Memorandum of Revenue Licences classified as follows: Licences proposed to be transferred or assigned as revenue of the Provinces; licences proposed to be reserved as revenue of the Union.

Third, fourth, and final reports of a Commission appointed to inquire into the grievances of the railway and harbour staff.

as an unopposed motion: That the statements, prepared in terms of section 49 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, of all special warrants issued during the periods 1st June, 1912, to 51st December, 1912, and 1st to 31st January, 1913, presented to the House on 28th January, 1913, and 11th February, 1913, respectively, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration,

Agreed to.

as an unopposed motion: That the return prepared in terms of section 19 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, of all surcharges which have been remitted by the Minister of Finance during the period 27th May, 1912, to the 13th December, 1912, presented to this House on the 27th January, 1913, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration.

Agreed to.

That the Minister of the Interior and Dr. Hewat be members of the Select Committee on Treatment of Persons of Unsound Mind.

The motion was agreed to.

had moved the following amendment: To omit all the words after “that,” and to substitute, “this House regrets that in the financial proposals for 1913-1914 the Government have not arranged for the more equitable adjustment of the incidence of taxation by substituting a tax on the unimproved value of all land, agricultural, mineral, and urban, for taxes which are at present raised on the necessities of the people.”

continuing his remarks, said he had referred the previous evening to the very poor postal service in his district, and thought the Minister should give his attention to the complaint. Was the telephone connection to be extended, he asked. He further referred to the alleged dissatisfaction amongst the railway employees, as to which the Labour Party had talked so much. He thought the heads of the several departments received too high salaries already, and that they certainly should not be made any higher. The Labour Party wanted to introduce a land tax, but the members of that party did not know what it meant to be a land-owner. The House would never agree to tax the land, as the landowner paid enough already in the form of school and Divisional Council rates. He agreed that the lower class of workman was badly paid, but thought that the higher officials received salaries that were too high. The Public Service Act became law last year, and that afforded machinery for the men to bring up their grievances. Were they to give still further attention to the subject? In every institution there were difficulties. The farmer himself had them, but was forced to do his best to help himself out of them. He was in favour of protection, and considered it would give general satisfaction if heavy taxes were placed on such articles as could be manufactured here. The Labour Party would then have no further occasion to complain. The Government had been severely criticised, and the speaker hoped they would be prudent and keep the expenditure within the compass of their revenue. They were increasing salaries and creating new departments, and that cost a lot of money, which the taxpayer had to provide. The Labour Party seemed to regard the Government as a very bad lot, for he had never heard of an Opposition introducing such an amendment as that which had been moved by the hon. member for Jeppe. The Government had been criticised, and a lot of figures had been quoted in support of that criticism, but it was possible to use the same figures and prove something very different. On the whole, he considered it was an honour to support the Government, and though it was not perfect, it was the best he had seen. Of course, there had to be an Opposition in order to keep the Government in the right path and see that the expenditure did not grow too large. When the Opposition gave good advice he was only too glad to hear it, but it was not right of them to make random accusations. They should not talk as the Labour Party had done, but use their common sense.

said it was customary upon a Budget debate to pull to pieces the figures of the Minister of Finance and to find fault with whatever proposal he might choose to make on behalf of the Government. This seemed to be the custom, and as a result of that custom they would find that the criticisms were as a rule merely a re-hash of the speeches that were made on previous occasions upon other Budgets. The experience of the present year was no exception to the rule. They had here a re-hash of the speeches upon the previous Budget, and the same destructive criticism. It struck him as being rather curious that his friends opposite, whose main business was to criticise the Government, should have lost the opportunity of referring to a very important constitutional matter which had occurred. They had contented themselves with severely criticising the Government upon their financial policy, but they had studiously refrained from making any comment or reference upon what he considered to be one of the most important constitutional events since the establishment of Union. Everybody in the country remembered that since the rising of the House last year the Government went out of office and a new Government had been formed in its place. One would imagine that such an event constitutes a most important action in the political history of any country. One would expect also that when Parliament assembled the Government would not only explain the reason why the old Government retired from office, but would also indicate the policy of the new Government. That so far had been the constitutional procedure. Curiously enough, however, not a word had been vouchsafed upon either of these two questions, still more curiously his hon. friends opposite seemed to have entered into a conspiracy of silence, and he would like to know how far his hon. friends opposite were in the confidence of the Government. He did think, as a matter of constitutional procedure, that the House ought to have been informed by the Government, or if not by them, his hon. friends opposite ought to have taken steps to ascertain why they were not informed, because the public business of the House during the present year had been practically paralysed. He did not want to detain the House upon this account, however. A golden opportunity had been lost to deal with that question, which was of the most vital importance in the history of South Africa. He was very much interested in the speech made by his hon. friend, the member for Port Elizabeth, Central, but if they were to believe his hon. friend’s figures, and if they were to place any reliance upon his doleful lamentations, it seemed to him that South Africa must be in a very terrible position. He intended to deal later on with some of the figures which his hon. friend placed before the House. He had read with very great interest some of the Budget debate discussions that had taken place in the old Cape House of Assembly, especially those when his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, Central, was Treasurer, and the right hon. the member for Victoria West was leader of the Opposition, and if one read these discussions one could not but be struck by the remarkable similarity between the criticisms then and now. In some respects his hon. friend had copied the style of the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West. In those days Mr. Merriman used to make the old Cape Assembly ring with his denunciation, in fact, it was a better entertainment than going to a bioscope. (Laughter.) Denunciation was a part of the game. Although some very startling figures were placed before the House, he did not think that hon. members, or anyone in the country, need be much alarmed by these denunciations. Denunciation, in fact, seemed part of the game.

The question is, are the figures correct ?

I will deal with that by-and-bye. His hon. friend went to very great pains in getting out comparative figures in, the year before Union. He gave him all due credit for the amount of work which he had put into his research. Although his figures would be found to be substantially correct—he was not referring to railway figures—he thought his hon. friend was rather unfair to the country in not explaining to the House why there was an excess of expenditure of £6,000,000. He had not the figures at the present moment, but he remembered that some such similar criticisms were levelled against him when he was Treasurer. He agreed with his hon. friend who sat behind him that it would be a most useful thing if the House and the country should know to what extent the expenditure had increased since Union, as compared with pre-Union days. If these figures were got out they would find that the expenditure had been entirely justified. His hon. friend took the period 1909-10, and by adding one-tenth to that period proceeded to make his comparison with the period three or four years later. One had only to state that it was quite unfair to take that as a comparison. Three of the Colonies at that time had cut down their expenditure to the bone, as they said in Cape Colony. Proceeding, Mr. Hull said that Mr. Merriman had been anxious to go into Union without any further deficit and therefore he had done the proper thing and cut down his expenditure to the bone and starved a number of services. That was one important factor which he thought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, should have told the House about. The period of 1909-10 was not a fair period to compare with this period. The country had now had three years of unbounded prosperity, and these three years of prosperity naturally also brought increased expenditure with them.

In the Cape in 1909 education was a long way behind, and hospitals were practically starved. Hon. members need only go through the Estimates since Union to see what leeway the Union Government had to make up in hospital expenditure in the Cape Colony and also in Natal. They knew that Natal also suffered from depression and also had to cut down its expenditure to bedrock. It had starved its programme for building roads and bridges. (Hear, hear.) That had been overtaken since Union, with the result that expenditure had swollen enormously. He was perfectly satisfied that if the Minister had these figures taken out he would satisfy the country, this House, and every reasonable man, that the expenditure, although it had apparently gone up by six millions, every penny of that was justified, and, far from there being evidence of waste or extravagance, this was evidence of good government. (Government cheers.) The greater part of this six millions, namely £3,800,000, was accounted for by increased expenditure on the railways. The hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) had called attention to the fact that since Union they had built something like 825 miles of additional lines of railway. That naturally involved a considerable increase of expenditure. He thought the hon. member should have told the country that this increase had taken place. There was another striking matter which he had referred to. In 1909-10, the year which the hon. member based his comparisons on, the Cape and Natal on their railway systems practically starved betterment and renewals. They could not help themselves Since Union the Minister of Railways and Harbours had done his best to make up the arrears and very considerable additional sums had been paid in respect of betterment, depreciation, and renewals. Everyone would agree that these figures ought to be taken out in making these comparisons, and when they were taken out the whole of this myth of apparently wasteful expenditure would disappear. No doubt the Minister would have them taken out and have them published.

There was another item of increased expenditure. That was the expenditure on defence, which he thought was five or six hundred thousand pounds. Was anyone going to say that that was wasteful and extravagant expenditure? It was part of the defence law which this House had deliberately passed. Therefore he would say that, although the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) was very doleful about the financial position of the country, he thought he must have known all the time that the position was not so serious as he said it was.

It is serious.

Because I cannot help forgetting that he himself, by placing before this House and the public the report of the Public Debt Commissioners, showed in what an excellent position the Union stands in regard to its loan funds. Continuing the hon. member said that the statement which his hon. friend helped to compile showed that, out of a total debt of £117,000,000, no less than £112,000,000 was entirely reproductive, being for railways and so on. Another fashionable thing usually employed in criticising the Budget was the reference which had been made year by year to the vast army of Civil Servants. (Hear, hear.) Year by year reference was made, he thought, by the right hon. member for Victoria West to the vast army of Civil Servants, who were always said to be totally disproportionate to the total number of the population which they had in South Africa. He thought that was also a very unfair statement to be allowed to go forth. He thought that an hon. member who held a responsible position, such as the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) should be very careful how they made those statements, and how they allowed them to go out without any explanation to the country.

Let them take this case of the 60,000 Civil Servants, who were a kind of millstone hanging round the neck of the country. He was the last man to advocate extravagance. He thought his record would show that, but to say that 60,000 Civil Servants were hanging round the neck of the country, and that that was evidence of the Government’s extravagance, was, bethought, absolute nonsense. And comparison was usually made between this and other countries. People forgot when they made comparisons that this was a country very sparsely populated. People lived scattered about in big districts, and it was necessary to have officials to look after their affairs. And assuming that there were 60,000 Civil Servants, then he would say that those officials were capable, and were in a position to do five times the amount of work they did at the present moment— that was to say, that if the population of the Union increased fivefold, they would not have to increase their staff very materially in order to cope with the additional work. Let them take one of the sparsely-populated areas in the Northwestern part of the Cape or the Transvaal. They found they required a postmaster and a certain number of clerks. That was the minimum. If they had ten or twenty times the number of people there, the same number of officials would be able to do the work necessary. That applied right through the service. He did not say they could not get rid of one or two, or possibly a dozen, officials in a particular district; but to say that was going to enormously decrease the number of Civil Servants was nonsense. The saving of money would be a bagatelle. In this connection it was rather curious that some of the critics—and in this respect he was bound to say it had not been confined to hon. members opposite—who said they had too many Civil Servants, came to the House and said they wanted another official appointed here and another there. They went for the Government about the large estimates for the Civil Service, and then went round the corner and said that more officials should be appointed in their district. There was one other point, before he passed away from this subject.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) challenged the House the other day to appoint a committee to conduct a full and honest investigation into this question of extravagant expenditure. He did not know if he also meant to include in that the Civil Service. Well, his hon. friend, when he spoke the other day, seemed to have forgotten that this House, three years ago, appointed such a committee. Three years ago, and every year since, it had appointed a Select Committee, a Budget Committee, consisting of, he ventured to think, all the best financial brains of the House. Certainly it consisted of the hon. members who were most keenly and sincerely desirous of seeing extravagance stopped, and who were sincerely desirous of seeing economy introduced Well, for three years that committee had been sitting upstairs. Every year they had had referred to them certain sections of the Estimates of Expenditure, and every year that committee had had before them, upstairs, the heads of departments and any other officials, and he knew that most searching inquiry was made with a view to stopping extravagance and wasteful expenditure. The committee had done exceedingly good work, and it was a most valuable institution.

Especially to shelter the Government.

No, no; it is not to shelter the Government. I do not think my hon. friend, as a member of that committee, would shelter the Government. J think his, chief function up there is to find ammunition to fire at the Government, and it is a very useful work. Well, this committee is a most powerful committee, and is most sincerely desirous of checking extravagance.

Will we get power to deal with salaries, commencing with those of the members of the Government?

The Government’s salaries were dealt with on the floor of this House. I think the hon. member is himself a member of this committee. Proceeding, he said he did not find fault with the committee, though they had not been able to report to this House where extravagance and waste existed, but he did say if there was extravagance and waste, and unnecessary expenditure to the extent of £6,000,000, surely one member of the committee would have been able to put his finger on it, and say: Here money has been wasted. (Government cheers.) To show the difficulties of the question, he did not say that economies were not possible. Economies, he thought, were effected every day, but when people talked wildly about waste he thought they were grossly exaggerating the case.

There was one point upon which he would like to say a word by way of criticism, and that was in regard to the manner in which some of the departments framed their estimates of expenditure. He thought that unless departments of State were compelled to give to the Treasury and the Government closely worked out estimates of expenditure the result would be waste and extravagance.

They do so.

Of course they do it, but all departments are not so careful as others. I will indicate some of them. Proceeding, he said it was perfectly obvious if Parliament voted a large sum of money to be spent by a particular department the department would spend it. The one public department that had panned out first of all as being most inaccurate in its estimates of expenditure was the Railway Department. That department, unlike other departments, did not estimate their expenditure as closely as they should. He did not see why the Public Works Department should be compelled to give a fairly close estimate of expenditure upon a bridge or a public building, and why the Railway Department should not be required to estimate equally as closely, and give their estimates of expenditure as early to this House as other departments, He was astounded last night when he heard the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) say it had always been the practice in the Cape that the Railway Estimates for new construction were never placed before the House until the eleventh hour. Well, he did not know what they did in the Cape, but he for one had declined to pursue the Cape lines in that respect. The House ought to lay down that if the Government was compelled to submit on the first day of the session detailed estimates for all departments, they ought also to submit to the House detailed railway estimates, including the estimates of railway construction. That gave the House an opportunity of discussing new construction and expenditure. What had been the result in the Cape? The result was political lines.

Had you no political lines in the Transvaal?

Not that I know of. Continuing, Mr. Hull said that in his experience the chief sinners in under-estimating were the members of the Railway Department. For the year just ended the railway people said they wanted four or five millions, but they could not spend that by nearly 2½ millions. (Hear, hear.)

The result of estimates of that kind led to gross waste— (hear, hear)—the Treasury being called upon to make provision for four or five millions, but when the year came to an end a large portion of that money had been left lying idle. In addition to that loss, the fact that this money was available led to gross waste by the Railway Department. That applied to previous years also. They ought to compel their railway engineers or managers to estimate as closely as any other department. (Cheers.) Another department which had been a great sinner was the Lands Department, which had asked for considerable sums for land and irrigation, all of which had not been spent. There seemed to be a slackness on the part of someone in these departments when they were allowed to bamboozle their Ministers and make them apply for far more money than they could spend. But another much more important point was involved. A law had been passed stating that any surplus should be applied to debt redemption, but if a department over-estimated its expenditure and found that it could not spend all the money which had been allotted to it, the result was a surplus, but it was a false surplus. (Hear, hear.) That was not businesslike. It was a matter of grave importance, and he hoped the Prime Minister would pay some kind of attention to the estimates of expenditure.

When he had the honour to be Minister of Finance last year (proceeded Mr. Hull) he announced in his Budget statement what his views were with regard to Cape perpetual annuities. He said then that although the Government had been advised that legally they were entitled to pay off these perpetual annuities at par upon giving reasonable notice, and the Government thought that the matter should be brought before the House, and then if it were decided that these stocks were redeemable the owners should be treated with consideration and be given a fairly long notice that the stocks were to be redeemed. He thought that proposal was a fair one, but he was severely called to task by the hon. members for Yeoville and Victoria West, who said that he was going to shake the credit of South Africa to its foundations. Some 30 or 40 years ago, the then Cape Government issued loans to the amount of one million, which were designated perpetual annuities, and because of that designation certain people formed the opinion that these stocks could never be redeemed.

And the Government too.

There is no evidence at all that Government formed that opinion.

You can purchase them in the market.

said that when he became Minister of Finance the question occurred to him: “Why should we continue to pay this extravagant rate of interest—4½ per cent. and 5 per cent.—for all time?” He took the best legal opinion that could be obtained, both here and elsewhere, and that opinion was that the stocks were not in law irredeemable, and that Government had the right to pay them off at par on giving reasonable notice.

That opinion was not unanimous.

The reasoned opinion was unanimous. The Government took the best legal opinion possible, and we took the advice of financial authorities on the other side, and there is no doubt that every one of the financial experts who have either written or said a word on this subject, is unanimously of opinion that these stocks can be paid off at any moment at par. One hundred years ago the stocks in England were also called perpetual annuities. The British Government paid them off, but it was not said that it was ruining the credit of England by so doing. (Ministerial cheers.) But because I suggest that we should discontinue paying interest at the rate of 4½per cent. and 5 per cent., I am told by these two financial pundits that I am shaking the credit of South Africa. Proceeding, Mr. Hull said that if the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had done his duty in past years as Treasurer of the Cape Colony and paid off these perpetual annuities by borrowing money at a lower rate of interest, the saving in interest would have been nearly sufficient to pay the whole capital out standing on the stock. (Ministerial cheers.) He maintained that to pay these premiums of £40 or £50 was nonsense.

In regard to the question of the bewaarplaatsen, he had been told that his proposal in reference to these bewaarplaatsen, which were, he considered, the property of the State and were State assets, that they should stick to what they had got, was going to shake the credit of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) If the Government brought in a proposal to hand over half the proceeds of these bewaarplaatsen, he promised them that he would go very fully into the matter, and he hoped to satisfy every hon. member of that House that the position he took up was the right position, and the equitable position. (Hear, hear.) He had been assailed because of the attitude he had taken over this question. He knew there had been a good deal of lobbying, because gentlemen had come down from Johannesburg to lobby members of Parliament, and they had said: “Oh, the member for Barberton takes up this attitude because he is hostile to the gold-mining industry. ” Surely, he urged, they might give one credit for ordinary honesty. So far from being hostile to the mining industry, he thought some hon. members opposite who were connected with the mines, would be surprised to hear that his all in this world was invested in the mines. Furthermore, if the proposal which had been made to the Government to hand over half the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen were to go through, he personally would benefit very considerably, because some of the mines in which he had his investments were directly interested in this question. It was because he had always believed that these assets, these undermining rights, belonged to the State that he took up this position. (Hear, hear.) He would ask hon. members not to listen to ex parte statements, not to commit themselves to ex parte statements made by interested people. He had grown up, as it were, with this question. He claimed to know as much about it as anybody inside or outside the Transvaal. His opinion—and he said it deliberately—was that the whole of the proceeds from the sale of these bewaarplaatsen belonged to the State, and the State only. (Hear, hear.) Ever since 1871 the Volksraad had laid down this principle, that the right to mine and the right to dispose of precious stones and precious minerals belonged to the State. There was no doubt that when the Volksraad first laid down that principle they took away the rights that private owners had possessed to these minerals. Afterwards the volksraad allowed the owners to take certain shares in the minerals. The hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips) said that if there were any justification for departing from what the Volksraad said in 1896 and 1898, he would be astounded. Well, he would “ astound ” the hon. member. He would “astound " him with evidence out of the mouth of his co-partners. In 1901, after the Civil Government had been formed under Lord Milner, one of its first acts was to appoint a Commission to inquire into the working of the Gold Law of 1898, and to report what alterations and amendments were required thereto. One of the members of that Commission was a partner of the hon. member for Yeoville and the President of the Chamber of Mines. He proposed to quote from the evidence given before that Commission, on behalf of the Chamber of Mines. It would be shown that the hon. member’s own firm and the Chamber of Mines in Johannesburg in 1901 and 1902 departed from the Volksraad’s besluits of 1896.

What did the Chamber of Mines say with reference to this Commission, and this bewaarplaatsen question? This was a question which his hon. friend said had been finally settled in 1896 and 1898. Here was the memorandum, and he was reading from the report. It was the evidence of the Chamber of Mines where they stated they would like to draw attention to the Volksraad resolutions passed from time to time in connection with the disposal of underground mining rights, and they advised that the conditions contained in certain of the resolutions, whereby the owner of a farm was entitled to receive half of the proceeds from the sale of these rights, should be repealed, and that the Government be authorised to deal with these rights, subject to the due recognition of the claims advanced by sellers of the surface rights, admitted by resolutions of the earlier Volksraad laws. The Chamber of Mines were perfectly consistent in their attitude upon this question. From 1897 onwards they consistently claimed that the whole of the mining rights belonged to them. Well, in 1901-2 they claimed that the Volksraad resolution should be repealed, and the proceeds be given to them. In the evidence that they gave before the Industrial Commission of Enquiry in 1897—that was the year after the resolution was passed giving a half to the owner.

In 1898 also,

Yes, yes, yes. I have got all the evidence. What the Chamber of Mines said was that the mining companies were of opinion that they were deprived of their equitable and legals claims from bewaarplaatsen, and asked that the mining articles made by the Volksraad of 1894 should be restored. They were told the other day that certain speculators went and bought up the rights of these private owners, because this was done, therefore they had this change of opinion.

That is not fair.

said he wanted to tell the House what took place in 1908 when his right hon. friend was Prime Minister of the Transvaal. In 1908 the Transvaal Parliament reviewed the whole of the gold laws, and in that year they repealed and cancelled all their provisions, and they enacted a new Gold Law in which they repeated this important principle, that the right to minerals and the right of mining belonged to the State. In 1908 they did not repeat the Volksraad mistake of 1898, which stated that half the proceeds should go to the private owners. They said they could sell these rights if they liked, and Parliament would tell them what they must do with the proceeds. The Attorney-General of the Transvaal, Mr. De Villiers, in bringing in this amended Gold Law, said that section 2 of the Bill dealt with the very vexed question of mining rights. Although he had already touched upon that question, he did not propose to again go into it. It was a very difficult question, and had received the attention of the Volksraad practically from 1892 to 1898, but he was not sure that it was settled even in 1898. There were different opinions upon that point. Some people considered that the resolution of 1898 fully settled the matter once and for all. He thought, however, that there was room for difference of opinion on that point, because if they carefully studied these two resolutions he thought they would come to the conclusion that there was no reason that the bewaarplaatsen should be considered a closed question. The position was that the owner of land, having exhausted his rights to minerals, had no more right to these bewaarplaatsen rights under these townships, and the most that he could claim was the half of the licence money. Proceeding, Mr. Hull said this was a question which was a very difficult one, and he wanted to impress upon the Government and the House not to dispose of these assets which were worth over £2,000,000, because they had no right to part with valuable State assets unless they were compelled to do so. It would perhaps suit him personally better if these assets went to the companies that he was interested in, but let justice be done.

A noble sentiment.

Let me say a word or two with regard to the Railway Budget. He could not help being struck when he was listening to the Minister of Railways and Harbours with the manner in which he dealt with the Estimates of Revenue. The hon. the Minister followed strictly the lines which were adopted by his predecessor in office during the previous two years. It occurred to him also that the Railway Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, instead of being prepared in the same careful way of other ordinary Governmental Estimates, had this blemish, that they were prepared to a figure. That was to say, they found out how much money was required. Last year they knew the Government required a £500,000 contribution from them, so they budgetted their revenue and expenditure so as to be just able to pay this £500,000 and leave nothing over. It seemed to him this year, and for the coming year, they had adopted a similar method, only this year the Minister of Finance was not asking for any contribution at all, so they had budgetted just to come out. Well, he knew what would happen. They would not spend as much as they had estimated upon, and they would get much more revenue than they had estimated for, and they would probably then, towards the end of the year, find that they had a surplus of from £500,000 to a million pounds. Then they would immediately increase their expenditure on betterment, which was a long way in arrears. He would have more to say upon that, because he intended to have something more to say upon the unequal incidence of railway taxation in the Union.

He thought that the most serious criticism he had to make against the Budget of the Minister of Railways was with reference to his statement the other day, when he said they should not expect any further reduction in railway rates. The Minister gave him to understand that unless these monstrous profits of the railways became more so, which he did not think would happen, they were not to expect any further reductions. He (the speaker) regarded this as a very serious statement, because members were aware of three notorious facts. The first was that under the present system of railway management and railway money earning, certain parts of the Union produced a profit of a million and a half a year. The other notorious fact was that other parts of the Union worked their railways at a very considerable loss—the last official figure indicated to him was that this was at the rate of £200,000 a year. A third important notorious fact was that the combined harbours of the Union were run at a loss of something like £250,000) a year. The Harbours, as hon. members were aware, were part and parcel of the railway system, and whatever losses there were had to be made good by the general railway revenue. He did not know if the Minister of Railways, when he made his declaration of policy the other day, was reflecting the considered opinion of the Government, or was speaking on his own behalf. He (Mr. Hull) wanted to make a personal appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and would ask them to say whether this pronouncement was made on behalf of the Government, or as an individual Minister, because, unfortunately, they had had experience during the last few weeks that they could not always depend upon what one Minister said.

Oh, for a long time.

proceeding, said that they had seen on one occasion the Prime Minister making a pronouncement of policy, and the next day that pronouncement of policy was repudiated by the Minister of Justice. A few days afterwards the Minister of Justice made a pronouncement regarding the policy of the Government in connection with the Mozambique natives and again a few days later the Prime Minister repudiated it. He (Mr. Hull) would assume for the moment that the Minister had reflected here the opinion and policy of the Government.

Don’t speak disrespectfully of your leader.

observed that he was not doing so, and went on to remark that if the declaration was assumed to represent the policy of the Government, it revealed a very serious state of affairs to the people of the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal, because it meant that the people in those Provinces who used the railways were compelled to pay high railway rates and make these high railway profits to meet deficits on the railway system in the Cape Province; and, what was infinitely worse, to meet deficits on the harbours. (Hear, hear.) Everyone in the Cape Province would agree it was unfair that those who used the railways in those three Provinces should be compelled to pay losses on the harbours. (Renewed cheers.) But the Minister of Railways had told them that it was not intended to alter those railway rates, therefore he (Mr. Hull) wanted to know from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance whether that represented the combined opinion of the Government. If it did it showed that they from the North had a very poor look-out. Again, if that represented the policy of the Government, what became of the provisions of the South Africa Act? Under the provisions of the South Africa Act it was laid down that the railways should be run on business lines and with a view to the settlement of an agricultural and industrial population in the inland portions of the Union. Was this right? Was it fair, and in accord with the business principles that one section of the people employing the railways should be made to pay such high railway rates on their portions as to make good the losses in the other Provinces? There was another thing he thought was contrary to the provisions and intentions of the South Africa Act. He understood from the Minister of Railways the other day that in the scheme of railway rate reductions which came into operation last year the Cape Province derived a benefit of no less than £524,000. The point he wished to put was this: at the very time when these rate reductions were made for the Cape they were making a loss on their railways of £200,000.

Was it right that users of the railway in other parts of South Africa should give benefits to a system of railways which was already making a loss, and give that system a further reduction, making the loss up to £700,000. Was that a business principle, or according to the Act of Union These were questions which he thought were important ones, and he hoped the Prime Minister would take an opportunity to deal with them. There was only one other subject upon which he wished to say anything, and that was the policy which had been pursued by the Government with regard to the regrading and relaying of the lines of railway. He did not suppose there was a single member sitting on the Government benches, including the Minister of Railways, who could tell them within £100,000 or £200,000 what had been spent on the regrading and relaying of the railway lines. If the people of South Africa knew how much money had been spent on that, they would be astounded. He wanted to repeat that he was not, opposed to relaying and regrading, but what he did object to was—he said they had no business, while they had parts of the country shouting out and crying out, for new lines, to spend three or four million pounds on work of this kind, work which could easily wait, and could be spread over a period of ten or twelve years. Therefore he said there had been no control, either on the part of the Government or this House, in respect of railways. They had practically relaid the railway lines from one end of the Cape to the other, and they had spent certainly over three million pounds on this work.

That is all over the Union?

Yes, but what I say is this: you could have waited and used this money for providing other portions of South Africa with reasonable railway communication. If they had done that, the Minister would not have had to have gone into the London market even now. If the House made up its mind that, in future the estimates of new railway construction were to be laid before it, at the opening of the session, it would not do away altogether with the building of political lines, but it would check the tendency to construct them, and it would also do away with extravagance.

said the speech of the hon. member for Barberton was a rehash of everything that was bitter and unjust; the hon. member first attacked his own side, and then attacked the Opposition. In fact he (Mr. Rockey) did not understand where the hon. member for Barberton stood at all. Some hon. members had said they did not wish to embarrass the Government, but if he (Mr. Rockey) had his way, he would turn the Government out to-morrow, for it was not competent, and never would be competent. How could a Cabinet composed almost entirely of lawyers be competent? (Laughter.) He was prepared to say that not one of them would get £12 10s. a month in any commercial institution. (Laughter and cheers.) The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell)—continued Mr. Rockey—had blamed the Opposition for not securing greater compensation for men affected with miners’ phthisis. That was a preposterous charge, for the Opposition had tried to get a reasonable contribution from Government, and if it had been backed up by the Labour Party, the Opposition would have obtained what it desired. It was difficult (went on Mr. Rockey) to speak in that House, because Parliament was moribund, and there was a general paralysis over all. (Hear, hear.) The Budget speech consisted of figures, and nothing else; those figures were lifeless, and were invested with no originality and no imagination. It contained no promises of reforms, and no assurance that extravagance would be reduced. Why was the Minister of Finance so lackasdaisical? (Laughter.) Because right through his speech he had his ear to the ground, listening to the rumbling of the backveld, and that had upset his judgment. Because of this rumbling, the Minister had not, been able to face the main issue, which was the equalisation of taxation throughout the whole of the Union. The Minister was afraid to face that question, but, he would have to do so sooner or later. Again, the sooner a land tax came, the better for all. Then the time had come when an excise should be imposed on fortified canteen wines, for any industry which waxed fat on the degradation of the people ought to be heavily taxed. (Hear, hear.) He favoured the imposition of a small excise on Cape light wines. He saw that the Minister of Railways was about to leave the House, but he would ask him to wait, as he had something to say to him.

Don’t be long.

Last night the Minister was probably unaware of the discourteous position he took up in regard to our respected friend, the hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir D. Hunter), but if the Minister were aware of his discourteous action, all I can say is that it was contemptible.

At this point the Minister of Railways left the House, whereupon

moved the adjournment of the debate, because neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Railways was present.

seconded.

The motion was negatived.

said that they had been told that the railways were to be run on business lines. If that were done the railways would continue to make business profits.

They were going to make big profits, and the people in the North were going to pay the bill, to save the people of the coast from taxation. He thought the time had come when preferential rates on the railway should be abolished altogether. It was a fallacy to believe that preferential railway rates ever helped the consumer. Preferential rates were unfair in principle, unfair in their application, and unfair from every point of view. If it were necessary to bolster up any industries, he thought that the Government should offer bounties. One extraordinary thing was that the harbours did not pay. If there was anything in the world which was a monopoly, it was the harbours. He took it that we should make no loss whatever on the harbours. If the charges on packages brought into the country were not enough to provide against a loss, they should be increased as far as necessary. With regard to agricultural development, the hon. member said that we were spending a million of money out of the revenue of this country trying to foster agricultural development, but did they know that our farmers were very small potatoes—extraordinary small potatoes? (Laughter.) “Up to the present,” Mr. Rockey proceeded, “ with all our Land Bank grants, we have not made much advance, and we never will until we get on that side of the House, which I hope will not be long.” (Ministerial laughter.) In concluding, he put in a plea on behalf of the sufferers from miners’ phthisis, who were not totally incapacitated, remarking that many of these men had families, and their departure from the country meant a distinct loss to the State; besides which, they were not playing the game with them.

said that the hon. member who had just sat down had stated that members on that side of the House did all they could last year to get the Government to make a reasonable contribution so as to enable a larger sum of money to be paid to the miners, and that if the Labour Party had supported them the miners would have greatly benefitted. It was quite true that the hon. gentleman and his friends did ask for a larger contribution, but he quite omitted to state to this House, as his friends were in the habit of omitting to state on the platform, that this contribution was not to go towards increasing the amount to be paid to miners, but merely to the relief of the taxation which the House proposed to place on the mine-owners, in order to provide compensation He (Mr. Sampson) had risen to say a few words on the amendment of his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell).

Not much attention appears to have been paid in the debate to that amendment, but it had been alleged that they proposed merely to transfer taxation from the shoulders of certain people on to the shoulders of other people. He thought his hon. friend had been perfectly plain that he did not propose to transfer taxation simply from the shoulders of one to the shoulders of another. Their proposal was to substitute, for a tax which was a hinderance to and a clog upon industry and development, one that they thought would make for progress and development in South Africa. The hon. member for Edenburg had said that they proposed to tax the land and farms. He wished to eliminate from the hon. member’s mind any idea that it was their desire to tax improvements. Their desire was to tax the unimproved value of land. The hon. member for Germiston had said that, if it were something practicable, he would support the amendment, but he had forgotten to tell the House what he would call a practical suggestion on these lines. Did the hon. member mean the proposal which came from those benches not so long ago with respect to taxing the prairie value of land? As he (Mr. Sampson) understood, prairie land was land that was outside the margin of profitable cultivation, and had no value at all, so that the State would have little chance of collecting money from that source. The hon. member for Turffontein had suggested that land upon which ten per cent. improvements had been made should be exempted from taxation. In what way would that lead to the development of the land? The effect of it would be that the big land companies would merely plant a few trees up to ten per cent. value, allow the land to remain idle until the market value rose, and then sell the land and make somebody else pay this ten per cent. The hon. member quoted from a cablegram that had appeared in the Press which set out the protest of the chairman of a London company against the absentee tax which was considered to be a short-sighted policy and there was a suggestion that a strong remonstrance should be made to the Union Government. Those were the people who were making money out of the exertions of the people who were trying to develop the country while they themselves did not do anything at all in that direction. He listened to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg the other evening. The hon. member said that they on the cross benches were unable to distinguish between the Customs charges for revenue and charges to protect industries. He seemed to forget that the hon. member for Jeppe spoke only of the taxes on the necessaries of life. The members on the cross benches were in favour of assisting local industries in a proper manner, but that was not the proper method indicated by the hon. member. What they wanted was fewer land speculators, more farmers, and more and nearer markets, and that was what the amendment would probably bring about. There would be greater development in the country, and it would be better for the farmers. The dearness of land and the high rates in South Africa were doing more to drive away industries from South Africa than anything else, and the dearness of land was the chief cause.

Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Victoria West, which speech, he said, would be of very little help to the hon. Minister, and would have the effect of taking away the thoughts of the people of the country from the real points at issue, the incidence of taxation. He referred to the high rate of wages which prevailed on the Rand. Was the country any worse off because of the high wages. The hon. member had said nothing of the risks taken by those who received these wages. He took it the hon. member was complaining.

I stated the facts.

The hon. member did not. He said they were the highest wages in the world. The speaker, proceeding, quoted from the “Canadian Mail” of February 22nd, which gave particulars of railway engine-drivers receiving from £30 to £50 a month, and conductors £30 to £60 a month. These were ordinary workmen, and the right hon. gentleman had quoted those of supervisors, so that what the hon. member said was a misstatement entirely. He was drawing the long bow indeed. He might have gone on to tell the House why the wages were so high, and have pointed out some of the risks. Was not a man better off with £20 a month and 20 years to live than one with two or three years to live and £35 to £40 per month? Surely the latter wanted something to put aside for his widow and children, whom he would soon leave behind him. The relative value of such wages was not high, and the workmen on the Witwatersrand were not as well off as the workmen in other parts of the world who were not receiving such high wages. In another-debate a short time ago the hon. member made a wild and random statement. He said that people could live comfortably on the Rand at from £4 to £6 a month.

I said that was the price charged. You will find the evidence in the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission.

replied that during the course of the debate the other day he understood the hon. gentleman to say that one could live decently on the Rand at from £4 to £6 a month, and that statement appeared in the newspapers. If he did not make that statement he should indicate the correction, for they on the cross benches would continue to quote from it unless he did so.

The hon. member referred to an article he had read two days ago in a journal not in favour of the parties with which he was associated, but which contained something which supported the statement he had made in regard to the relationship of land, the high wages paid in this part of the world. The writer was Mr. J. Morgan Rees, whom he did not know, and the article was on the wages and the cost of living in Johannesburg as compared with London. It was very interesting with regard to what had been said as to the wages paid in Johannesburg. It stated that there was a difference of 50 to 100 per cent, in regard to food prices between London and Johannesburg, and pointed out that that was partly due to high cost of production and partly to the high price of other articles such as clothes and furniture. The writer thought that the price paid for other goods tended to raise food prices. It gave an interesting comparison of the expenditure of a small family in the two places. In London, food was set down at 25s. 2d., Johannesburg 34s. 9½d.; rent, London 5s. 6d., Johannesburg 25s. to 40s.; other costs, London 3s. 9½d., Johannesburg 18s. 7d., giving a total for London of 39s. 5¼d., compared with 78s. 4½d. to 93s. 4½d. in Johannesburg. According to that statement the cost of living was, on the average, double on the Rand what it was in London. It would be seen that it was rent which absorbed the biggest portion of the wages. He would point out that they were not basing their arguments on the requirements of bachelors, for the greater part of the people of the country were not bachelors.

The question of the diamond cutting industry was next raised by the hon. member, who said that in another place they had appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. They had some knowledge from their past experience of what that would mean. A Select Committee was appointed, and some twelve months after a report was published, and after two or three years more something might be done, but if the matter of the diamond cutting industry was allowed to be dealt with in that way they would be allowing the opportunity which presented itself at the present time to slip away. They all knew what happened in industrial disturbances; so long as they could keep labour away the men won, but so long as the employer was enabled to get a supply of labour the employer won. It was the same with this industry, and they might easily allow it to slip from their grasp. Therefore he thought they ought to take some steps to express their views upon it. The evidence of the Secretary of Mines before the Industries Commission was interesting.

He asserted that some 75 per cent. of the world’s production of diamonds were unsold, but what was actually the case? He had read in the papers that the buyers reported a great shortage of diamonds. They were not able to get them. That statement was in distinct contradiction to the evidence of the Secretary of Mines. Sir David Harris had stated that the mines at Jagersfontein or De Beers never overloaded the market They sold only what purchasers desired, and Mr. Oats, chairman of De Beers, stated also that the company had adapted their sales for the world’s demand. What reason could there be, therefore, why they should not start this industry? Less than 5,000 white people were employed in diamond mining, whereas there were something like twenty thousand men and women engaged in Europe and America in cutting South African gems. That was to say, there were four times as many workpeople in other countries dealing with the raw product of South Africa. The wages of all the diamond miners, both white and black, was under three million pounds. The wages of the cutters in Europe totalled four million pounds. What was there, therefore, to prevent them not benefiting by this large expenditure? He hoped the Government would give an assurance to the House that as soon as they published the resolutions of the committee they would do something in the matter. They could put an export tax of sufficient magnitude to create and protect the industry, and if this failed then they could prohibit the export of raw stones until a diamond industry was started. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the savings effected on roads and buildings, on land settlement, irrigation, Land Banks, and other votes. From the Ministerial point of view this might be a matter for congratulation, but when there was a large number of men looking for employment he had no right to effect these savings. A good deal of the unemployment during the past year was caused by the Minister in effecting these savings. They had to complain in the Transvaal of practically the same thing. The amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, he believed, would open the door to a proper land settlement scheme. It was useless for the Government to go in for a land settlement scheme merely to benefit the owners of land. Then with regard to education, although he desired that every child should have a liberal education, he took exception to this £40,000 additional for the higher education vote. There were so many people in the country who were unable to provide their children with any sort of an education, and this money, which was only for higher education, was really intended to relieve people who were well able to pay for their children’s higher education. Then with regard to the gold production of the Rand, he noticed that this had increased by three and a half million, but the Minister had not explained why the revenue derived from the profits tax was practically the same. Whatever extra expense the mining industry may have been put to with regard to miners’ phthisis, that had been more than counterbalanced by the reduction in the wages that had taken place. In conclusion, Mr. Sampson referred to the proposal to spend £70,000 on the construction of a new residence for the Governor-General at Rondebosch. He thought, however, that the present building in Cape Town set aside for the use of the Governor-General was quite suitable for the purpose. The Governor-General ought to be quite pleased to live there—he (Mr. Sampson) would be, and so would many other hon. members. (Laughter.) They were not justified in going on with the building of a new residence for the Governor-General while many children of school age were not receiving education and while there was an insufficient number of schools. (Labour cheers.)

said he would not attempt to enter into the realms of high finance, but he wished to offer a few remarks on what he conceived to be the position of the country. He desired to corroborate what the Minister of Finance had said in his Budget speech in reference to the improved position of the Western Province. After long years of depression, the Western Province was now in a prosperous condition. It had learned a good many lessons from the depression, one of the chief being to depend on itself and on its hinterland for its prosperity. He thought it would be readily acknowledged, continued Mr. Baxter, that from a trade point of view the Union was in a most sound position. (Hear, hear.) The excess of £23,500,000 of exports over imports last year was a most eloquent testimony to the soundness of the country from a trade point of view. But there were disappointments, the first being that no fresh capital was coming into South Africa. This was rather serious when we considered that we were a young country with great wealth undeveloped. Yet huge sums of money were being sent from Europe to other countries—notably to Canada—which were going in for a policy of vigorous development. Practically we deserved this neglect, for we offered no encouragement to fresh capital. It was only when the Prime Minister went to London that he made speeches about the necessity of fresh capital for investment in South Africa and of South Africa’s need of immigrants, but when the Prime Minister came back here he seemed to forget all about those speeches, and his courage oozed out at his finger tips.

The exports of South African agricultural and pastoral produce had gone up in a most encouraging way by no less than two millions in twelve months. In five years the value of the wool exported increased by two millions and the quantity by 55 per cent. He would like to give some figures contrasting the position here with that in Australia. Taking the average exports of the two years 1910-1911, Australia, which had 92,000,000 sheep, exported wool to the value of £27.500,000, or an average per sheep of 5s. 11d., New Zealand, with 24,000,000 sheep exported wool to the value of £7,500,000, or 6s. 2d. per sheep; whereas in 1911, her best year, South Africa, with 30,000,000 sheep exported wool to the value of £4,750,000. or 3s. 2d. per sheep. But if they took the number of woolled sheep in South Africa at 21,842,000, the value of the wool exported worked out at 4s. 5d. per sheep.

They are all woolled sheep in Australia.

The proportion of non-woolled sheep in New Zealand is practically the same as in South Africa. These figures conclusively prove that there is a great deal of leeway to be made up by South African farmers with regard to the quality of their sheep and wool. Proceeding, Mr. Baxter said that the wool correspondent of the “ Economist” had pointed out that 20 years ago Australia possessed practically the same number of sheep as she did to-day namely, 90,000,000. Drought in the interval had reduced the number to 53,000,000, but it was now 90,000,000 again, and from an export of 1,350,000 bales of wool 20 years ago, Australia had attained to an export of 2,100,000 bales. That was to say that the quality of Australia’s sheep and wool had gone up by nearly 50 per cent. He (Mr. Baxter) gave these figures not to depreciate South Africa, but because he thought that what Australia had done South Africa could do. (Opposition cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Baxter said that South Africa was too dependent on minerals for its prosperity, and that we were doing mighty little to alter that state of affairs. (Opposition cheers.) In 1911 the export of minerals practically amounted to 80 per cent. of our total exports, the exports of South African produce being responsible for the other 20 per cent.

The figures to-day were practically the same as they had been for the last five years. He would ask the House to compare that state of things with Australia, where the history of their economics was practically the same as in South Africa. Their first impulse to go ahead came from minerals, but they had not relied on minerals since. Taking the three years ending 1911 they found that the Australian exports worked out at minerals and gold 26 per cent., and produce 74 per cent. So it did not matter what happened to the mines of Australia. Their mines could go out of existence to-morrow, and it would not ruin the prosperity of the country. Could they say that about South Africa? He did not think so. They had got to rely on one source of wealth in this country, viz., the land, and they were going to be fools if, while their prosperity was great from the mines, they ’did not take care to base their future prosperity on the land. They heard much of land settlement. It was all talk so far as he could see. (Opposition cheers.) It was a magnificent topic for window dressing, for platform speeches and also for speeches from the front Government benches; but what did they do? Could the Government point to any serious policy for the giving effect to of the Land Settlement Act? A year had passed, and they had been told by the Minister that one settler had been put on the land under the provisions of that Act. He presumed it was the exception to prove the rule. The Government seemed to be content to let things, drift on as they had been doing for the last twenty years. Let them take the Budget. What could they take from it? There was no evidence regarding resources. There was no evidence of utilising the wealth which they got from the mines for permanent development. They just placed the big cheques they got from Johannesburg to current account. If they had a deficit they were not happy until they could lay their hands upon some old nest egg, and when they had a large sum of money available for the development of the country, they were not happy until they had taken it for ordinary purposes.

For the proper development of this country population was essential. Did they think that with the million and a quarter white population they had in this country they could ever make this country a big one, and have that development from the land which was going to be commensurate with their obligations, and the necessities of the case? When they came to the census figures he must say they were not encouraging. The population of European males had only gone up by 50,000 in seven years. Could anyone say that with only a natural increase of about one per cent. they were doing what they should to make the full development of this country possible ? To-day, far from going up, their population was going down. Last year they lost no fewer than 1,000 adult Europeans who had left South Africa. Here they were a young country with huge possibilities, yet in booming times, when the Treasury was overflowing, they lost no fewer than 1,000 of the best of their population. Why? It seemed to him it was because they gave them no encouragement to stay. It was the land the young man of South Africa was looking to, and if he could not get it in South Africa he went somewhere else—to British East Africa or Rhodesia. When they compared that with what was being done in other countries, it was distinctly discouraging. Canada, during 1911-12 (the season) imported 354,000 immigrants, the larger portion of whom went on the land, and Australia had recently gone in for a policy of encouraging people to go there. In ten years the immigration to Australia had gone up from 500 to 100,000 a year. He would like to point out the benefits derived from the policy of the acquisition of land pursued in Queensland, Australia, where the Government had acquired over 600,000 acres of land, which had nearly all been sold again to settlers at no cost to the State. The two things wanted in this country, if they were going to put it on a permanent basis of prosperity, were some well-considered schemes of getting the right people here and of acquiring the land to put them on.

Before he sat down, he wished to refer to one aspect of the Railway Estimates. He thought it was a most encouraging feature the tremendous increase in the number of passengers carried on the Union Railways—an increase which spoke eloquently of the progressive policy which the _present general manager had adopted. It seemed to him that it was not merely good business for the railways, but it did a great deal of good for the country. He considered that one of the best effects of Union had been that the people of the Provinces were coming more into contact with one another. There was one other point. Why were we not doing more to follow the example of other countries and colonies to attract visitors to this country? (Hear, hear.) Mr. Baxter alluded to the well-organised schemes which had come under his notice in London, so far as Canada and other countries were concerned, and went on to say that in South Africa we had things to give to the American and European tourist that they could find in no other part of the world. We had unique assets—Victoria Falls, the Cape Peninsula, battlefields, goldfields, and diamond-fields—and if the Railway Administration would only wake up to the fact that, by booming these wares abroad, and in America particularly, they could attract thousands of people to this country every year, he maintained that the few thousands they would have to spend on the scheme would be well spent, and be returned many times over. If the Government, and particularly the Railway Department, would only seriously and earnestly take this traffic into consideration, they would, in the long run, be surprised at the success which would be achieved. (Hear, hear.)

felt it to be his duty, after the important speech to which they had just listened, to make a few remarks so as to make it plain to the Government what his feelings were, even if he did not wish to criticise the Government. The hon. member who had just spoken had quoted figures which were not quite correct. The speaker said he wished to refer to some matters affecting his own constituency. The Minister of Finance had stated that there was a balance of savings in 1912-13 amounting to £518,000, which had been saved on public works, or, rather, which had not been spent. He regretted that. When Parliament voted money for the construction of buildings and bridges, that work ought to be carried out as speedily as possible. It was very difficult to get a new building on the Estimates, but having got it there, it was regrettable that the building was not constructed. The magistrate’s office at Prieska was badly in need of renewal, but although the money had been voted for it nothing had been done. Last year £2,000,000 had been saved on the railways, yet he regretted to say that no new lines were laid in that year. The Minister had stated that the country was in a condition of prosperity, and the statement was quite true, but nothing was being done to develop the country. The Administration appeared to confine its journeys to the main lines of railway, for its members seemed to know nothing of the other parts of the country. The Prime Minister went to Kakamas last year, and had said that a railway was wanted there, but nothing had been done. It had been said that the imports of corn had diminished, but in the speaker’s opinion they ought not to import a single muid of corn nor a pound of meat. There was still far too much meat imported into the country, and the country was not being sufficiently developed. In German South-west Africa, which was a very young country, they had already railway lines and telegraph lines, but in the Union they were doing nothing, absolutely nothing. Along the Groot Rivier there was good ground available and suitable for the growing of corn, but the people would not plant it because they were unable to dispose of their produce. All that was to be ascribed to the mistake made in the Constitution which gave the management of the railway into the hands of four persons, who only looked at one part of the country. The hon. member for Yeoville had complained that expensive lines were laid in the Karroo, but he was wrongly informed on the subject. The Karroo railway cost only £3,700 per mile, and not £5,000. In the Karroo they were satisfied to have a railway with a traffic of eight miles per hour, without stations such as the line to Carnarvon had. The people wanted to show what they could do, but the Administration paid no attention. The line to Prieska was a paying one, and ought to be extended to Gordonia. It was surely not expected that all Government works were to show an immediate profit? In the North-west they were without even a telegraph line. There was a Magistrate at Rietfontein, on the border of German territory, and although many people were living there, there was no telegraphic connection. Such a telegraphic connection might be of great value to the Government. Great satisfaction had been expressed last year at the passage of the Land Settlement Act, but, unfortunately, the law had not yet been brought into operation, and the fact was generally deplored. Why did not the Minister allow the land to be taken up under the Act of 1908? It was a very rich district. The Government had given out eight farms, but the people had a grievance in connection with the Molopo River. The regulations were of such a character as to cause the public all sorts of annoyances when the cattle were taken to the river to be watered. On nearly every such occasion the cattle were seized and put in the pound, to the great injury of the poor farmers.

moved the adjournment of the House.

The motion was negatived.

The debate was adjourned until Monday.