital and Betterment Fund.
Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds year ending 31st March, 1914.
BUDGET SPEECH.
rose, amid cheers, at 2.10 p.m., to introduce his Budget statement. He said: Mr. Speaker, the present financial year did not open with any rosy prospects. As hon. members will remember, sir, when my hon. friend the member for Barberton introduced his Budget last year, he estimated that there would be a deficit of £670,000. The figures were, however, even worse. If hon. members will turn to the Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue which were printed last session, they will find that the difference between revenue and expenditure was even greater than that figure. Hon. members will see that in the original Estimates, as published, the revenue was given for this financial year as £16,288,000, and the expenditure was given as £17,130,000. Consequently there was a difference between revenue and expenditure of £842,000, and this disparity existed even after the railway contribution of half a million had been taken into account. If there had not been this railway contribution of half a million, the deficit last year, according to the original figures, would have been £1,342,000 My hon. friend the member for Barberton, in his Budget statement last year, was assisted by two items—in the first place, by the railway contribution of half a million; and, in the second place, by utilising the surplus which had been brought forward from the year 1910-11. But for these two aids, the prospects for the financial year would have been very dismal indeed. Of course, the prospect for the future was still more gloomy, because the time was coming when there would be no longer the contribution from railways, nor, so far as could then be foreseen, would there be anything left of the surplus from 1910-11. Hon. members can well understand, therefore, that when I took over the Treasury in the course of last year the prospects were very far from rosy indeed. However, as usual, the unexpected has happened, and the actual figures for 1912-13 have turned out very different from what were anticipated.
The revised Estimate for this year, 1912-13, places a very different complexion on the situation. The revenue Estimate is £17,314,000; hon. members will see that this is more than a million in excess of what was anticipated. The expenditure, including the additional estimates which have been laid upon the Table, is now estimated at £17,196,000. Hon. members will thus see that the balance, according to these revised Estimates, of revenue over expenditure, will be £118,000, so that, instead of the deficit of £842,000, which appeared according to the original Estimates, there is really on the revised Estimates a balance of revenue over expenditure of £118,000. (Hear, hear.) This, sir, is, however, not the net surplus for the year. The net surplus for the year requires certain adjustments to be made. For instance, hon. members will remember the bewaarplaatsen receipts have to be dissociated from the ordinary revenue. The bewaarplaatsen receipts are estimated to yield £173,000, and of that sum £100,000 was utilised during the year for the purpose of a contribution to the Miners’ Phthisis Fund. However, the difference between these two amounts—£173,000, minus £100,000 —would have to be deducted from the £118,000 surplus in order to get at the real surplus for the year. If that is done, the real surplus for 1912-13 appears to be £45,000. If no additional Estimates had been introduced, then the result would have been still more favourable. Hon. members are aware that Additional Estimates have been introduced to the amount of £585,000, and if they had not been introduced the surplus for the current year would have been proportionately swollen. This result of £45,000 surplus for the year is arrived at after taking into account the railway contribution of half a million. But, as hon. members will see, it does not take into account the surplus brought forward from 1910-11, which my predecessor proposed to utilise in connection with the Budget for this year. That surplus remains over and can again be utilised for any such purpose as may be deemed advisable. The figure which my hon. friend gave last year, £855,000, falls, however, to be diminished by certain items to which I shall refer just now.
Now, sir, let us look for a moment in more detail at the expenditure of the year 1912-13. If hon. members will turn to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure and look at the abstract in front, they will see that there has been a saving on the Estimates for this year of £518,000. These sayings in regard to the various departments are set forth on that abstract. Most of these savings have been made in the ordinary course — departmental savings — and need not be particularly referred to. The largest item is that under vote “Buildings and Bridges,” which shows a saving of £238,000. This is due largely to the retardation of the building programme and the difficulty in carrying out the programme passed by Parliament last year. In the result £518,000 was not expended which was voted last year; but against that we come forward with these Estimates of Additional Expenditure, which amount to the large sum of £585,000, and hon. members will find that in these Estimates the details are set forth.
I need not refer to the whole of them, but hon. members will see that the principal item is a quarter of a million pounds for the Defence Force stores fund—it is proposed to utilise part of what would have been the surplus for this year in order to constitute a fund which would be utilised for the purpose of buying material—guns, rifles, etc.—in connection with the Defence Force. Hon. members will naturally understand that when we started such an organisation as we have started for the defence of the country an enormous amount of material will be required. We have a quantity of artillery and material which is really obsolete, and it will require a large sum of money to replace this partly obsolete and useless material and to bring it up to the most modern requirements. In addition, it will be necessary to buy ammunition for the guns, and there are other requirements. Rifles have to be bought, and a large portion of what would have been the surplus this year would be utilised in order partly to equip the Defence Force with the necessary material required. It is proposed with this contribution to create a fund. Ultimately the fund will amount to £500,000 or £600,000, but we are proposing to make a contribution this year to the Fund of only £250,000; purchases will be made from this fund, and in later years we will make other contributions to this fund until the force is fully equipped. Of course, the fund there will be replenished by recoveries as rifles and other supplies are sold to the public. The next item of importance, as hon. members will see, refers to higher education grants. The Higher Education Commission of a couple of years ago made certain recommendations with regard to the equipment of existing colleges, and asked for a programme of building and equipment which would be necessary in order to meet adequately the needs of these institutions in the various Provinces. The whole of the Commission’s recommendations have not been carried out; the Government have not deemed it necessary to carry out the whole of the ambitious programme included in that report. But what was considered absolutely necessary in the recommendations of the Commission is now being carried out, and money for the purpose is being included in the Additional Estimates to the extent of £40,500. The next item involving a considerable amount is the provision for reducing the liabilities of certain co-operative wineries. Many hon. members will remember that years ago the old Cape Parliament assisted certain nine wineries in the Cape Province with advances, in order to stimulate co-operative effort amongst them in the improvement of their wines. Well, altogether about £84,000 was advanced in that way to these nine wineries, and with accrued interest the total libality at present amounts to about £100,000. The question has been before the House several times, I believe, and the Government was finally instructed, as a result of the recommendations of the Select Committee that sat a year or two ago, to go into the whole question. A departmental committee was appointed, which recommended that certain writings off would have to be faced in order to keep these societies on a footing upon which they may be able to exist. (Sir E. H. WALTON: What is the amount?) In this way it will be necessary to write down this liability of £100,000 by £54,321 —(some surprise)—the amount which appears in the Additional Estimates. That sum is required to be voted; the portion which represents reductions of capital will then be restored to the loan account. The next item of some interest is in vote 31, Lands—Losses in connection with land settlement. There were land settlement schemes in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, on which certain losses have been incurred, and these losses are estimated to amount to £20,800. It is proposed to vote this amount also from revenue, and to write it off in connection with these settlements.
Well, sir, turning now to the revenue side of the account, my hon. friends will see that the position is really a most satisfactory one. (Hear, hear.) The revenue for the current year is more than £1,000,000 in excess of what was anticipated, and that notwithstanding several circumstances which might have affected the revenue very adversely. Hon. members need not be reminded that the country has been subjected during the last twelve months to one of the severest droughts which has ever affected South Africa, and it might have been expected that this circumstance would have affected the revenue receipts very adversely. So far, it has not had that effect, although next year may have a different story to tell. The revenue has increased to the extent I have mentioned, and I should like to go into a, little more detail respecting the different heads which principally account for the increase. There are some points of interest in connection with the details. The increase of Customs has been quite considerable for the present year, and the revenue is estimated to produce £4,642,000, an increase over the estimated figures of roughly £240,000. This increase is due to some extent, no doubt, to importations and clearances which were made in anticipation of a new Customs tariff being framed. People probably feared, from what was supposed to be the financial state of the country, and also from statements made in public, that a new tariff would be brought forward; and it is probable that a good deal of clearances took place in anticipation of such a tariff being brought forward. But there is no doubt that the increase is largely due to the considerable prosperity of the country. From an analysis of the Customs figures, it appears that one-third of the amount of the increase yield was collected here in Cape Town. Now Cape Town is not a place where a large transit trade is carried on; and Cape Town administers very largely to the needs of the Western Province. The conclusion may therefore be drawn that a great deal of prosperity has been in existence here in the Western Province during the present financial year.
There is no doubt that the grain and wine farmers in this part of the country are in a very prosperous condition. This fact is reflected in the figures which I am placing before you. I mention this fact because there seems to be a tendency on the part of people in other parts of South Africa to look upon this part of the country as being somewhat retrogressive and backward, but the figures show that a very large part of the prosperity of South Africa at the present time can be traced to the Western Province. (Hear, hear.) I shall now deal with some of the general Customs figures. I have no desire to the House, but I think that some of the figures are most interesting. Comparing the importations of 1912 with those of 1911, there is an increase in value of importation of £1,810,000. Now, if the Government imports and specie are taken away from this figure, it will be found that the importations increased by £1,030,000. When it is borne in mind that this large increase has taken place concurrently with what must have been a large increase in the way of local production and manufactures, hon. members will see how great has been the prosperity of the country. It is a pity that we are not in a position to gauge as yet with accuracy what has been done in the way of local production and manufacture. Year after year hon. members have pressed for statistics and the Government has taken steps in order that a statistical survey may be made from time to time; but these steps have not yet been brought to a conclusion. Hon. members will recollect that when Mr. Moffat finished the census work of the Union, which, of course, included a fairly general survey of these conditions, he was nominated by the Government as the head of a statistical bureau, and Mr. Moffat has proceeded to Europe and America, where he will study the latest methods in regard to the collection of statistics. His department has been established and set going. I hope the result will be that in future years we will have before us not only the annual year book of the Customs Department, but also something that will deal with the industrial activities of the Union and which will show us what industrial progress has been made. But there is this salutary fact that there has been a large increase in importations concurrently with marked improvement in local production. There has been an increase in imports of £46,000 in agricultural implements, £25,000 in agricultural machinery, and £16,000 in sheep dip. I hope that the last item shows that the Animal Diseases Act is being properly carried out. These figures show that there must have been a great deal of agricultural activity going on. Other figures have a bearing upon manufactures. There has been an increase of £47,000 in manufacturing machinery; iron and steel, £131,000; nitrates, £107,000; bags for grain and coal. £110,000, and motor vehicles show an increase of £290,000.
Are those import figures?
These are import figures. This last item in a way shows the prosperity that the country is enjoying. (Hear, hear.) But there are some decreases in the imports which are interesting in the same way. There has been a decrease in wheat to the amount of £155,000 (hear, hear); flour and meal, £98,000 (hear, hear); sugar, £207,000 (hear, hear). These figures show that we are approaching the time when we will be able to supply ourselves, and the country be in a better position in the future to support itself as a proper industrial country. These reductions, however, also mean a loss to the revenue. In the case of wheat it means £23,000; flour, £30,000; and sugar, £67,000. I base no argument upon this. I only show this salutary fact. A Treasurer must cheerfully accept the position notwithstanding that this increase in local production means that the revenue of the country is affected The increase in the local production of tobacco means a loss to the revenue of £10,000. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps some future Treasurer may think it expedient to place an excise on tobacco. (Hear, hear.)
Why not this Treasurer?
No, I won’t do it! There are some other import figures that should prove interesting, but which have a different aspect. There has been an increase in fresh vegetables of £24,000.
How fresh? (Laughter.)
They were fresh. (Laughter.) Butter increased by £68,000, cheese by £15,000, condensed milk by £9,000. and fresh eggs £12,500. (Laughter.) This is what might be called our black list. (Laughter.) The export figures are very interesting too. The exports for the year 1912 were £63,272,000, as against £57,308,000 for 1911. To get at the general figures, one has to take away diamonds, gold and specie; and, after doing that, I find that the exports for 1912 totalled £15,458,000, as against £13,468,000— an increase in exports of £1,810,000. (Hear, hear.)
Including coal?
Including coal.
Copper?
Copper, too! Maize contributed £41,000 to the increase, oats £31,000, ostrich feathers £356,000, coal £95,000, hides and skins £480,000, wool £880,000, and whale oil £54,000. It is a remarkable fact that the export of South African produce to Rhodesia has increased by £115,000, and, under certain new arrangements made, we expect there will be quite a substantial increase of South African exports beyond Rhodesia to the Congo territory. (Cheers.) I don’t think I need trouble the House with any other of these figures.
The next considerable item of increase in revenue is due to the Excise. (Cheers.) That shows an increase of £80,000. The Post Office revenue has increased over the original estimate by £156,000. I have here a valuable memorandum by the Postmaster-General, which shows the general progress of the work of his department; but I think we may take it as read. (Laughter, and “Hear, hear.”) The next item of interest is the increase in revenue from the diamond mines, which amounts to £150,000. The revenue from gold mines (profits tax) now appears to be fairly constant. The figure is in the neighbourhood of a million, and will remain so for some time. It will, for the next three or four years, rest in that neighbourhood. This gold mines revenue seems to have reached, to a certain extent, its high-water mark, and I think that until the Government Areas gold mines come into the producing stage, there is not likely to be any great increase in revenue from this source. The production of gold has gone up considerably. The amount of gold produced in 1912 was £38,691,000 in value—an increase of more than 3½ millions over the preceding year. In diamonds there has been a great increase. The diamond production for 1912 was over five million carats, of a value of £10,061,000. That is an increase in value of £1,314,000 over the figure for 1911. Coal has increased very considerably, too. The production of coal for 1912 was 8,117,000 tons, of a value of over £2,000,000, which is an increase of over half a million pounds as compared with 1911. Copper has remained much the same, and tin has gone down somewhat, I am sorry to say.
The total mineral output of the Union for 1912 was £51,971,000, almost £52,000,000, and in the industries connected with mining I see there were employed 31,380 white persons and 276,000 coloured employees. I have some figures which show the total mineral production to date, and although they are not really germane to the subject I have to deal with, I will give them. The total value of gold produced in South Africa—that is to say, within historical memory—is 363¾ million pounds sterling; diamonds, 170 millions; coal, 25 millions; copper, 9½ millions; and tin, 1¾ millions.
Are those the values of our Customs?
These are the valuations made here for statistical purposes. The next item of interest concerns estate duties. These show an increase over what was anticipated of £258,000. As most hon. members know, this is due entirely to a windfall coming from the estate of Sir Julius Wernher. The Transvaal estate duty, which was applicable to this estate, has brought in this large amount from this single estate. Although there are considerable assets in this estate situated in the Cape Province, yet we have received practically nothing under the Cape Act. The next item of interest is the transfer duty. The transfer duties have gone up by £85,000, and this increase has been almost entirely in the Cape and Orange Free State—(cheers)— which shows that not only must there have been land transactions on a very large scale in those two Provinces, but that the land must have increased in value very considerably. These various figures show very largely how this million of revenue over what was anticipated has been obtained. That finishes the revenue figures for 1912.
Let me now say a word in regard to the loan figures for 1913-14. If hon. members will look at the loan estimates for last year they will see, we provided for an expenditure of £6,799,000. The actual expenditure has been very much lower than that. It is £4,080,000, and, therefore, the Government has spent during the current year £2,719,000 less out of loan funds than Parliament voted last year. This large disparity is accounted for to a material extent by the slowness of railway construction and general railway capital expenditure. The Railway Department has been handicapped by serious difficulties both here and abroad in getting material, and the work in South Africa has progressed far more slowly than was anticipated. The result is that the railways have spent about £2,000,000 less this year than was anticipated. There are also a number of other amounts underspent in connection with other departments. For instance, the Land Department has spent, in regard to land settlement, £280,000 less than Parliament voted.
The explanation is this, that the Lands Department had to wait until the Land Boards were established in the various Provinces, and it has taken a longer time to get these boards into working order than had been anticipated. On irrigation works also, there was much less spent, the difference being £174,000. This, to some extent, is also due to the difficulties which were experienced in starting the various schemes for which Parliament had granted supplies. The expenditure on land banks had been less by £186,000, due to similar causes.
Now I come to the coming year, 1913-14, and with regard to this year, I would say there will be a good deal of change. It was a matter of great difficulty to make comparisons between the old and the new systems, because of the arrangements and changes that will be occasioned when the Financial Relations Bill is passed. There is also a great difference between this and the coming year, owing to the discontinuance of the railway contribution which is a matter of very great importance. The South Africa Act provided for a period of four years, during which money contributions were to be made to the finances of the country out of the railway fund. Three years only had elapsed, but the Government do not think that this contribution should continue to make demands upon the railway revenues any longer. I hope the money will be remitted to the taxpayers, especially in that portion of the country which thought its claims had not been properly looked after.
You said at the end of three years, instead of four.
Yes. The estimates of ordinary expenditure for the financial year, 1913-14, amounted to £16,165,000. This is a considerable reduction as compared with last year, but it is due mainly to the changed form of the Estimates. The contribution to the Provincial Administration would be decreased by £1,316.000; against that there will have to be set the revenues transferred and assigned to them. Some of the figures upon the Estimates for the coming year I will now refer to. Hon. members will find the explanations set out in the memorandum prefacing the Estimates.
They will find that there is a decrease in the police vote of £344,000 for the coming year. A large portion of that decrease is due to a portion of the police being taken over by the Defence Department in connection with the permanent Defence Force of the country. This difference disappears from the police vote, but reappears in the Defence Force vote, which shows an apparent increase of £704,000. The net increase will be £304,000. That will provide for a force of 15,000 men. Matters have turned out very differently from what was anticipated. No one thought there would have been such a response, or that, instead of 15,000 men coming forward, between 52,000 and 53,000 would have come forward. (Cheers.) It is impossible to cope with such enormous figures. Not only would the expenditure be very large indeed—more than the country could afford at this juncture—but we would be attempting to train very much larger numbers of men than we could efficiently train. The Defence Council has provisionally come to the conclusion that we should train 24,000 or 25,000 men, and on that basis additional estimates will be required in respect of the additional 10,000 men who are likely to be taken on. This will involve an extra £100,000. There is also an increase in the provision in respect of the public debt. That increase amounts to £140,000.
Another adjustment will have to be made in regard to the provision on the Supplementary Estimates. It has now been agreed that we should reduce the transfer duty in the Provinces of the Cape, the Free State, and Natal. (Cheers.) That reduction will, of course, dislocate very much the finances of the two smaller Provinces. The Cape will be in possession of a surplus, and will not be affected, and was in any case determined to carry out this reduction itself. But in regard to the smaller Provinces, it will be necessary to increase the additional subsidies to be given to them. It is proposed to raise the Free State subsidy from £67,000 to £100,000—(cries of “Oh!”)— and the Natal subsidy from £90,000 to £100,000. Another adjustment will have to be made in respect of the Natal Province. The Financial Relations Bill originally provided that certain revenues in respect of wholesale and retail licences at present accruing to municipalities should be transferred to the Province, and that that amount should be made good to the municipalities. It is now proposed to leave the municipalities in possession of their revenue from these licences, and instead to reimburse the Natal Province for the loss. The amount is approximately £28,000.
Let me return to the revenue for next year. The combined revenue of the Union and the Provinces for 1913-14 is estimated at £16,600,000. The probable yield for 1912-13 is £17,314,000. There is, therefore, a difference of £714,000, which is accounted for by three items. In the first place, the half-a-million contribution from railways will disappear; in the second place, the windfall of £260,000 from Sir Julius Wernher’s estate is not taken into account; and, in the third place, the reduction of the transfer duty will influence the revenue by about £135,000. These items more than account for the reduction which has been made.
Does that include the bewaarplaatsen?
No. The position is this. I estimate the revenue for the coming year to be very much the same as this year, but I make certain deductions. From the combined revenue estimates of £16,600,000 will have to be deducted £1,211,000, transferred to the Provinces. There also falls to be deducted the estimated bewaarplaatsen receipts, £177,000, which leaves the Central Treasury with £15,212,000 available for Union services. The expenditure is estimated at £16,165,000. There will thus be an excess of ordinary expenditure over revenue of £953,000. The question is: how is this excess to be met? My hon. friend the member for Barberton last year had two nest-eggs. In the first place, he had a surplus of £855,000 brought forward from 1910-11. The greater portion of that has remained intact in the Treasury, available for appropriation by Parliament. Certain amounts included in that total have been paid over to the Public Debt Commissioners for debt redemption. One of these amounts is £25,000 paid by the Rhodes trustees for the maintenance of the Groote Schuur estate. There are also certain balances of guaranteed funds, £32,000, which were included in this amount. These also have been paid over to the Public Debt Commissioners. In this amount, £855,000, were also included certain bewaarplaatsen proceeds, £30,000. The bewaarplaatsen proceeds have been dissociated from the ordinary revenue and set apart, and, therefore, this £30,000 has also to be deducted from the amount of £855,000. If these amounts are deducted, the surplus for 1910-11 still available for appropriation is £770,000— (hear, hear)—and the first step which I propose is that this amount should be applied towards meeting the excess. The excess to be met is, however, £953,000. and some other expedient will have to be resorted to.
Now I come to the question of the bewaarplaatsen. The bewaarplaatsen moneys were at first mixed up with the ordinary revenue, but have now been dissociated in terms of the Transvaal Act of 1908, and have been kept in a separate account, pending the directions of Parliament, as the Act provided. Well, sir, these receipts have been accumulating. For 1910-11 the yield was £30,000, 1911-12 £140,000, 1912-13 £173,000, and for next year, 1913-14, they are estimated to yield £177,000, a total of £520,000. Of this amount, £100,000 has already been appropriated by Parliament towards compensation in respect of miners’ phthisis, and there remains, therefore, £420,000. The question is, what is going to happen to this amount? Hon. members know that there are conflicting views held in the country as to the disposal of these receipts.
Is this the whole lot, or the Government’s share?
It is the whole lot. Parliament will have to give directions in terms of the Transvaal Mining Law of 1908 as to what is to be done with this amount. Hon. members know that a Commission, appointed by the Government in terms of that Act of 1908, reported that half of the proceeds should go to the owners of the freehold of the bewaarplaatsen, and the other half should go to the Government. I am not prepared to say, sir, what division will be effected as between the Government and the owners; nor is it necessary to say so now. All that is necessary to say at this stage is that it is intended to appropriate this amount, or so much of it as Parliament will sanction, towards the deficit of the coming year.
When are you going to settle it?
It is hoped to settle it this year, but certain points are still under consideration. Well, sir, the result would be this, that if the whole amount is appropriated, £420,000, and then added to the £770,000, there will be a surplus of some £240,000. Let me suppose that the Government is going to appropriate only half. That will be £260,000. Of this, £100,000 has already been devoted to miners’ phthisis. That would leave £160,000 available for appropriation. If that £160,000 is added to the £770,000, the result is £930,000, and deducting that from the £953,000, leaves a debit balance of £23,000. If, on the contrary, the Government were entitled to the whole amount of £420,000, then, of course, there will be a considerable surplus, instead of this apparent deficit of £23,000. Of course, this applies to the Estimates such as they appear here on the Table. But I have referred to certain supplementary items which would have to be dealt with. For instance, there is £100,000 extra for defence and the additional subsidies to Natal and the Orange Free State, £71,000. The Supplementary Estimates will, therefore, have to provide for £171,000, and if the £171,000 is added to the apparent deficit which I have referred to of £23,000, then there will be a deficit of £194,000. If we take the whole of the bewaarplaatsen moneys, the whole of this deficit will be wiped out (Laughter.) Supposing that Parliament decides that Government is only to get half of these proceeds, then there will be this deficit of £194,000, but it is hoped to effect certain savings and economies during the year, which will reduce this figure. The question may arise whether it is appropriate to deal with the bewaarplaatsen receipts in the way which I proposed—(hear, hear)—viz., by appropriating them to revenue. I do not want to go into the whole case now, but. I may point out, in passing, that there is no difference between these bewaarplaatsen receipts and the Government ownership in diamond mines. (Hear, hear.) There is no difference in principle between what the Government gets from bewaarplaatsen and what the Government gets from the Premier Diamond Mine. The bewaarplaatsen moneys come in, not in lump sums, but under leases which extend over a period of years. There are a number of leases; some are for six years, some for ten years, and some for 15 years. The arrangement which has been made by the Government in many of these cases, I believe in most of these cases, is to make the adjoining mine take over the bewaarplaatsen leases and pay during the balance of its probable existence a certain proportion of the proceeds, so that there is no difference whatever between these bewaarplaatsen receipts and the share which the Government gets from the Premier Mine profits.
Doesn’t half of that go to the repayment of debt?
Yes. I believe that was the provision that was made. Now, sir, hon. members will see that while, as I said earlier in the afternoon, the prospect for 1912-13 was gloomy, the prospect for 1913-14 was even more unpromising. But the complexion of affairs has changed very much. There has been a surplus instead of a deficit this year, and it is possible without additional taxation for us to win through the next financial year. (Cheers.)
At one stage it was anticipated that we would have to submit taxation measures during this session of Parliament, but owing to the way the revenue has increased there is no necessity to impose any additional taxation. (Cheers.) It must be clear to hon. members that this process cannot continue indefinitely. We have been remitting revenue in many ways. This year we finally drop the contributions which have been coming from the railways, and we are reducing the taxation by halving the transfer duty in certain Provinces; this process cannot be indefinitely continued. In the near future the Government may be obliged to come forward with taxing measures, but there is no necessity to do so for next year. (Cheers.) Well, so much for the revenue position; let me now go into the loan Estimates for 1913-14. I have laid the Estimates of loan expenditure on the Table this afternoon. They provide for a sum, for 1913-14, of £6,440,000. This sum represents the requirements after departmental requirements have been very largely written down. Hon. members will see in comparing this figure with that of last year, that it is somewhat below that of last year. But for the Railway requirements it might have been possible to still further reduce this amount. I have done my best to curtail the capital requirements because it will be necessary to borrow in order to provide the funds, and hon. members will know that the market is not very favourable for that now. I have said that the amount which is being spent during the current year is £4,080,000, and hon. members will, therefore, see that the 1913-14 programme shows an increase of £2,360,000 over what has actually been spent this year. This increase is largely due to the Railways demands. The Railways have to face an increased capital programme of £1,600,000 during 1913-14. The programme of works and improvements, as I have said, has been much retarded this year, but it is anticipated that next year it will be possible to go ahead and overtake a much greater amount of work than was possible this year. The programme for the Railways is £4,000,000. Irrigation, too, will require a good deal more in the approaching year than has been spent in the present year. There is also an increase for Local Works and Loans of £457,000. This increase is only apparent and is due to the Financial Relations Bill, which, as hon. members know, requires that works of a certain kind will be financed by the Government. The Land Bank will also require a large sum next year. Certain items of interest appear in these new Loan Estimates. I need not go into the Railway Estimates, but I may refer to other items appearing in the votes.
Under the vote, Public Works, provision is made for a Government House at Rondebosch. Instead of the figure £50,000, which appeared last year, a larger sum of £70,000 is now provided. I would explain in a word why this increase has taken place. The Government is under a moral obligation to the people here in Cape Town to provide for an art gallery—(cheers)—and that obligation has become a stronger one on account of the valuable donation of pictures by Mr. Michaelis. Therefore, an art gallery will have to be provided here in the near future. At the same time it was represented to us that the Government House at Rondebosch which could be built for £50,000 would not be large enough to meet the necessary requirements; that such a house as could be built for that amount would render it necessary for the Governor-General to retain, in part, at any rate, the old Government House in Cape Town. The matter has been settled in this way provisionally. A larger Government House could be built in Rondebosch for £70,000, which would meet all the requirements of the Governor-General, and make possible for him to vacate the old Government House in Cape Town. The old house can then be altered so as to become an art gallery. I think that is good business. The next item of interest here is the vote for telegraphs and telephones. The provision for telegraphs and telephones is £300,000. On the land vote £147,000 is asked for. This is a more ambitious programme than we have overtaken during the past year. The difficulty, however, in spending a larger amount on land for settlers under the conditions existing in South Africa is very great, and although I know the hon. member for Pretoria, East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), has some patent remedy—(laughter)—I do not think he will succeed in keeping the price of land down. I think the Lands Department will always have difficulties in finding suitable land for settlers at reasonable prices. For irrigation very much the same amount is provided as was provided during the current year. Local loans and works show an increase, which is simply due to transfers from other votes.
It may be of interest if I show the position of the Provincial Administrations with regard to local works. The Cape will get £320,000, of which £150,000 is for school loans, £80,000 for hospitals, and £90,000 for bridges. Natal will get £80,000, the Transvaal £100,000, and the Orange Free State £100,000. The Land Bank will get £500,000, but I don’t think that anybody will grumble at this money being given.
Now I propose to take up a little of your time by going into the important question as to how we have been financing ourselves during the current year for loan purposes. As I have explained, during the current year 1912-13 we have spent £4,080,000. There was a credit balance on loan account at the beginning of 1912-13 of £1,200,000. Then during the year there were certain loan recoveries amounting to half a million. There has been an amount of £834,000 added to the floating debt during the year. Besides that we have used revenue balances in order to finance our loan requirements to the extent of £1,546,000. If hon. members will add these four items together they will find that the figure of £4,080,000 is arrived at. We have increased the floating debt to the extent of £834,000. We have taken what there was left of the loan account, and we have borrowed from the revenue account to meet the balance of our loan requirements during the year. It may also be interesting to show how the amount of £834,000 is arrived at. Treasury bills amounting to £2,000,000 were renewed in London. They matured on the 1st of April, 1912, and had to be renewed. There has also been paid to us on Treasury bills by the Public Debt Commissioners £259,000, and the High Commissioner raised by overdraft in London £1,150,000. On the other hand, we have paid off the two millions for Treasury Bills which I have just mentioned. We also paid off Natal Treasury bills amounting to £425,000, and bills held by the Public Debt Commissioners £150,000. These figures show a net increase in the floating debt of £834,000. We have financed in this makeshift way because it was not thought advisable to go into the market, but now we have come to the end of our tether and cannot continue. We have to pay back this amount of £1,546,000 which we borrowed from revenue in order to finance the loan account. That will be necessary in order to meet interest, sinking fund charges, and other liabilities.
It will be necessary for us to go into the market at an early date in order to raise the money. I propose in the near future to raise money on the London market, and I also propose to have an issue of stock in South Africa for the purpose of funding a good part of the Public Debt Commissioners’ holding of Treasury bills. May I refer for a few moments to another question— the unexercised borrowing powers which we have, and the provision that Parliament will have to make in regard to the loan proposals. The unexercised borrowing powers at the end of this year will be £5,800,000, and the loan recoveries are estimated at £250,000, or a total of £6,050,000. Then the liabilities on loan account for 1913-14 are these new estimates of £6,440,000, and the £1,546,000 which we have taken from revenue account, and which will have to be repaid. The total amount of liabilities on this loan account are thus £7,986,000. We will therefore require further borrowing powers to the extent of £1,936,000. There is one point to which I would again refer, and that is the extent by which our debt has been increased since Union. The matter is one of great interest. We have actually expended on loan account since Union £8,950,000. We have increased the Union debt only by £3,699,000. I do not think that I need to go into great detail. The floating debt at the date of Union was £9,700,000. Of this amount £1,477,000 was repaid out of revenue balances brought into the Union. The amount of the debt at the end of last March stood at £11,088,000, and on March 31, 1913, the amount will be £11,922,000, which consists of bills held by the Public Debt Commissioners £8,772,000, bills amounting to two millions held in London, and bank overdraft, London,. £1,150,000.
The net result of this is that the increase in public debt since Union has been this amount of £3,699,000. Now the next question is, what amount of sinking fund have we made since Union? Hon. members know our public debt at last 31st March was £117,260,000, of which £11,088,000 was floating debt. Of this £117,260,000 the far larger part is on railway account— £80,000,000 is the debt which has been incurred on behalf of the railways, and in respect of which the South Africa Act makes adequate provision, not only for maintenance, but for betterment. Now, besides that we have a sinking fund, and the accumulated sinking fund now aggregates £6,300,000 since Union. The following payments have been made and appropriated to the sinking fund: In 1910-11, £455,000; in 1911-12, £640,000; in 1912-13, £641,000; altogether. £1,736,000 since Union. At the same time, besides these appropriations towards sinking funds, we have been making other payments from revenue towards debt redemption. The amounts are as follows: Revenue balances at Union, £1,477,000; Rhodes Trustees, £25,000; guarantee funds balances, £32,000; £681,000 surplus of 1911-12 (which is the figure audited by the Auditor-General, and which will have to be considered by the House later); and this year the surplus, as I have said, £45,000. Altogether, therefore, in the heads which I have just mentioned, we have found since Union towards debt redemption, £2,250,000. If hon. members take these two amounts together, namely, £1,736,000 appropriated to sinking funds, and £2,260,000 contributed from revenue for debt redemption, they will notice that we have reduced the debt and made provision for sinking funds to the extent of almost £4,000,000 since Union—(cheers)— whereas during the same period we have only increased our debt by an amount of £3,699,000. In other words, since Union we have made more provision for redeeming debt and for sinking funds than we have increased the debt of the country. (Cheers.) I think this is unique in the financial history of any of the Dominions. (Government cheers.)
Will my hon. friend make any statement about the 5 per cent. and 4½ per cent. Cape perpetual stocks?
The question of the perpetual stock of the Cape, which has given rise to a great deal of difficulty, is a question which ought to be settled at a very early date. (Cheers.) Last year the Public Accounts Committee recommended to the House that this question should be settled at as early a date as possible, in order to prevent the difficulties which are arising now. The Government hopes to make proposals at an early date in regard to this matter. I have not come forward with any proposals as yet, because, as some hon. members know, I wanted to discuss the matter further with the Public Accounts Committee. As soon as that discussion has taken place we will bring forward what we consider fair and reasonable proposals in regard to this matter. Mr. Speaker, I now lay on the Table the Revenue Estimates for the ensuing year, and I beg to move: “That the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending 31st March, 1914, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbours Funds, respectively.” (Cheers.)
The Hon. Minister concluded his speech at 3.47 p.m., and proceeded to repeat his remarks to the House in Dutch.
moved the adjournment of the debate.
The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned till Monday.
The Bill was read a first time, the second reading being set down for Monday.
IN COMMITTEE.
The House resumed in Committee on the Wine, Spirits, Beer, and Vinegar Bill.
On clause 16, Prohibition of addition of substances to beer except certain prescribed substances.
stated that when progress was reported on the previous night the Committee was considering the following amendment on clause 16, by the Minister of Justice, who moved: In line 7, after “added,” to omit all the words down to “clarification,” in line 10, and to substitute, “provided that any sugar, up to the limit allowed in this paragraph, which may not be required for the purpose of priming, may be used in the manufacture of beer”; and to insert the following new paragraph, to follow paragraph (a), viz.: “(b) Fining substances, such as isinglass, gelatine, egg or albumen, for the purpose of clarification.”
wished to know if the Minister had any evidence that the use of sugar in the making of beer was deleterious to the health of the consumer?
said that was the real point, but no authoritative pronouncement had been made on the matter, so as to guide the House in coming to a decision. It appeared that the change was to be made as the outcome of a debate in the Cape Parliament. The impression was that a move was being made that would be injurious to producers in other parts of South Africa. The only sufficient grounds on which that could be allowed to pass was that the present system was injurious to the public. (Cheers.) But no testimony had been produced to show that that was the case.
said the hon. member probably thought that the sugar used in the manufacture of beer was ordinary sugar, but that was not so. The sugar generally used by brewers was called glucose. Dr. Stridowitz, giving evidence before a British Departmental Committee on Beer, stated that the use of glucose in the manufacture of beer caused fusil oil and other by-products, which were injurious to health.
said that Professor Horace Brown, who was considered one of the greatest authorities in the world on this subject, had informed him that he had spoken to Dr. Stridowitz with regard to the evidence referred to by the hon. member for Paarl. Dr. Stridowitz informed Professor Brown that although he held the opinion quoted when the committee was held, which was some years ago, he had since seen reason for altering his opinion, and he was sorry that he had ever expressed the view which he did before the committee.
The hon. member went on to quote from a report by Dr. Brown, who had been put in charge of the Guinness Research Station, and he said that they had here the strongest evidence in favour of the contention that not only was sugar not deleterious, but exactly the opposite, and that the modern brewing practice was entirely in the opposite direction to that in which the Minister led them to suppose that it was going. It was true that in lager, for instance, sugar was not required, and that they could make it without sugar if they had proper facilities for keeping it. Beer of that type which was made in this country without sugar was pasteurised, which did not improve the beer, but enabled it to be kept. He thought the testimony which had been given as to the effect on the health had not been given sufficient attention. The Minister pretended to be offering a very substantial concession to these people, but he had nothing whatever to say in regard to the question of whether the use of sugar was bad for the people they served, or anything of that sort. The concession amounted to practically nothing The point made by the Minister was that they wanted to use sugar, because beer could be produced more cheaply. It was on record in England that sugar had been used to the amount it was used when it was actually more expensive to use the sugar than to use the equivalent amount of barley. The reason for using sugar was, he thought, what had been stated in the House, that the beers made with sugar were better than those made without. If the Minister allowed one per cent. of sugar to be added to beer, it proved that he believed that the addition of sugar was not deleterious. If he allowed the addition of one per cent., why not allow more to be added? Why not stop at 25 per cent.? (An HON. MEMBER: How about poison?) If it were a question of poison, it would be another matter entirely. But nothing had been proved at all that there was anything poisonous in the addition of sugar to beer. (Hear, hear.) He had taken up his stand from the start that he would not believe a word which was told him unless they could back it up with authoritative statements. Having satisfied himself, however, as a result of these authoritative statements that there was nothing deleterious in the addition of sugar to beer, he would frankly say that he supported the brewers.
said that it was not the sugar growers of Natal who wanted a larger addition of sugar to beer, and he must say he had no brewers or sugar growers in his constituency. Expert evidence had been given that the addition of sugar to beer had no deleterious effect on health. In the warm weather they must either store beer in ice or add sugar, if it was to keep. Then why not allow sugar, if it had been proved that its addition was not deleterious? It was all very well in the large centres of population, such as Cape Town, Durban, or Pietermaritzburg, where they could easily store beer in ice; but where were they going to find ice in the country districts, where they could not even get a drink of cool water sometimes? All they could do to preserve the beer was to add sugar, and he hoped the Minister would give way and accept the amendment. (Hear, hear.)
said that even if the Minister got his proposal through, it would be quite useless. They had provisions allowing caramel to be used, and what was caramel but merely burnt sugar? What was there to prevent the brewer from diluting caramel with more sugar solution, and calling it caramel? The addition of sugar solution was allowed by German law, which did not even require that notification should be made to the purchaser of the addition, and it was notorious that a large proportion was there used.
moved as an amendment to the Minister’s amendment, in line 4, to insert after the word “beer” the following words: “In addition to the sugar allowed in section 17.” This was to enable them, he said, to make a perfectly harmless, wholesome drink. If they did not take some steps to provide a good drink, they would find that peach brandy would be used as a substitute. He urged that this amendment, on the Minister’s amendment, should be accepted.
said that hon. members had omitted to tell the House that the experts stated that sugar was not needed if they put gypsum in the water. Though plants had been established, these were not sufficient, and malt was still being imported. Experiments conducted here and in England showed that South African barley was more suitable for beer making than the imported article. Proceeding, the hon. member said that if they would use barley in their brewing process, they would produce a beer which contained a food element, whereas if they brewed it from sugar they eliminated the food element and produced a spirit. In the Transvaal the water was hard; but not so much sugar was used as was now proposed, and in Natal no sugar was used. In the Cape they made a certain class of beer without sugar. If it could be made in the past, surely it could be made now. Ohlsson’s beers were sent all over the country.
Yet they want to use sugar.
Because it is cheaper. Proceeding, he said he wished to appeal to hon. members not to cheapen the cost of the liquor consumed. Wine farmers saw that their consumers got an article that was unadulterated, and not so cheap that a man could get drunk on a minimum amount of money.
said he would support the amendment of the Minister; here they had a chance to-day to protect an industry—the agricultural industry, because he quite realised that the use of sugar decreased the use of barley. The hon. member for Ladybrand represented a grain district, and he could not understand the attitude taken up by the hon. member. It was quite clear that some hon. members wanted to protect the brewers, although seeing there was a combine of brewers, such protection did not appear to be needed. When they were able to protect the farmer, however, they ought to do so.
admitted that he did not know much about the matter under debate, but it seemed to him that hon. members were in a great state of alarm, and the hon. member for Paarl was afraid that beer would be made cheap. One would almost think that they were discussing, not whether there should be an addition of sugar, but of Epsom salts. (Laughter.)
said that if he had been an opponent to the addition of sugar before the hon. member for Paarl spoke on the matter, he would now be a strong supporter as the result. The hon. member’s speech had apparently two objects; he objected to sugar being added to the beer, so that the Paarl farmer could be protected, and the second object was that beer might become cheaper. Neither the hon. Minister nor the hon. member for Paarl had produced any evidence to show that the addition of sugar was bad. At first he (Mr. Madeley) was inclined to favour the Minister’s proposal, for he had an impression that the addition of sugar was going to be bad for the consumer, but he had had a conversation, since the Bill was introduced, with an analytical chemist, who had assured him that sugar itself was not bad. From the point of view of food value, sugar held a very high value indeed, and he thought it was an excellent idea to introduce sugar into beer. Whether they made beer from barley or not, sugar was always present. It was always present at one stage or another of the manufacture. As the hon. member for Paarl pointed out, the first stage in the evolution of the malt was the conversion of starch into sugar, and when they added sugar they were adding just the same amount of sugar as they would have made in the course of manufacture from barley. When the hon. member talked about glucose he was clouding the issue. Neither the hon. Minister nor the hon. member for Paarl, who seemed to be the assistant Minister in this case, had brought any argument to show that sugar was deleterious, and if not, why should they prevent its addition? Sugar was not going to do any harm; it expedited the manufacture of beer, and it also caused the manufacture to become cheaper, consequently with ordinary economic results the beer would be cheaper to the consumer; it would do no harm, and there seemed to be no reason why there should not be 25 per cent. of added sugar to beer.
said the opposition seemed to come from the wine farmers, but he hoped the hon. Minister would give heed to the opinions of those who were not concerned in the manufacture of beer. He (Mr. Henderson) was not prepared to express an opinion, but he had been trying to get a scientific opinion. They had had various opinions expressed in the House, and he thought on the whole that the evidence had been more in favour of sugar being used in beer than against it. The hon. member proceeded to quote extracts from the report of a Commission which sat in England to inquire into whether legislation was required to prevent the use of deleterious substances in the manufacture of beer. In the face of the report it would be very difficult to prove that there was anything wrong or deleterious in putting sugar into beer. As far as he was able to judge, the arguments were for all to enable the use of sugar in beer, as long as it was nourishing and refreshing. He thought the Minister should withdraw from his position, and let the use of sugar be legalised in the manufacture of beer.
Did his hon. friend say that beer made from sugar was nourishing, refreshing and stimulating? Ordinary beer was made from malt and hops.
No it is not.
said of course they could put sugar into beer as they could put sugar into wine. Ginger beer was refreshing, but he did not think it was exactly stimulating. He would support the Minister, because he did not want to see foreign substances put into beer. His hon. friend advocated putting sugar into beer, but what did it do?
What does it do?
It makes it unhealthy. The sole reason of putting sugar into beer was because it made it cheaper. In Germany sugar was absolutely prohibited in the manufacture of beer.
said he believed it was better to put sugar into beer than to put spirits into bad wine, seeing that they were putting most komfyt into wine let them put better substances like sugar into beer. The Transvaal was noted throughout the world for the excellency of its beer. (Laughter.) Yes, known throughout the world. It was well-known that the Transvaal beer was not surpassed by that of any country in the world. (Laughter.) He knew that, because he was told so by a German who had tasted all the beers in Germany—(laughter)—and what they could do in Germany they could do in this country. Concluding, the hon. member said that he would vote for the amendment.
said he had not been convinced by the arguments that had been brought forward that there was anything deleterious in the use of sugar in brewing beer. He thought they would be doing the Province of Natal a considerable amount of good if they were allowed to use sugar in the making of beer. The S.A. Breweries at Maritzburg could not buy sufficient Colonial barley to continue their work successfully, and so they had to import, and they had distributed seed among the farmers so as to encourage them to grow barley. If, however, the brewers were allowed to use sugar, the encouragement of barley growing would be continued. Sugar was allowed in England by Act of Parliament over a century ago, and the beers made in England at that time were considered to be the best in the world. He would strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand.
said they must not forget that the beers made in England a century ago did not contain isinglass, gelatine, sulphurous oxide, or sulphates of sodium, potassium or calcium, which were allowed under this Bill. (Laughter).
said in the Inland Revenue Act of Great Britain beer was defined as any “liquor which was made or sold as a description of beer, or as a substitute for beer, and which on analysis could be found to contain more than two per cent of proof spirit.” The dissertation given by the hon. member for Paarl was absolutely useless. Any text book would tell them that in order to obtain a correct comparison they must take into consideration all the circumstances under which the various samples of grain were grown.
Non-sense.
I know my chemistry as well as you know your wine. (Laughter.) In conclusion, Mr. Haggar asked where did the samples come from and who analysed them? Repressive legislation had always succeeded in increasing the evils which it pretended to prevent.
said he failed to see any reason why the amendment should not be allowed, for nothing had been said in the House to show that the addition of sugar was an adulteration. To attempt to penalise the brewers for the benefit of the barley growers was not fair. (Cheers.) The evidence so far adduced did not show that the addition of sugar was bad or unwholesome.
wished to know whether the same quality of beer could be brewed under the proposal of the Minister as when 25 per cent. of sugar was allowed.
said he would like to know where they stood now? Was the Minister going to stand by his amendment, or was he going to adopt the amendment to his amendment? It was quite clear that if this matter went to the vote, a considerable number of members behind the Minister must vote against him. What would be the result of that vote? He (Sir W. B. Berry) admitted that the Bill was an advantage to the brewers of the Cape Province to this extent, that they were no longer placed at a disadvantage as compared with brewers in other parts of the Union, but it did not go far enough. According to the proposals in the Bill, the amount of sugar which would be allowed in beer was equal to 6 per cent. Almost throughout the world beers were made with an allowance of from 15 to 25 per cent.
said he thought this matter was fully discussed yesterday. He then said what he had to say for the proposals which were now before the committee. He would like to say, in answer to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who had asked whether, if the provision in this Bill became law, they could make the same quality of beer, he Mr. Sauer) had no hesitation in saying that they could make the same quality, he should think better. The first result of this Bill becoming law was that they would have uniformity over the Union as regarded the making of beer. They had at present one law regulating the use of sugar in beer in the Cape Province and another in the other Provinces.
Levelling down.
said he was not saying whether they were levelling down or levelling up. Under the Bill as proposed it would amount to this, that less sugar might be used in the Northern Provinces than was used at present. He was perfectly satisfied on the point as to whether it was necessary to use sugar or not. He had already pointed out that where they made the best beer in the world—in Bavaria—they did not use sugar. Even in the Transvaal they had a brewery where they did not use sugar. In many of the States of America they did not use sugar. He thought the prejudice which it had been attempted to raise against the wine farmers was very foolish. It might be that the wine farmer would be benefited, but if so, it would be very little indeed. He might be benefited to the extent that they cut off a very bad kind of beer, but, against that, the better beer was made the more beer would be consumed. But it would be a good thing for the consumer, he bad no doubt. As to the quality of this beer, everybody would remember what the brewers had told them before. Hon. members took what was told them by the brewers as gospel. He remembered a former occasion when the brewers made certain statements to them. He believed a great deal of what they told him. He found out afterwards on inquiry, and when he went to Europe, that the facts given them were not correct. The lion Minister went on to say that when he came back from Europe there was a gentleman on board connected with the largest, brewery here, who told him that the beer made here was amongst the best made in the world; and they were now told that the industry would be ruined if sugar was not allowed in beer. He believed that if they were going to allow sugar to be put into beer they were putting a foreign substance into it, and he believed the present tendency all over the world was to eliminate all foreign substances from beer. He wanted to encourage the growth of barley in South Africa. (Cheers.) As to what had been said by the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir W. B. Berry), he said that if the provision in regard to the addition of sugar to beer was defeated he should have to consider very seriously whether he should go on with that part of the Bill. (Dissent.) They might defeat the Bill, but they could not compel him to proceed (he was understood to say) with a measure when he believed it to be bad. He did not wish to rush that matter, and believed that to some people, at any rate, the more it was discussed the more light was thrown on it, and therefore he would move that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again. (Hear, hear and dissent).
The motion was agreed to.
Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday next.
SECOND READING.
moved the second reading of the Administration of Estates Bill.
suggested that the House do now adjourn.
moved the adjournment of the debate until Monday.
The hon. member has moved the second reading, and some other hon. member must move the adjournment of the debate.
was understood to move that the debate be adjourned.
The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned to Monday next.
The House adjourned at