from J. I,. Hamman and others, inhabitants of De Lagersdrift and neighbourhood, district of Middelburg, Transvaal, praying for the appointment of a district surgeon at Do Lagersdrift, or for other relief.

from R. H. Kruger, Chief Constable, Lady Frere, who has been notified that he is to be transferred to the South African Mounted Riflemen, praying that his service in the Police Force from 1904 to the present time may be recognised for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from W. H. Creak, assistant master at the Lovedale Missionary Institution, praying that a certain period of his service may be recognised for “ good service allowance” purposes, or for other relief.

from J. J. M. Jacobs, of Boshof, who was wounded in the late Anglo-Boer War, praying for consideration and relief.

from F. J. Rheeder and 28 others, registered voters of Boshof, in support of the above petition of J. J. M. Jacobs.

from David IT. Jacobs, of Boshof, who was wounded in the late Anglo-Boer War praying for consideration and relief.

from A. J. Botha and 38 others, inhabitants of Boshof, in support of the above petition of D. H. Jacobs.

from J. J. F. Britz, of Boshof, who was wounded in the late Anglo-Boer War, praying for consideration and relief.

from J. F. le Roux and 59 others, inhabitants of Boshof, in support of the above petition of J. J. F. Britz.

from Lucy Nason, a teacher in the Lusikisiki Public School, who has been employed under the Education Department since 1884, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

from Johanna J. Screech, widow of T. Screech, late custodian of the Government Buildings at Bloemfontein, praying for a pension, or for other relief.

Regulations under Act No. 29 of 1909 (Cape for Enon Mission Station; Regulations under Act No. 29 of 1909 (Cape) for the recovery of arrear rates, fees, or dues

moved that on and after Wednesday, the 2nd proximo, the House suspend business at six o’clock p.m., and resume at eight o’clock p.m., on Wednesdays, Government business to have precedence from eight o’clock p.m. on such days.

said it would be only fair to the House that Government should take an opportunity of explaining what business it intended to bring forward—(Opposition cheers)—because the House found very important measures, some of which were referred to in the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament, were falling down the paper, and hon. members had no information from the Government as to what measures it proposed to deal with. The House had also been informed that Government intended to deal with a Bill for the construction of railways, and they were likewise told that the practice followed on previous occasions of having Bills of that sort thrown into the House at the last moment without the country having an opportunity of considering the proposals would not be followed in the future. (Opposition cheers.) So far, however, there was no sign of whether there was any intention to introduce such a Bill. It was not right or fair for the Government to introduce railway measures at a late period in the session when hon. members would have no opportunity of ascertaining the views of their constituents on the Government proposals. In a previous session, a Bill dealing with a large amount of public money was practically pitchforked into the House a few days before Parliament rose and members were told that they could either take it or leave it. If Government had no intention of bringing forward more business than it had during the last six weeks, an extra night sitting was unnecessary. It had been stated in the public press, proceeded Sir Thomas, that negotiations had taken place between the Union and Imperial Governments in regard to Immigration, but no information had been given to the House on the subject. Whether Government had a large majority or not, it was not fair that the House should not have a statement as to what business the Government intended to proceed with. (Hear, hear.)

replied that he had no objection to supply the information sought by the hon. the leader of the Opposition. The intention of the Government in asking for this extra evening sitting was to give ample time for the discussion of the Budget, especially as it was known that members of the Opposition had prepared long speeches. The House had already been in session for two months, and remarks were being made that nothing had been done. He wished, however, to point out that most of the time of the House had been taken up by the discussion of matters raised by hon. members opposite. (No, no.) Well, he did not know of any afternoon when there had been no discussion in this House. (Laughter.) Two important points had been touched on by Sir Thomas Smartt. The first was in regard to the immigration of Asiatics into South Africa. He wished to say at once that a Bill would be introduced dealing with this matter at a very early date, and it was the Government’s intention to have this measure passed into law during the present session. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the illness of the Minister of the Interior this Bill would probably have been already introduced. In regard to the hon. member’s remarks in connection with a railway construction Bill, he (General Botha) wished to point out that as a rule measures of this kind were introduced after the conclusion of the Budget debate. (Laughter.) Surely the hon. member did not wish to place the cart before the horse. A Bill dealing with railway extension would certainly be introduced; both measures referred to by the leader of the Opposition would be introduced at the earliest possible date so that they might be properly debated, and not passed in a hurry. He could assure the House that the Government’s intention in asking for this extra night simply aimed at giving members an opportunity of giving important matters due consideration, and because the Estimates alone would take up a good deal of time.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the following be a Standing Order for the remainder of the session: If at 5 minutes to 6 o’clock p.m. on Wednesdays, Government business be not under consideration, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate on the business then under discussion, or the Chairman will report progress, and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for adjournment, will lapse without question put. If a debate arises as to the day for the resumption of such interrupted business, Mr. Speaker shall order it to be put down for the next day on which the House shall sit.

The motion was agreed to.

resumed the debate on motion for Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending the 31st of March, 1914, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbours Funds, respectively. He said that on each occasion since Union they on that side of the House had taken the opportunity of calling the attention of Parliament to what they considered a very grave increase of expenditure, and to the high standard of expenses with which they had started the government of the Union. There had been what seemed to them extravagant expenditure. They had tried from time to time to get this expenditure reduced, but their protests so far had been without effect. Union had now been in existence for three years, and the time had now arrived when they thought it their duty to put before Parliament figures showing how the expenditure had increased since Union. He had been at great pains to get the correct figures for the three years prior to that event. He had found great difficulty in getting exact figures owing to the different systems of keeping accounts in use in the various Provinces. He might tell the House that after working out these figures he had arrived at a result so serious that he had laid those figures before the Auditor-General, and these as submitted to that official were those he would lay before this House. When the appeal was made to the country to support the Union of the Colonies it was generally advocated on the grounds of economy. Instead of having four Government Houses there would be only one. We should have one set of Ministers instead of four, and one head of the great departments in place of four. It seemed obvious that by bringing the whole of the four colonies into one we should effect a great saving, but these hopes had been disappointed. The years to be dealt with extended from 1907-8 to 1912-13, and he would, for the sake of comparison, give the estimates for 1913-14, that was three years before and three years after Union. He had divided the expenditure for each year under two heads—first, the ordinary expenditure upon administration without interest charges, railway expenditure, and other items of that kind, and then the total expenditure, including railways and interest charges. The figures are as follows:

It would be noticed that the expenditure in 1908-9 was a little less than in 1907-8, but that was accounted for because at the Cape we were reducing our expenditure by suspending the sinking fund, and a general policy of retrenchment. In 1909-10 there were only 11 months to be accounted for, because Union commenced on the 1st of June, or one month earlier than the ordinary financial year. Now, to get the figures by comparison with the other years so as to bring 11 months up to 12 months, he had added one-eleventh of the amount. That brought them to the period when Union commenced. Now in 1910, and that was for the period of ten months, because the House decided that the financial year should close on the 31st of March, the general expenditure was £10,626,842, and to that he had added a proportion for the two months, bringing the total to £12,074,569.

The expenditure for the year before Union was £22,730,000. They entered Union with the hope that there would be a great deal of economy, so far as the administration of the country was concerned, but he thought it was clear that their hopes of economy had not been fulfilled. The figures which he had submitted might be attacked in certain small details, but he would say that, on the whole, the figures which he had placed before the House were accurate. He hoped that the Minister would account for the great growth that had taken place in the expenditure. The country wanted to know the reason. Was this expenditure justified? How was it accounted for? Could they go to the country and tell the people that they had voted for the extra expenditure that had taken place, because advantages would accrue to the people of the country? Could they go to the country and justify this expenditure? He thought it was time that they realised that they had a duty to the country. Let them look at what happened the other day. The Minister, he was pleased to see, saved something like three-quarters of a million of money; but before the end of the month the Minister came and asked them to cast it away. He had tried to find closer reasons for the growth of this expenditure, but he had failed. He had failed for the reason that, within the last year or so, enormous changes had taken place in the various departments of the State. He could not say the departments in which the most of this money had been spent, and he thought that the Treasury would do well to go into the matter, and present to the House a statement showing the different departments where this money had been spent. At present, they could not put their finger on any one department of the State. He would not go into the Railway Department’s details, but he did not want it assumed that he did not think there was any extravagance in that department. His point was that, in the general administration of the country, there had been extravagance and waste. It extended through every department. It was governed by the acts of the Government. It applied from the payment of Ministers’ salaries right down. (Opposition cheers.) Ministers’ salaries had set the tune. (Opposition cheers.) The influence had been felt right throughout the Service. He doubted whether Ministers quite realised the position. When he first saw that the Government had saved something like three-quarters of a million, he was prepared to come down to the House and congratulate the Minister. But, since then, the scene had changed, and there had been desperate haste to get rid of the saving.

The Government were not asking for taxation. They were going to make use of the reserves, money which this country had laid by in good times. In point of fact, the Minister of Finance was living on capital to-day. His hon. friend was like a spendthrift. He was going ahead, he could not pay his way; and, in order to meet his liabilities, he was going to the Treasury to get hold of any savings or reserves. He was hoping for a windfall, as his hon. friend reminded him, for a rich uncle to die. (Laughter.) He must congratulate the chief Government organ, the “South African News,” upon some sound advice which it had given. It said: “If we cannot pay our way on the present scale of expenditure, we must economise, or we must face taxation. If we have reached the limit of our economy, we must pass fresh taxation.” The Minister had apparently reached the limit of economy, but he did not propose fresh taxation. He would like to ask the House to consider whether, in its opinion, the country had received adequate return for its increased expenditure? The Government, as they knew, came in on a policy of development. He would like members to consider whether there had been any sort of return for this increased expenditure which they could say justified it. Was the country better governed? Were the departments better administered? Was there any increased efficiency in the Agricultural Department which would justify the expenditure? (A Voice: Oh, yes.) Well, that was not the opinion of the farmers themselves. Again, were we doing more in the direction of producing our own foodstuffs?

Let them take the figures of imports of food and drink for four years. The total in 1909 was £5,552,000, while last year the figure was £6,359,000, nearly a million advance. We were not, therefore, advancing in the direction of feeding ourselves.

How about wheat?

said he could give the hon. member the figures for corn, grain, flour, meal and sugar. In 1909 the import of corn and grain was £887,000, which had been decreased to £560,000. That was satisfactory. Flour and meal decreased from £664,000 to £498,000, while sugar decreased from £486,000 to £459,000. There were, however, increases in several articles, such as fresh fruit, dried fruit, tea, vegetables, butter, cheese, and condensed milk. Butter, for instance, increased from £261,000 to £318,000; while cheese increased from £114,000 to £158,000.

All owing to drought.

I don’t think you can quite say that. There is a steady increase for the four years. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the increased imports of eggs, ham, bacon, preserved meat, fish, biscuits, and cake, remarking that in the items of food and drink he was afraid they could not say there had been that marked development which would justify the increase of expenditure. Where there was such an enormous increase of expenditure out of proportion to the increase in production, the position was not only unsound, but it was ruinous.

What about the exports?

I will give you those. Proceeding, he said that the imports of candles and soap had fallen, in the one case from £104,000 to £13,000, and in the other from £196,000 to £112,000. Taking all the imports they got a very large increase in trade—in 1909 the trade was £28,862,000 last year £39,845,000. Coming to exports, wool showed an increase of over one million, viz., from £3,728,000 to £4,780,000. That was a very satisfactory figure, but it could not be claimed that it was due to any action on the part of the Government. Ostrich feathers increased from £2,091,000 to £2,609,000. Taking the produce of the land together, there was a very satisfactory increase from £8,958,000 to £11,163,000. Diamonds had increased from £6,368,000 to £9,153,000. Gold had increased from £30,752,000 in 1909 to £38,342,000 in 1912, an increase of £7,600,000.

In dealing with these figures, he was compelled to ask the Minister what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Customs tariff and the Excise tariff, but especially the Customs tariff. The position was far more serious than the Minister seemed to realise, because since the Union was established, there had been no decision of Parliament with regard to the Customs tariff. (Opposition cheers.) They had the old Customs tariff; but this Parliament had not said a single word with regard to a tariff, so that the outside world did not know to-day what the feeling of Parliament was in regard to it. (Opposition cheers.) The effect of that was that people who wished to carry on enterprises in this country were afraid to do so because they were afraid that the present tariff might be altered in one direction or another. There was no security or assurance that the present tariff would be maintained, so that the men who were thinking of embarking capital in enterprises in this country were hesitating. (Opposition cheers.)

If they could get a declaration from the Government it would give such an assurance to the people engaged in manufacturing enterprises as would encourage them to develop their manufactures in this country. But they could not get from the Government any declaration of policy, and they could not get from the Minister an assurance that this Parliament would be given the opportunity of expressing its views on this matter. (Opposition cheers.) He was very sorry the hon. Minister had told them nothing about it in his Budget Speech. It was an important thing to get the Customs Tariff approved by this Union Parliament. As it was, they had approved of no tariff, but were working on the old tariff. (Opposition cheers.)

He would specially ask the House to make a comparison between the output of the land and the output of the mines. The total exports for this year, 1912, amounted to £62,272,000. Of that £49,394,000 were the products of the mines. The products of the land were only £11,163,000. Well, that was not a healthy position, and it was not a position with which the people of the country should be content, because their expenditure and their indebtedness depended too much on their mining products. They were exhausting their mining products, and however large their mineral resources might be, and however rich they might be, they wore being exhausted year by year; and every ton of ore taken out of the country reduced the assets of this country. (Opposition cheers.) He wished the House would realise this. He was afraid, as far as their Estimates were concerned, as far as their expenditure was concerned, and as far as their revenue and expenditure was concerned, that fact was not recognised. What were they doing with the products of the mines? They were deliberately expending their capital assets. They were taking away from the country something they could not restore. When they developed their land they enriched the soil by everything they put into it. Every acre of soil turned over was an asset to the country, but every ton of ore taken out of it was something taken away they could not put back. Surely their duty as trustees of this country was that they should restore something for every pound’s worth of assets they took out of it. That was their duty to posterity. They had to hand the country back as rich as they found it. But it was not only that. They took money from the mines in every possible way. Look at the railways; look at the indirect taxation that came out of the mines; look at the Customs. It was the same. Their railway profits were largely due to the working of the mines. Let them ask themselves if they were doing anything like sufficient in the way of putting something back into the country as against what they were taking out of the country. The Government should, and he hoped it would, make some attempt to realise this position, and see what they could do in regard to sound finance. They had the right to take out of the mines enough money to pay for the government of the mines, but the balance surely should be put to increase the value of the permanent assets of the country and develop its resources.

They heard a good deal of a policy of development. Let any member carefully look through the Estimates of expenditure and then say how much of these millions was being spent on the development of South Africa and how much was being spent on ordinary administration? It seemed to him that they were squandering their resources and their reserves. In spite of all their expenditure they were not going to pay their way by over a million this year. To meet that deficit the Minister was going to take out of the reserve £770,000 (balance in Treasury), and from bewaarplaatzen £160,000, if he could. He supposed that the remaining deficit would be decreased by the amount provided for in the Financial Relations Bill. Now, as they said the other day, they had got a time of tremendous prosperity in South Africa. They were on the top of a wave. Their revenue was higher than ever before, and the trade of this country had reached a tremendously high figure. The mining productions had gone up higher than ever before, and their land products had gone up from 9 millions to 11 millions, also higher than ever before; and this was the time the Minister chose to tell the country that the country was insolvent. That was what it meant. He said: “I am sorry to say that I cannot pay my way.” That was an insolvent Budget, and made at the time of the country’s greatest prosperity. Surely at such a time their reserves should be increased. Were they never going to have bad times in South Africa? Never going to have lean years, and never going to have a time when it would be good to have some support from a reserve fund? Surely that would be wise finance. The point of this was that the Minister, in every way, was evading a necessity for economy. He knew that his supporters would say they would not pass taxation until they had economised. He would have to economise before he could obtain new taxation; but his fear was that Parliament would not demand something more explicit from the Minister as to the possible chances of saving. (Opposition cheers.) In regard to the loan figures the Minister told them that the Government would have to go to the open market to borrow some money. They knew that the market was against them. They knew that a recent loan that had to be renewed cost this country something like 5 per cent., and other countries had had to pay at least 4 per cent. The German Empire was paying more than 4 per cent., and other British Colonies were also paying over 4 per cent. If ordinary prudence had been shown in the expenditure of public money the Minister would not have been compelled to borrow, for he would have had ample reserves with which to carry on without going into the London market. To summarise, the three years’ expenditure before Union was £65,790,000, and for the three years after Union £76,824,000, a difference of 11 millions. Had Government any justification for that extra expenditure? Proceeding, Sir Edgar said there had been some talk of issuing a local loan; it would be disastrous if Government attempted to borrow money in South Africa — (Opposition cheers) — for the only institution from which it could borrow were the banks, which invested their fixed deposits in various enterprises throughout the country. If a local loan were floated all the money that Government would raise must come from the banks, and in order to obtain the money to lend to Government the banks would have to call up its loans from business men, industrial concerns, or from farmers. The money could not be obtained in any other way. South Africa was a borrowing country, and required capital for its development, and we did not want to exhaust whatever capital there was in the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir Edgar then moved as an amendment to omit all the words after “ that ” and to substitute the following words: “ The Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1913-14 be referred back to the Government for consideration in order that the ordinary revenue and expenditure for the year shall be made to balance.”

seconded the amendment.

said it was with a very great deal of reluctance that he rose to otter a few remarks. His reluctance arose from the fact that criticism was unwelcome, and he was so afraid and so nervous—(laughter)—of again provoking the sort of savage attack which was made on him by the Prime Minister for his harmless criticisms on a previous occasion. He hoped that would not occur again, for that really pained him, and crippled his usefulness. He did not know a more solemn duty a representative had than to state plainly in that House what he thought of the affairs of the country, regardless of fear or favour, which he was afraid he would not get, or prejudice, which he was sure to evoke. He had listened with immense pleasure to the very interesting discourse of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton), for it was always a pleasure to welcome a repentant sinner. (Laughter.) They were told there was more joy over one sinner who repented than over 99 just men, and he thought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had been somewhat of a sinner in past days. Barely a fortnight ago the Opposition benches were ringing with declamations in favour of following the Australian example, and presenting to Great Britain a battleship—a little trifle of two millions. Yet, at the very time, locked in his breast, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had all the secrets of the dire condition of the country’s finances. He (Mr. Merriman) was alarmed at the idea of the Prime Minister’s roving commission to England, because they did not know what the result would be. Before he made any remarks on the finance of the year, he would like to offer his congratulations to the Minister of Finance upon having discharged what was not a very pleasant duty. His Budget was honest, if it was not cheering. The Minister of Finance skated over some very thin ice indeed; but, at any rate, he had the honesty and straightforwardness to point out where the holes were. They had to thank him for not having adorned his Budget with those purple patches which some Treasurers were fond of indulging in. He (Mr. Merriman) felt very sorry for him, because the Minister of Finance reminded him of one of those jugglers who had three knives in the air and catching them at the same time. (Laughter.) The unfortunate Finance Minister had not only to deal with the ordinary revenue and expenditure of the country, but he was also responsible in the long last for the railway expenditure, besides which, he had an additional source of expenditure in those famous Provincial Councils. So his hon. friend was tossing three knives in the air at once, and sometimes he (Mr. Merriman) was afraid cutting himself a little as they came down.

It was very difficult to understand our financial position, for we had not only to consider the Budget, but the Railway Budget—and if anything happened to the railway, he did not know whether it would be the officials who would pay the deficiency, or whether they would go to the taxpayers to pay it—and then we had these good, light-hearted creatures, the Administrators —(laughter)—with their Councils, spending their money and heaping up wreaths of popularity for themselves, but the money had to be found by his poor friend sitting on that bench. That was a very difficult position to understand. He (Mr. Merriman) had laboured at it for days, to try to find out where we stood, and the more he laboured at it, the more he was in the position of the countryman at the fair, who was looking for the pea under the thimbles. (Laughter.) If he (Mr. Merriman) wanted to know where the money was going, he did not know whether to go to the Treasury, the Railway Department, or the Provincial Councils; that was unfortunate. Another great difficulty consisted in the multiplicity of accounts and the almost entire absence of any statistics. If anyone wished to arrive at the condition of the country, he had to try to make his own researches, without anything from the Government to assist him. He was glad to hear that in this matter the Union, like Mr. Pecksniff’s horse, was going to begin. It did not reflect very much credit on the country that it had not insisted on having better statistics, for the present ones were a disgrace, and were far worse than they were before Union. There were better statistics in the Transvaal in the days of the old Republic than there were now. (Cries of “Question.”) The Transvaal mining statistics, Customs statements, and general statistics used to be remarkably good, strange to say, but the Minister had taken a razor with which to chop a block. The gentleman he had selected for the compilation of the statistics was one of the most fearless, straightforward, and capable administrators we had—(cheers)—but he did question whether this gentleman’s particular gift was statistics, but whatever he undertook, he would try to do to the best of his ability.

He said the revenue that was estimated last year, irrespective of the bewaarplaat sen, was £16,122,000, and the expenditure without including the miners’ phthisis debit, amounted to £17,030,000, or a deficiency was estimated at £1,028,000. The actual revenue was £17,141,000, with an expenditure of £17,096.000, which left a surplus of £45,000. Certain additional increments would add about another £20,000. The outstanding features of the Budget of last year seemed to be the enormous expenditure of seventeen million pounds, which appeared to be a great expenditure for a country like South Africa with only one and a quarter millions of European people. He questioned if they went to any of the other Colonies whether they would find one where there was such a large expenditure for so small a population.

This is a mixed population.

said that was quite right. Fortunately for the Treasurer the coloured people were in a contributory and not a receptive stage. It was not surprising that they had that enormous expenditure if they considered the number of civil servants in the country. These numbered 21,384, and those employed by the Railways and Harbours, 34,536. He was speaking of Europeans only. This made a total of 55,920. Besides these, there were teachers, pensioners, members of Parliament, and Provincial staffs, and they would not be far wrong if they said that the number of people drawing pay from the Government was 60,000 people. How many people were they to support this army? There were 680,000 European males in this country. Taking off that 262,000 for children under fifteen-sixteen years of age, Imperial military and naval forces, convicts, etc., they got 422,000 males. And they had to keep up this little army of civil servants. If they took the number of civil servants off this, then they would find that one man in six had to support a civil servant. (Hear, hear.) Such a state of affairs had a demoralising effect on this country. People wondered why there was not more zip and go-ahead spirit in this country. It was simply because everyone looked to the Government —that was the curse of this country. Every young fellow tried to get a billet, and once such a young fellow got a billet he became an absolute loss to the productive force of the country, and his last appearance would probably be as a petitioner before this House. (Laughter.) If anyone wanted to know why they had such a very large expenditure here, then he would simply ask them to look at the list of their civil servants. That was the white man’s burden here. Of course, they were not parsimonious in other respects. Defence cost them £865,000. police £1,075,000, general defence £380,000, altogether £2,320,000. If they added £100,000 appearing on the Supplementary Estimates, they had nearly two and a half million for police and defence. Let them examine the figures of any other British Colony, and they would see that they were paying an extraordinary amount for their defence. Then, among other items, they would see £250,000 per year for printing, which worked out at about 4s. per head for every white person in this country. That was very extravagant, indeed. Turning to education, Mr. Merriman said the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) a short while ago had declared that they were starving education in this country. He contended that in the Union they spent more on education than any other country in the world. (Hear, hear.) Whether they got as much out of their education was a different matter. He did not think they did, and he doubted even whether they got value for their money. Mr. Fremantle some time ago had been engaged on a Commission in this regard. What has become of the report of that Commission. He noticed that much attention was being paid to the enormous increase of children in these schools. About two-thirds of these children were coloured and black children, and he did not think that the expenditure incurred in getting these children into the schools was very great. The fact remained that their principal expenditure had been incurred in putting up palatial buildings all over the country. Some of the buildings in which they in the Old Country received their education would be considered such a disgrace if they were put up in this country. Here every member would be calling out that education was being starved. (Laugh ter.) Some of the money they had spent in this manner would have been better spent on the education of the children. It was a case of the raiment being more than the body. When they thought of a country like Scotland, and the small means with which they went about their education, they discovered that what was lacking in South Africa was the spirit, and someone to direct affairs. He had read of large grants being made which alarmed him, because it seemed that the people who proposed them were coming to his hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, for the money, they in that House, who had not the slightest control in the spending of that money would have to find it. Since 1908-09 there had been an increase in grants to education of £134,000. For every additional child that was being brought into school a sum of £8 16s. had been paid. That was in the Cape Province. In Natal—fortunate Natal— rich Natal!—(laughter)—on whom were being showered the gifts of this House— (laughter)—it cost £13 14s. for each child. No wonder the Administrators were going round riding the high horse. (Laughter.) In the Transvaal it cost them £8 14s., while in the Free State the amount was £4 14s. (Cheers.) He would point out quite a remarkable fact that was brought out by the census returns which checked the attendance at schools. The enrolled attendance was 188,000, while the census showed the attendance to be 169,000 on one particular day. That was for the Cape. In Natal there were 17,000 children enrolled, while on the day the census was taken there were only 13,000 in the schools. He took the figures of the census man because that individual was not out to hunt up statistics for any particular purpose. There was evidently a competition being started amongst the Provinces as to which should have the best class of buildings. And if one Province was not keyed up to the style of its neighbour then the Administrator of that Province had to extort the money from the Government. (Laughter.)

So far as education went they paid more in this country than any other country in the world. Now let him point out the case of New South Wales—he would point out that he would only deal with Europeans so that natives could be left out of the thing. The population of New South Wales was 1,646,000, and they spent on education £1,210,000. In Victoria, where the population was 1,315,000—very nearly the position in this country—they spent 1 million on education.

More than that!

I suppose my well-informed friend knows better than the year book.

Here is the year book. (Laughter.)

said that in South Africa they had a population of something like 1,276,000, and they spent £1,975,000 on education. In fact, this country spent more than any other country on education, and he would point out at the same time that Australia was a pretty extravagant country in matters of this kind. Nobody would grudge the money if they were getting value for that money. Did they get value for that money? They did not get value for that money, and if there was one thing that wanted overhauling in this country it was the educational system of the country. Once that was done they would be able to see whether they could not get value for their money. They had sent a Commission round the country to see if they were getting value for their money. He thought that the present educational system tended to drive the children of the country to be mere bookworms, with the object, when they grew up, of their getting some soft job wherein they need not use their hands. Their educational system was not suited to the circumstances of the country, and when they came to the system so far as the coloured people were concerned, the position was still worse. He merely pointed out this as one of the sources of their extravagance when the money they spent was compared with the results that were obtained. Something had been said about the revenue being under-estimated last year. It was said that his hon. friend the member for Barberton was wrong in underestimating the revenue, and that that was a policy he had pursued in the Transvaal when he was Treasurer.

He said: “Give me a Finance Minister that does not over-estimate his revenue.” The dangerous man was the man who overestimated revenue, and then brought his expenditure up to his estimated revenue. Then he would find that the expenditure was above the revenue, and would say: “Dear me, how did this happen?” Continuing, he referred to these Estimates and said that much of the increase was due to a five per cent. increase in the Customs revenue. At the time the then Treasurer made that estimate he was told by the other side that he was over-estimating the revenue which he expected to derive from Customs. He (the speaker) did not consider that five per cent. was too great as a limit. He must say that he could not blame the late Treasurer, the hon. member for Barberton, for under-estimating his revenue. He only hoped that they would never have a Treasurer-General who would over-estimate. He wanted to refer to one thing upon which the Minister of Finance did not touch in his speech or, at least, touched very lightly. He hoped that his hon. friend would give a little more attention to trade figures in the future. These figures were of great importance to the country, and in dealing with finance it was of the utmost importance that they should be taken into consideration. One could not understand the finance of a country unless one understood the trade figures of that country. From this branch of statistics they could extract the most valuable information. The Minister made a few little excursions into these figures. He thought that his hon. friend dealt rather with the petty things such as fresh vegetables and fish, and he would point out that he was wrong in some of his figures. Of fresh vegetables, properly so-called, he would point out they imported practically nothing, and they exported £5,000 more than the year before. Some of the trade figures were very discouraging. It was very discouraging to find that they actually imported in this last year, after all their talk about what they were doing and how they were improving and how the country was getting on, more articles of food and drink than the year before. Why was that? He had no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture, who was a bit of an optimist, would give the House good reasons for this. It was very discouraging.

It is very small.

But it is on the wrong side; that is the worst of it. Continuing, he said if there was one thing they heard at every agricultural show in the country it was the progress that they were making with regard to dairy produce. It was disheartening to find that they had imported nearly £80,000 more butter last year than they did the year before. That was wrong.

Drought,

Oh, there’s always an explanation for a thing of this sort. Cheese tells the same story. Milk tells the same story. Eggs also. Continuing, he said he would commend these facts to his hon. friend who had gone rambling about the country with a Commission to look out industries for the people. Here was an industry that needed no special machinery save the domestic hen or the cow. (Laughter.) But he supposed it was too petty. Here was an industry at their very doors, but he supposed that it was too petty for the notice of his hon. friend who had gone rambling about the country with a Commission. His hon. friend wanted to rival Europe. He advised his hon. friend to let South Africa try and rival some other countries first. What was the good of thinking of starting other industries when there was this industry in front of them. He would like to point out one thing to his hon. friend the Treasurer when he used these trade figures. He would remind him that there was an export trade as well as an import trade. His hon. friend forgot that they exported things as well as imported them. He would point out that was what had happened in the case of cereals, and said it was exceedingly gratifying to find that the balance on that article was only some half-million. It was gratifying to find the trade balance was in our favour. There was a time when they always talked about paying their way. The trade balance last year was £26,964,000, which was a very considerable sum. The year before it was £22,000,000, so that they had a trade balance of five millions more than they had ever had before. There had been a lot of talk about introducing capital, but they should get a big trade balance in their favour before they talked about capital.

The trade balance had to pay for the hollowing amongst other things: Debt, £4,000,000; dividend and interest, £12,000,000; Government stores, about £3,000,000. We also imported £708,000 of specie. That made altogether nearly £20,000,000. The other six or seven millions could easily be accounted for by, first, the real profits that we were making, and, secondly, the debts we had to nay in the way of municipalities, banks, insurance companies, etc. But the position when they had accounted for all these things was eminently sound.

The one thing which he thought was very much to be regretted indeed was the hugely disproportionate place that minerals occupied in our trade figures, that out of the whole exports, about £61,000,000, after making deductions, no less than £49,000,000 were due to the mineral produce. As long as that disproportion continued we should always have grave cause for anxiety in this country. The foundation of our prosperity rested upon these mines. If anything happened to the industry our prosperity would go down like a house of cards. He wanted all those who sneered at the gold industry or the diamond industry to realise that. We might be thankful that we had got it, that it had been a source of wonderful prosperity in this country, but at the same time it was not safe for any country to rest entirely on the mineral industry. If they tampered with that industry they were tampering with the sources of our prosperity in this country, and certainly, although they should not submit to be dominated by it, they should at the same time be careful about it, because without it this country, he was afraid, would be in a bad way. Diamonds accounted for £9,000,000, and gold for £38,000,000. We were getting on now for producing half the gold production of the world. Did members know that the mines paid out in wages last year nearly 19 millions of money, and that those wages went to bring prosperity to every part of this country? (Hear, hear.) Did his farming friends know that Johannesburg purchased £2,109,000 worth of live-stock alone? (Hear, hear.) Johannesburg spent £14,000,000 on stores and contributed in taxation £2,300,000. They paid out in dividends and interest very nearly 12 millions.

They employed 38,000 white people and 317,000 natives. It was the most highly-paid industry in the world. They had 22,000 workers drawing £322 a year each.

How many managing directors amongst them?

Now, is not that a wise observation? (Laughter.) I won’t say anything more about it. It does not include the managing directors. There are 1,326 technical people.

£10,000 a year.

The average comes out at £537. (Laughter and cheeps.) Perhaps you can pick out one or two people in this House with £20,000 or £30,000 a year, but, alas, that is not the average. My hon. friends—will some of his friends subscribe and present him with a little handbook on political economy. (Hear, hear, and Labour interruptions.) They don’t like to hear about the £322 a year, because it is drawn by these downtrodden people they are always talking about. There are 10,000 people there who draw over 20s. a day, 4,600 who draw 15s. to 20s., 4,500 who draw 10s. to 15s., and 1,896 under 10s. There were 183,000 natives actually employed on these mines, and they drew on an average £31 6s. a year.

The lowest wages in the world.

We were talking about my hon. friend’s “downtrodden people.” We have not yet heard him plead the cause of the natives in this House. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) is not here. Here is a recruit for him. (Interruption.)

rose at this stage and said he wished to ask the hon. member—. (Cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member must not interrupt.

Well, sir, he is a young member. You must make a little excuse for him, because he is a little touched up by these figures. (Laughter.) The cue of him and his friends is that the people on the mines are a downtrodden crowd. My figures of course do not show that. They show that they are the best paid men of their class in the whole world. (Hear, hear.) The 38,000 gentlemen get £10,636,000, while the 317,000 coloured gentlemen get £8,000,000—rather a difference. (Hear, hear.)

We want to stop that.

You are going the very worst way in the world to do it. (Hear, hear.) I don’t suppose anything has done more harm towards obtaining a rational view of this very serious question than the ridiculous motions, talks, and interruptions that arise from those benches. (Cheers.) Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said that out of nearly 19 millions of wages, the Transvaal, fortunate place, absorbed £15,993,000; the Cape, poor Cape, £1,673,000; the Orange Free State, £763,000; and happy Arcadian little Natal, £388,000. Gold contributed to the wage fund £14,783,000; diamonds, £2,789,000; coal, £842,000; base metals, £357,000, and miscellaneous, £450,000. The average earning for white men was £273 per head. Could they find any class or, workers in the world with such a high average wage.

Wine farmers.

What an idiotic remark. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the coloured man got £29 a year.

Very few people appreciated the magnitude of these interests and the effect they had upon the interests of the country, and particularly in their relations between black and white. Insensibly, during the last ten years, a gigantic revolution had sprung up. They had taken the natives who were always squabbling with each other, and were now welding them into one solid mass in Johannesburg. They were doing it so far as he could see without any particular care. The Government saw they were not maltreated as far as they could; they looked after their health imperfectly, as far as they could; but the other part of it—well, he did not know how the Government could do it, but they took very little pains about that. (Cheers.) What the effect upon the future of South Africa would be of what was now the condition of affairs in Johannesburg was one of the most serious things’ they had to face. (Cheers.) Dependent as they were on their mines for their prosperity, the mines were dependent upon the coloured man. Without the coloured man the mines would have to close, and their prosperity would be gone. (Cheers.) That was a serious thought.

He wanted, before he sat down, to touch upon the subject of another great industry in this country, and that was agriculture. He did not know whether hon. members ever read the census returns, if not he strongly recommended them to do so, to try and get a grasp of what was going on in the country. Would they be surprised to find that the farmers’ capital in stock was £47,000,000? That was exclusive entirely of the value of their lands, or implements, or improvements, or anything else, which showed what a very important thing it was. (Cheers.) He was afraid he had been rather rude the other day to one of his hon. friends in regard to irrigation. The people had very little idea of the irrigation enterprise going on in this country, not Government enterprises. (Cheers.) who could not do better than point to the contrast between the Cape of Good Hope and the other Provinces in that respect. Take the Sunday River, the Fish River, and the Breede River. Those places had all been now canalised and brought under production by means of private enterprise.

His hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) had given an object-lesson, far better than any Government enterprise, in which half a million was being put in, by him and his friends, to a large dam, which he hoped would be a great success. (Cheers.) He saw that somebody said he (Sir T. W. Smartt) would live by the memories of his land, rather than by the memories of his position as a politician. Forbid it, Heavens, that it should be so! He would live by the memories of his ability in both capacities. (Cheers.) The fault of their agriculture was that they hung too much upon Government assistance. He saw the country now dotted all over with little institutions. How his hon. friend, who was responsible for finding the money, could keep any sort of control (which they now vainly endeavoured to get some information about) over these sporadic institutions, he did not know. (Cheers.) They should not think they were ever going, by grandfatherly legislation, to bring money into the people’s Dockets, by pouring it out of the Government’s pockets, and not teaching them to look to themselves. (Hear, hear.) One thing, he thought, struck everybody. They were all crying out for land. They all said that the land was not utilised to the fullest capacity. There was an absence of men. His hon. friend at the head of the Government had got some of the most noble sentiments he had ever heard on that matter. (Laughter.) Unfortunately they had not materialised. (Cheers.) Would it surprise him to know that they lost one thousand white men last year? One thousand white men left this country more than came in, in spite of their advertisements, their boom, their Government money, and other things. Nothing could be more detrimental to this country than losing white men. He was shocked to hear of white men with capital leaving this country to go off to East Africa. Only the other week he had a letter from an enterprising young fellow in the Free State, a farmer and a bilingualist, who asked him to try and find how he could get a small farm in Canada. Why should he want to leave this country and go to Canada? (Cheers.) He (the hon. member) could not understand it. It was worth studying how far the gambling spirit had had to do with that, and with the drift of people from the country into the towns. It was going on unchecked.

In fourteen of the frontier districts of this country, since 1891, the number of white people on the land, as distinguished from white people in the towns, had absolutely gone back. Take a wealthy district like Oudtshoorn. There had been a drift into the town. The increase of the white population on the land was very small compared with the increase in the town. The percentage was something remarkable. The falling off in products, with the exception of ostrich feathers, was equally remarkable in Oudtshoorn. Those were the evil sides. They had had so many good sides given them in regard to their position that they should not be afraid to talk about the evil side. The drift of men into the town was one of the evil sides. The absence of any attraction to the land—the feeling that their place was here, not there—it was a bad feeling; and, looking to the future of South Africa, it was alarming. He was entirely at one with his hon. friend, who said they must not be in a burry, and that they could not bring a lot of soft people to this country, like those going to Australia now; but surely it was possible to obtain and bring out suitable people for this country. Surely it was possible to bring out white people and put them on the land? He regarded this as, perhaps, the very greatest matter they had to consider in this place. They had to build up a white population here. How could they build it up if the white population goes off to East Africa, and if the white population that comes in is less than the white population that goes out of South Africa? (Cheers.) How could they build it up if the white men drift away from the land into the towns to become wastrels? When he read these long lists of figures, and thought of the condition of this country in some respects—well, he thought they should try and set their house in order as far as they possibly could. (Cheers.) On the whole, he thought the financial position was satisfactory.

He qualified the term “On the whole,” because he thought it was very difficult to disentagle—his hon. friend did nothing, so he did not accuse him in the slightest degree, but it was extraordinarily difficult to disentagle the figures he laid before them the other day. It was satisfactory to know they borrowed so little. He gave his hon. friend every credit for that. But he should not listen to the syrens on the other side, and believe it was easy and good to borrow in England. The hon. gentleman who gave that advice was an old practitioner. He borrowed freely about the year 1904, and, at the present moment, they were paying for it. He should not be rushed. His hon. friend had now got two people hanging on to him: one was himself, in his duplicate capacity as Defence Minister, and the other was the Provincial Councils. He had got no control over either, so far as he could make out. (Laughter and cheers.) “Ask, and we shall receive,” that was the motto of the Defence Department, and the motto of the Provincial Councils. Well, it was very difficult for him (the Minister of Finance), and he (the hon. member) was alarmed when he heard him talk about the prospects of borrowing. What had he got them into? He was now in the position of having an overdraft in the same bank his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) was so familiar with in 1904. He had also got some bills falling due in seven months’ time, in all, just over three millions of money. The last time he borrowed, he did so at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. How could he go rushing to borrow in London to bring capital out here? The best capital they had here was men’s arms, and their capacity for work. How many men had been ruined in this country by putting mortgages on their farms?

at this point interrupted the hon. member so that certain Bills for which they were waiting in another place could be dealt with. The Bills referred to were accordingly certified.

said they had now got a total debt of £118,000,000, but was there any Colony which could show a return like the Union of South Africa? The other day New Zealand had been lauded and held up as a most solvent country, because out of the debt of £82,000,000 it had £45,000,000 worth of assets, Crown lands some of them, leaving £35,000,000 or more of non-paying debt. What was the position with regard to South Africa? Here in this country they had got a Sinking Fund of £7,158,000: Land Banks, £2,700,000; local works, £470,000; irrigation loans, £394,000; land bonds, £755,000, fencing loans, £175,000; capital of the railways, £92,000,000; and the capital of telephones and telegraphs, £2,750,000; in all, leaving out dubious assets, such as repatriation debts and things of that sort, and leaving out Crown lands, there were assets which they could sell to-morrow to the amount of £106,000,000 sterling. So, to his mind, they had got an extremely strong position compared with other countries. Of course, the interest of this debt depended to a large extent almost exclusively upon the mines, but still the mines were there, and they hoped they would continue at work. One lesson was quite clear: they should strengthen their position and diminish the debt as far as possible, as they had been doing. That was very important. In the mines they had a diminishing asset. They might last years, but still the time would come when the mines would be an asset of very much less value than they were at the present time. Therefore, it behoved them to see that they should not build up too large a debt. One thing he could not understand, why they had got an overdraft at the bank. Why they should have held deposits of this country amounting to millions and at the same time have an overdraft at the bank? He could not understand why they should have paid off the creditors of the country, and then have gone and renewed that fatal loan of £2,000,000. In all they had renewed it four times, and had paid £200,000 discount from time to time. (An HON. MEMBER: £140,000.) Oh! they had had two renewals since then, and he called it roundly £200,000. Why should they have renewed that loan and paid off people who did not want to be paid off? They carried their debt easily enough now, but with such methods of finance even the richest country could not stand.

With regard to the prospects for the coming year, they had got a revenue of £15,202,000, and he gathered that that revenue would be diminished by £35,000 in connection with the Cape School Board loan, so that they would get a revenue of £15,170,000. They had got an expenditure in the Main Estimates of £16,165,000, and they had a Supplementary Estimate amounting to £200,000, which made it £16,365,000. If they took £15,167,000 from that, they would find a deficiency of £1,198,000. That was the deficiency for the year, for which his hon. friend budgetted in a time of prosperity. That was the position they were in at the top of the tide; a deficiency of over a million. How did the Minister propose to meet it? Partly by a cheerful optimistic hope that he might have under-calculated his revenue by £1,000,000, by following the noble example of his hon. friend the member for Barberton. He (Mr. Merriman) doubted very much whether the revenue had been under estimated by a million. Again, the Minister proposed to fall back upon the bewaarplaatsen. That should go towards paying off the debt, and to make up for the diminishing assets they had got in the mines. His hon. friend, in effect, said: “Do not steal half of the bewaarplaatsen, but if you do—well, it will be very convenient.” The hon. Minister appealed to their baser passions, to the passion and cupidity which were inherent in the human breast. He (Mr. Merriman) disapproved of that entirely. (Cheers.)

What struck him forcibly was that there had not been one word, not a breath of any need for economy. The hon. Minister talked light-heartedly about taxation. He (Mr. Merriman) would never consent to taxation before the Estimates were reduced. (Cheers.) Why should they tax the people of the country when they had got more than enough to govern the country? His hon. friend would not find taxation an easy thing in this country. He had evidently been listening to the hon. member for Pretoria, East, who thought the prosperity of this country was to be built up by a land tax. If he tried that, he would find it was very awkward indeed. Expenditure had increased, was increasing, and it ought to be diminished, but the hon. Minister should not be led away by the idea of taxation. There was in the Provincial Councils a system where they had one set of people spending money which the Treasury had to find. Defence, too, was an extravagant thing and this country was too poor to waste its resources in building up a system of militarism. Certainly they wanted the country defended, but it should be done economically. They were letting the Prime Minister go to England to discuss a naval contribution. That either meant they were humbugging Great Britain or they meant something. If they were going to build a Dreadnought, he would be sorry for his hon. friend’s future Budget. They did not know their Prime Minister, he had done some curious things in England. He did not think the Treasurer would regard the Prime Minister’s visit to England as an ordinary pleasure trip for which the Treasurer was not going to pay very dear.

Then in the course of the next seven months the Minister of Finance would have to renew the loan of 3¼ millions with the bankers who, although very nice people, were very nasty when they talked about overdrafts. (Laughter.) Under such circumstances they had a habit of suggesting to Government the raising of loans and underwriting. We had now abandoned the railways as a source of revenue. He supposed there were very few countries which were so self-denying. He wondered where Prussia would be if she did that. It was an extraordinary position, and the time might come when South Africa would have to re-consider its decision in this matter, for he warned the Treasurer that people would not be content to pay taxes for the purpose of building up railway depreciation and other funds. If anything happened to the railways the taxpayers would have to pay the interest on the debt. We were entitled to make a profit out of the railways.

We have a profit of £400,000.

I daresay the hon. member is prepared to pay heavy taxation, but I am not. Prussia makes £11,000,000 out of her railways. Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said we had a heavy rate of expenditure and a most lavish rate of salaries —(hear, hear)—and all these things came out of the taxpayer. The Minister of Finance had pointed out with a dash of Monte Carlo that something might turn up to help him, and hinted that it might come to taxation. But behind the taxpayer there were penury, irritation, and friction —(hear, hear)—and greater unpopularity for the man who put on taxation. Our population was not increasing, and in telling unpopular truths he (Mr. Merriman) felt that he was only doing his duty to the country. Never were the financial prospects better than when we formed our Union. We launched our Union with a balance in hand and with a fine prospect of effecting savings, yet now we found ourselves with an overdraft with bills falling due and with a deficiency of more than a million. (Hear, hear.) That might (observed Mr. Merriman, in conclusion) be satisfactory to some people, but it is not satisfactory to me, and I only make these remarks because I have experienced what it is to go through times like these. I have seen times of prosperity almost as great ns these fade away and then the taxpayer suffered, the screw being turned to the last pitch. I hope that time will not come again. I believe it will not come if the Minister of Finance is careful. But it is my duty to point out the dangers that beset our path, at the same time not concealing from him that I consider the financial position and the trade and agricultural prospects are good. But the best prospects in the world can be ruined again, as they have been ruined before, by bad and careless finance. (Cheers.)

said that for some considerable time he did not know whether the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was going to bless or curse; in fact, he (Mr. Jagger) began to despair altogether until towards the end the right hon. gentleman’s old self reasserted itself. There was one thing in which he (Mr. Jagger) entirely agreed with his hon. friend, and that was with regard to emigration. Young fellows were leaving South Africa for British East Africa and Canada. There must be something wrong in the country for such a state of affairs to exist. The hon. member (Mr. Merriman) had pointed out the evil, but he neglected the cause of it, which was the difficulty of getting land. (Opposition cheers.) All the land was locked up, and the right hon. gentleman did not support the Opposition to get compulsory expropriation of land when the Land Settlement Bill was before the House. If they paid a man the full market price of his land they would not rob him of it if they expropriated it. If a man had 3,000 or 4,000 morgen of land lying idle—

You think so.

A competent authority would be able to judge.

Continuing, Mr. Jagger said he did not think it was right that they should make a profit out of the railways. It was not in the interests of the country, because if they wanted to develop South Africa one of the most powerful aids was the railway. Another reason was he did not think it was fair to their northern friends that there should be a high rate of carriage, and that the money should be taken out of their pockets by this means to go to the relief of taxation. Otherwise he believed the railways were fulfilling their duty to the country. He supported the hon. member for Port Elizabeth for several reasons. One of these was that he considered the time had come when the finances of the country wanted overhauling, and when the expenditure should be reduced from its present extravagant scale. If they were going into the market to borrow money they should go as a country that was paying its way. It was a well-known practice of some previous Treasurers to over-estimate their expenditure and to under-estimate the revenue. Such a practice was to be strongly deprecated, as it had the effect of causing people to take a less serious view of financial matters than what should be taken. It was a way of hiding the true state of affairs from view by getting the public to think that at least the worst had been stated. This practice had been departed from by the present hon. Treasurer in so far as his Estimate of Revenue was concerned, as he appeared to be taking a sanguine view of the situation. In face of the drought which the country had experienced, he (Mr. Jagger) was afraid there was going to be a falling off. He had estimated to the full for every penny he was going to get during the present year. On the other hand, he considered that the hon. Treasurer had over-estimated the expenditure.

To this expenditure of sixteen millions they now required to add £78,000, which was the extra grant to the Provincial Councils. That brought the total expenditure to £16,243,000. Against this reduction they had to remember that certain revenues that came into the Treasury were now assigned to the Provincial Councils— £1,211,000. To sum up, if they took the Estimates of Expenditure on the same basis as last year, the Estimates of Expenditure for this year would amount to £17,447,000, or an increase on last year of £318,000. The saving on the first 11 months of 1912-13 was £763,000, and then came the change of policy on the part of the Finance Minister. Had he continued his initial policy there would have been a surplus of over £700,000. He had taken the trouble to work out some of the figures on the basis of twelve months. Last year, £112,000 was voted for agricultural education, and the saving during the eleven months were £9,763, yet this year, notwithstanding the savings that were effected, he had put down £115,000. The amount voted on forestry last year was £123.000, and though the savings effected during the eleven months amounted to £6,800, his hon. friend had put down £124,000. Let them take the item of magistrates. Last year they voted £428,000, and during the eleven months £15,000 was saved. This year the amount was £427,000. Then there was the Surveyor General’s Department. Last year they voted £61,000, and during the eleven months there was a saving of £22,000, but his hon. friend had put down £56,000 this year. Then there was Native Affairs. Last year they voted £305,000, and there was a saving during the eleven months of £25,500. Now his hon. friend asked for £303,000. Continuing, he said there had been no attempt to reduce these figures, and his hon. friend had exactly followed the procedure of his predecessor and made a liberal estimate of expenditure in order to save later on. There was a deficit altogether of £1,131,000, and that was an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It was more unsatisfactory when it was certain that his hon. friend had to go to the money market. The position would have been worse had not his hon. friend charged every possible penny against last year. It was only putting off the evil day when they would have to not only scrutinise their Estimates, but cut down expenditure. He did not see how his hon. friend could avoid going to the money market, and on a larger scale than the House appreciated. The position was that they owed £3,150,000 in London. They owed in South Africa to the Revenue Fund and Public Debt Commissioners £10,318,000, so that roughly speaking the floating debt of the Union stood at about thirteen and a half millions. On top of all, the Minister came forward with new works involving expenditure of over £6,440.000. This brought his total liabilities, if the House sanctioned these public works, to £19,908,000. What his hon. friend had to face now was that he had got to consolidate the floating debt, 13½ millions, and raise money to carry on his new works, about 6½ millions. He was well aware that he would probably raise 9½ or 10 millions of this from the Public Debt Commissioners by giving them scrip, but for the balance he must go into the market to borrow, and he (Mr. Jagger) agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth in regard to borrowing loans.

The resources of this country in regard to capital were, after all, strictly limited. As a matter of fact, a lot of this local money had been locked up by the Treasury. Besides, it would be decidedly detrimental to this country if his hon. friend the Minister tried to borrow money in the open market apart from what he could get from the Public Debt Commissioners. Money was bound to become tighter. It was getting dearer, and loans recently floated in London by Colonial Governments similar to our own had had to be taken up as regarded a large percentage by the underwriters. If his hon. friend were able to borrow at all in the open market he (Mr. Jagger) had not the slightest doubt that he would have to pay at least 4 per cent. for his money. What he wanted to put to the Minister was, was it a sound thing to go into the market and borrow these large sums of money at a time when we were going along and not paying our way? He would like to know why the Treasury borrowed on overdraft in London £1,150,000 when we had got on fixed deposit with the banks in South Africa something like £2,654,000. That might be good business for the banks, but surely it was bad finance to have this money here on fixed deposit and to be borrowing money in London. He would also like to ask why the Public Debt Commissioners had invested something like £800,000 in the securities of other colonies and countries than South Africa? He did not think his hon. friend facilitated matters in regard to finance. Take, for instance, his treatment of the bewaarplaatsen. This had a distinct bearing on the borrowing of this country. It was a matter of keeping faith with their people. If his hon. friend was going into the market to borrow money and he committed a breach of trust, as some people regarded it, what reception was he going to meet with in the money markets of Europe?

In regard to Cape 5 per cent. stock, he was quite aware that the Government had any amount of legal advice, but they had to bear in mind what was the understanding of the people who paid the money as well as the people who took the money. The old Cape Government distinctly understood that they could not be paid off without paying full price. In 1898 and 1899, 5 per cent. perpetual stock was bought at £50 and £40. The Sinking Fund Commissioners at the Cape at that time consisted of the Treasurer, the Chief Justice, the Speaker of the House, the Auditor-General, and the General Manager of the Standard Bank, and their idea was that they could not pay off the stock unless they paid full price. Suppose if the Minister of Finance took the advice of his legal advisors, and said “perpetual” did not mean “perpetual” but “redeemable” stock? Did not his hon. friend know that some men would consider they were being robbed, and when an idea of that sort got abroad among investors, what would be the result. They borrowed in this country absolutely on the faith investors had in their honesty. The Treasurer should be the last man, as he had to go into the money market soon, to throw any doubt upon their integrity. If the idea got abroad that their word was not sufficient, and that any legal quibble would be taken advantage of, people would cease to trust them. They would have to pay in the future because this country would have to borrow money for a long time yet. So the Minister should give the people the benefit of the doubt, and let them have no suspicion on the Government. (Cheers.) Well, he had shown that this country was by no means in the good financial position made out by the hon. member for Victoria West. In fact, he thought they were drifting into a very tight corner. If they were going on with their public works they were bound to borrow money, and they had got into this position that they borrowed money unwillingly. That was very bad, because investors knew that they had to get the money, and made terms accordingly. In view of this he thought the Minister had made his position worse by loose finance, and he was making it worse still by tampering with the bewaarplaatsen; and he made it even worse when he went into the market and people found they were not paying their way. This year they were going to have a deficit of over a million, and to make up that deficit they were going to take the savings of past years. He thought it was about time they had the finances of this country overhauled. He thought the estimates of expenditure should be revised and reduced, and he hoped they were going to have that honest way of doing business by having a fairly accurate and honest estimate of revenue, and, above all, an honest estimate of expenditure. (Cheers.)

put the question that the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the motion.

said that if the words were omitted, he assumed it would be competent to go on with the debate? (Ministerial cries of: “No, no.”)

said if it was decided that the words should not be omitted the debate would close.

asked whether, if it was decided not to omit the words, would it not be possible to speak on the original motion? Would it not be possible to move another amendment? He contended that it would still be possible to move another amendment omitting all the words after “That the House.”

called the hon. member’s attention to rule 75 of the Standing Orders, which stated that after Mr. Speaker put the question the debate was concluded.

The question was then put, and it was declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

said he wished to move an amendment.

The hon. member must see that these words are affirmed.

I do not propose to delete any words.

I must point out that the House has resolved that the House go into Committee of Supply.

said that, on a point of order, the House had just resolved that the words proposed to be deleted should remain part of the original motion, and by so doing, the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, upon which they had been debating, fell to the ground. He submitted, therefore, with all respect, that it was perfectly competent for him to move an addition to the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, to the effect that the House expressed its regret that the financial proposals for 1913-14 did not propose to tax the unimproved value of land.

The amendment has been dealt with, and the words proposed to be deleted are affirmed. That was the order of the House.

argued that his amendment did not interfere for a, moment with the resolution; it merely asked the House to add something to the resolution.

The House has not yet resolved to go into Committee, but that certain words proposed to be omitted shall be part of the clause. (Hear, hear.) I would respectfully submit that, although these words cannot be touched, yet words can be added. Where you have certain words forming part of a clause, you cannot touch them; but you can always add, as long as the two things are not directly opposed to one another.

The House has definitely asserted that it will go into Committee. (Ministerial cheers.)

With due submission,, the House has not decided that it will go into Committee, but that the words proposed to be omitted shall remain part of the clause.

The only word remaining is “’that.”

We have only decided that the words proposed to be omitted shah form part of the question, which you have not yet put, but only that certain words shall be part of the question.

I have never known any other practice to be followed. There were no other amendments before the House.

A debate can take place on the adoption of these words.

But no further amendment can be moved.

Should I not be within my right in moving that we go into committee this day week?

No. I shall put later on the date on which the House shall go into committee, and that can be the question of debate. I do not stop the debate. (Opposition and Labour Cheers.) But what I cannot allow is any further amendment. I now put the further question that the motion be adopted. (See ruling on 31.3.13.)

Before you put that motion, sir, I submit that in the House of Commons in the debate on the Address—

I cannot allow the hon. member to make a speech. He must address the House on the motion before the House.

I will move that the debate be now adjourned. (Opposition and Labour cheers.)

The motion was carried.

The debate was adjourned until Monday next.