from A. Marman and 39 others, adult coloured men and women, resident in the town and district of Beaufort West, praying for the total prohibition of the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor except medicinally or sacramentally, to any coloured person within the Union; similar petitions from M. Hermanus and 108 others, coloured persons at Riversdale; from P. May and 60 others at Coldstream; from A. Talmacke and 51 others at Hoetjes Bay, Malmesbury; from S. Jagger and 367 others at Pniell, Barkly West; from N. Julies and 42 others at Hopefield, Malmesbury; from D. Johnson and 64 others at Brandwacht, Mossel Bay; from C. E. Muller and 62 others at Swellendam; from E. Abels and 16 others at Elim, Bredasdorp; and from A. du Plessis and 43 others at Sinksa Bridge, George.

from M. J. de Beer, aged 81, of Vryheid, Natal, who served under the late Orange Free State and Transvaal Republics in their various wars, praying for a monthly allowance, or other relief.

moved: That the Select Committee on the subject matter of the University of South Africa Bill consist of 12 members, and that Sir David Hunter, Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs. H. S. Theron, Fremantle, Mentz, Chaplin, Duncan, J. H. Marais, Wiltshire, and the mover be members of the committee. The mover said that the hon. member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins) had withdrawn in favour of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha), while the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. C. H. Haggar) had refused to serve. He (Mr. Malan) would subsequently give notice of the names of the two additional members in the place of the hon. members for Barkly and Roodepoort.

moved as an amendment that the committee consist of 14 members.

I would like to know the reason.

Fourteen is too unwieldy.

said it had been argued that the Free State had only one representative, but as the hon. member for Bloemfontein had returned to Cape Town, he would be added to the committee in the place of the hon. member for Barkly, so that that argument fell to the ground.

said he had never thought of the Provinces, but there were men not on the committee who took a very great interest in the matter. For instance, there was the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), who would be a great help to the committee, and whose presence was quite necessary on such an important committee. Why should they not have men like the hon. member for Victoria West on the committee?

The amendment was negatived, and the motion was carried.

moved: That the questions relating to rules governing the appointment and duties of Parliamentary draftsman and of Parliamentary librarian be referred, respectively, to the Select Committees of this House on Internal Arrangements and on Parliamentary Library for consideration and report, after conferring with the Committee appointed by the hon. the Senate in reference thereto, with powers to such Select Committees to delegate their powers to such of their members as they may see fit for the purpose of such conference, and that the hon. the Senate be informed by message accordingly. If the House adopted that motion, he said, it would allow them to ask the two Select Committees of that House to make arrangements to meet the Committee of the Senate, and discuss these matters.

said that he did not want to raise any objection, but why had there been all that delay? Towards the latter half of the session that matter was now brought forward. It was not a respectful way of treating the Senate.

said that the message from the Senate had been sent to them on February 13, and was ordered to be considered by that House on February 21, but the Government had seen fit to put it down as the eighth order of the day, and since then it had been kept from the eighth order down to the fifteenth on the paper, and the Government had given them no opportunity of discussing that quite important point. There was no reason for the delay, and it was decidedly discourteous to another place.

The motion was agreed to.

resuming, said when the debate was adjourned he was engaged in pointing to the requirements of his constituency. In Gordonia there were thousands of morgen of Government ground lying idle, and there were plenty of people anxious to occupy them. These people were prepared to pay for that privilege in accordance with the law of 1908, but nothing was being done to allow them to do so. That Act gave every one the right to prospect for water, and then if a man found water he could get a farm. In accordance with the provisions of that law nearly all the farms in Bushmansland had been taken up. Many of the people were successful and were dwelling there on the farms. Some of them, owing to the drought, could not find water soon enough. A certain time was laid down within which water had to be found. Some of the people made wells to a depth of 130 feet, but they found no water, and the officials sent the people away. The officials caused a great deal of annoyance to the people there. The lands were at present lying unused, and under the Land Settlement Act the Minister was empowered to give preference to the people who had been driven away after doing a good deal of work there. That Act was a good one, and it ought to be carried into effect. In order to get land it was necessary to apply to a Board. But where did the Board sit? The Minister must have more confidence in the people. The Government should at once send twenty water bores there, and the farms could be pointed out.

In this respect they could take an example from German South West Africa. A few years ago they had war there, but now they had railways everywhere and telegraph lines as well, the farms were being allocated to settlers and soon assumed a different appearance. When they saw that kind of thing going on they became warm against the Union Government. They talked a good deal about immigration, but they did nothing to help the people on the land.

There were other lands as to which the speaker wished to make a few remarks.. The Government were keeping back the best ground along the Orange River, as they first wanted to get the water out of the river. They had started that work, but Mr. Kanthack had reported that the system would result in loss at Boechesberg. Some of the people had been occupying the land for as long as 28 years, but they did not venture to improve it because the Government refused to give them the freehold rights to it. The district of Kenhardt was given out in farms under the excellent law of 1895, but the people did not get the freehold. The Minister had appointed Mr. Vos for the purpose of making recommendations with regard to the farms along the river, it was to be hoped that the Minister would go into the question of those recommendations. A number of persons had applied for leave to settle on Crown lands. Those people got the ground under licence, built houses and made gardens, and now the Government proposed to make the same ground available to the general public. Those improvements had been made at the personal cost of the people there, and now the Government wanted to take the ground back without compensation and give it out to others. That was unreasonable.

During last year £174,000 had been saved on the item of irrigation. That was not a saying at all. The Government should make use of the money, and should give assistance to private persons in carrying cut irrigation schemes. As a general rule Government works were a failure in this direction. The islands in the Orange River contained very rich ground, which was very suitable for development. People had gone to live there and had built houses and laid out gardens and furrows at their own cost, and they expected that the ground would now be allocated to them under the Crown Lands Settlement Act. The Government were prepared to spend £2,000 on the islands, but that amount was much too small. Then the railways in that direction ought to be extended.

The speaker said he wished to take advantage of the present opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for his visit to the north-west. The Prime Minister had promised to establish depots for dipping materials there. At present they had to ride for ten or twelve hours in order to get a package of dip. It could be kept in stock at those depots.

According to the statement of the Prime Minister the sheep inspectors in Johannesburg were most fair, but why could not the sheep be inspected at the place of origin? Presumably the inspectors there were just as straightforward? If that were done it would prevent a good deal of inconvenience. When the cattle were taken off the train in Johannesburg and were declared infected, they were placed in quarantine, and the butchers were able to buy them at about half price, with the result that the owners were made bankrupt.

The Minister of Finance had told them that during the recess hon. members should reflect on the subject of new taxation. The speaker said he would give the Minister a little advice. Last year the Defence Act had become law, but they must see to it that they did not go in for militarism. The Defence Force was too expensive, and a salary of £2,000 was too high. The Minister was beginning on too high a scale and should be very prudent.

It was not necessary to spend thousands of pounds on uniforms for the cadets. Why did they want uniforms at all? Cadets could do their training work well enough without uniforms, and he thought the item might well be deleted.

There appeared another item of £70,000 on the Estimates for a new house for the Governor-General, but his Excellency only lived in Cape Town for four or five months in the year. The maintenance costs of such a building were very high. When they began to talk about new taxation, they should not put up unnecessary buildings.

Too much money was being spent too in inspections. Repairs were called for to a stable in Niekerkshoop at a cost of 20s. to 30s., and those repairs had afterwards to be inspected by an official who had to make an expensive journey of 380 miles in order to do it. That was the sort of thing in which there was room for economy.

The Labour party were all quite ready to propose a tax on the land. It was quite wrong to tax land, as land provided the security of the country’s debts and formed the basis of its credit. They should be prudent in regard to the question of the taxation of land, and they would do better to put a tax of five per cent, on the wages of the miners. He hoped the Government would take no notice of the proposals.

said the debate was in the nature of an annual stocktaking, in which they were all deeply interested. They were not only anxious to know what had been done during the past year, but they were anxious to know also what they were going to do during the coming year. The Minister of Finance reminded him of the chairman of a company presiding over a meeting of shareholders, and telling them that although the prospects were bright, still there was no dividend. In every direction there were indications that the country was prosperous, and they would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have been able to have told them that he had saved money for a rainy day. The Minister of Finance was the last one that he would like to find fault with. He worked very hard—in fact he tried to do too much. He was not concerned as to which of the two offices he proposed to keep—whether Defence or Finance—but he thought that no Minister should hold two Portfolios. It was said that there should be more Ministers. They had enough of Ministers. He thought they ought to have more ex-Ministers. The hon. member for Barberton went about stamping through the House and attacking his old friends—a procedure which they upon that side of the House quite delighted in—(laughter)—while another ex-Minister was going about writing manifestoes—(renewed laughter)—so that although they might have one or two more ex-Ministers they did not want any more Ministers. It seemed to him that they would have to find more money from somewhere next year. The Minister foreshadowed increased taxation, and it was a bitter disappointment to the House. They had amalgamated four Provinces, and they anticipated that this would result in more economical management, but that was not so. Surely when they amalgamated the whole of the Provinces into one they did not expect that it was going to cost more than it had formerly. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, quoted certain figures to show what was the increased expenditure. The hon. member for George quoted a much smaller figure—£2,000,000. Well, before Union hon. members went about assuring people that under Union the administration of the country would be cheaper than it was at that time, and that there would be less taxation. But not only was it costing more now to administer the country, but there was a prospect of more taxation. It was costing them £2,000,000 more to administer this country now than before Union, and a million of that was going in salaries. It was alarming. (Cheers.) The Minister of Finance seemed to be relying on some of his rich friends dying to get more money this year. If they did not die the hon. member was afraid the deficit would have to be made up by taxing the poor people. When hon. members on the Government side of the House spoke on economics it was positively amusing. The panacea of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Nicholson) and some of his friends was protection. It was a monstrous thing to talk of increasing taxation, whether by income tax or by taxing the poor. If they gave more protection they would only make a few rich men richer, and many poor men poorer. Let them glance at America and Germany. On the frontiers of Germany to-day the people were crossing the border into Switzerland in order to buy cheap meat. In America it was well known that poor people could not wear woollen clothing because they could not afford to buy it Wherever they had protection the poor people paid most.

Turning to the report of the Industries Commission, the hon. member said he found that if the increased duties were imposed that were suggested in that report it would result in an immediate increase of direct taxation of over a half a million pounds per annum. What alarmed him was that the Government were looking out for something else to tax next year. It was a Government of geniuses they said, and yet they were reduced to this extremity. It was pitiful. (Cheers.) On three articles alone in this Industries Commission Report (boots and shoes, grain and corn, and sugar), if the increased duty was imposed it would mean an extra taxation of £383,000 per annum. If the Minister of Finance came to this House next year with a proposal to make the additional money he was sure to want by means of taxing the poor people, he was going to have a hot time. (Cheers.) But, fortunately, the picture was not altogether black. There was much to please one in the position of the country at the present time. With regard to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North (Mr. Orr), he used to regard him as a sort of champion of public rights and a financial luminary. He spoke the other day, and it seemed to the hon. member that he had set himself a pitiable task. It was to defend all the Government had done. He made the House roar with laughter, and that was the only good thing he did. (Laughter and cheers.) He donned the cap and bells, and did the part to perfection. (Renewed laughter.) He (the hon. member) would have thought that, with his knowledge of figures and national finance, he would have applied himself to showing where money could have been saved. But how were the mighty fallen! Well, unpleasant as things were, they might be worse. This country was making progress, despite the Minister of Finance and all the experts. (Cheers and laughter.) He wished to say something about farming and industries, and he hoped farmers would not come to the conclusion that he was going to propose a land tax. Whenever an hon. member on his side of the House got up and mentioned farming, hon. members on the other side at once jumped to the conclusion that he was going to propose a land tax. He would like to point out, that there was a time when dairy produce was twice the price it was to-day. They had made tremendous progress.

The South African farmer had not only held his own, in spite of the want of more protection, but he had knocked the Australian butter out of the market. (Hear, hear.) If farmers could give us butter all the year round, no imported butter would have a chance. Butter was only one of the numerous things in which great progress had been made. Recently a trial shipment of butter was sent from South Africa to London. It made the best price in the market, and beat the Australian. (Hear, hear.) Let them take the question of butter and eggs. Last year England spent 36 millions on buying eggs, butter and poultry. Of that amount, butter was represented by 24 millions. “What a market!” exclaimed Mr. Quinn, “and they are anxious to buy the stuff from us.” The hon. member went on to say that £900,000 worth of eggs were imported into England. Why should not we in South Africa have some of that trade? He referred to the wonderful growth in the export of eggs from Denmark to England during the past two decades, and urged that much could be done in a similar direction in this country, if only a little thought and organisation were applied to the subject of collecting and marketing the produce. After briefly touching on several articles formerly imported into this country in large quantities, and now entirely supplied by this country, Mr. Quinn went on to deal with the question of the extension of industries. He said that he was interested in several industries, every one of which gave evidence in some form or other, before the Commerce and Industries Commission, and made a call for increased protection. He wanted to say this to the House, that those industries he was interested in for which more protection had been called, he was prepared to prove could go on without any protection at all. The geographical protection was quite enough. We were 7,000 miles from the place where our competitors were.

What about your man at the coast?

The man at the coast is 6,000 miles away from the manufacturer. Proceeding, he said the point was this: that, while he said they did not require protection for the industries he had mentioned, at the same time they did not want to be handicapped by heavy railway rates on their raw material. The position of our tariff was that, like Topsy, it had grown. Why were we importing jams, sweets, and the like to-day? Because of dear sugar The 3s. 6d. per 100 lb. duty on sugar was absolutely checking the growth of industries all over the country. What we wanted was some proper fiscal scheme. We should never get people to come into this country and put money into industries if we were constantly chopping and changing about with our tariff.

Continuing, Mr. Quinn said a tax on land had to come. What had caused an increase in the value of land in the Transvaal?

The Land Bank. (Laughter.)

No; it is due to the mines and men who work on them. Continuing, Mr. Quinn said of course he would not tax land that was beneficially occupied, but the world was too small to allow large portions of land to remain out of cultivation. If the land were so bad that it was useless no one would pay a tax upon it, so that no hardship would be inflicted in that respect. In every direction the country was bounding ahead. He had been amazed at things he had seen lately, showing that if the people were let alone they could hold their own with the rest of the world, but if they went in for any hanky-panky business, and endeavoured to take the money out of the pockets of the many, and put it into the pockets of the few, by means of Protection, incalculable damage would be done. He was glad that the Old Country had so successfully kept the Free Trade flag flying all these years. We wanted social legislation here, the same as in England, where money was found for it because England allowed the free interchange of products. South Africa would delay its greatness if it went on the wrong course of adopting Protection, which he abhorred. He went to America specially to study that question a few years ago; and he found that the worst effect of Protection was the way in which the public men of America had been degraded. Mr. Quinn went on to say that the curse of South Africa was the fact that people went to Government for everything. (Cheers.) Let the people be taught that they had to rely on their own muscle and their own brain. If that were done we should have a nation here that in fifty years would astonish the world. Reverting to the question of Protection, Mr. Quinn mentioned that the duty on flour in South Africa was 30 per cent, of its prime cost. If the farmers in Australia could grow wheat, mill it, and send the flour to Durban at 8s. per quarter, c.i.f., that should cause a little emulation among the farmers of South Africa. He hoped the Minister would not be tempted by the hon. member for Pretoria, North, to entertain the idea of inflicting on this country what would be a terrible curse. (Cheers.)

said the hon. member for Troyeville, in the course of his remarks, had made three speeches on Protection, but the hon. member must remember that there were Protectionists on the Opposition as well as on the Government side of the House. He (Mr. Sauer) wondered whether the speech was made in the hope of correcting the views of the hon. member’s leader, who was the greatest Protectionist in the House—in fact, he (Mr. Sauer) knew of only one greater— the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton).

Where is the Minister of Education?

I have sat on committees with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and I have been positively shocked at the Protectionist principles he has preached, and the practical application of them. On occasions they were not only protectionist but prohibitive.

On what committees were those?

Very often. I do not quite see why we should have this discussion on Protection just now. Proceeding, the Minister asked whether the hon. member (Mr. Quinn) had always been in favour of Free Trade?

Yes.

asked how about the Chinese. If that was so, all he could say was that the hon. member was a much-maligned man. He believed that they were all Free Traders with a dash of Protection, and all Protectionists with a dash of Free Trade. He went on to say that on that occasion, as on previous occasions, there had been a great many “experts” on finance. He believed that there was no other Parliament where they had so many people who assumed themselves to be financial pundits. The hon. Minister was understood to say that the Public Accounts Committee had actually dictated the basis on which branch lines were to be built.

When did they do that?

They might just as well pass a resolution that we should pursue a policy of Protection or Free Trade.

You are altogether wrong.

I am not wrong.

rose to a point of order, and asked whether it was in order for the Minister to discuss a report of the Public Accounts Committee which was not before the House.

I do not know that there is any report before the House. (Hear, hear.)

Is it in order for the hon. Minister to make a statement that the Public Accounts Committee have done a certain thing, which members of the Public Accounts Committee know nothing of?

said that the hon. Minister, in his speech, was responsible for his own statement.

A committee sits upstairs called the Public Accounts Committee, which is responsible to this House, and the Minister says that the committee has made certain definite proposals, which he proceeds to criticise. I say it has not. Has the Minister a right to say so? He is not a member of the committee, and does not know what they have done.

said that he thought every member must take the responsibility, before that House, of his own statement.

said that the time would come when they would discuss that matter further. He did not see that his hon. friend had any need to be so alarmed.

said that what the hon. Minister had said was not correct.

said that he had his authority from a greater authority than his hon. friend.

Through the keyhole! (Laughter.)

went on to say that he had never listened to a debate on the Budget, but the Government had been charged with extravagance, or statistics were given showing the quantity of butter, milk, and cheese imported into the country, or the Government had been charged with introducing their railway Construction proposals late. He thought that somebody had said, on his side of the House, that that had been done by previous Ministers of the Cape belonging to both parties; and that was undoubtedly so. Amongst those who had criticised the Government for not having introduced railway construction proposals already, was the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull). In 1908, however, under responsible Government in the Transvaal, a Railway Bill had been introduced after the Budget debate had taken place. In 1909 there had been a Railway Construction Bill there, which was introduced after the House had agreed to go into Committee of Supply. The hon. member who had been Treasurer on that occasion was the hon. member for Barberton, and the hon. member who had introduced the Railway Construction Bills was the same gentleman. It was indeed a Daniel come to judgment—(laughter)— yet the hon. member had criticised the Government for not having introduced the Railway Construction Bill earlier.

said it was not so

continuing, said that he had said that, as a rule, the Government was criticised for extravagance. Generally, such criticism was of a very general character, and the only person, as far as he knew, who had been somewhat specific in his statement was the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey). The hon. member for Port Elizabeth. Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had spoken in the most general manner, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), in very much the same way, and so had others. They had not specified, and had not gone into anything like details, and had not said in what particular direction this extravagance had taken place. The hon. member for George had done so, and had pointed out the increased expenditure on salaries. He (Mr. Sauer) was not going to anticipate what his hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, was going to say on that point. The increase was because of scale increases, and because of the local allowances in the inland Provinces, which ran to over £200,000. Anybody could see that that could not possibly have been avoided. It showed the danger of making a general statement without going into details. Then there had been an increase of necessary expenditure. Let them take education, in which a very large increase had taken place. Was anybody averse to increased expenditure in that? He was at one with the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), when he said that they spent too much on buildings, and that it would be an unqualified advantage if they could pay their teachers higher. But the increased expenditure was necessary, and so was the increased expenditure in connection with defence, which was unavoidable, and also in connection with police. As to what the right hon. member had said about Australia, they must remember that in Australia they did not have such a large coloured and native population as they had here. There was a material fact always lost sight of, which was that at the date of Union all the Provinces, except the Transvaal, had been at the very nadir of expenditure. If no additional expenditure had been incurred and no change had been made, to a great extent they would have been where they had been. It had been necessary to make that expenditure. He agreed with the latter stage of the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn), although on another occasion the hon. member had asked why the Government did not do more in the way of development. In that country they could not extend educational facilities unless they got State aid, and these facts were never taken into account. They always heard charges of extravagance made, especially from the Opposition Treasurer or quasi Opposition Treasurer. What assistance did the Government get when they wanted to curtail expenditure? What had they seen yesterday? A proposal had been made to go into committee to consider the question of increasing the pay of the police, and the whole of the Opposition side had voted for it. If they increased the pay of the police by 6d. a day it meant an increase of £50,000 per annum. While they were criticising the Government for extravagance they were pressing the Government, in office, not from the one side, but from both sides, to incur more expenditure, and the men who were most oratorical on the subject generally pressed hardest for additional expenditure, at the office.

Those who knew what was going on could not help feeling cynical when they heard these rhapsodies of eloquence. Was there anybody who could succeed in getting the estimates reduced, even if they had the assistance of the Government? (Laughter.) They would find that very few would vote for such a proposal. As a matter of fact, those who knew what was going on knew that the Government was continually being pressed for increased expenditure. Another feature of a debate of this kind was that the estimates of revenue and expenditure were always attacked. His hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth was very eloquent on the Estimates that were submitted to Parliament last session. He thought that an ex-Treasurer with a past should be the last to criticise, because if anybody had erred it was his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth. It used to be said that it was the fashion in the Cape for the Treasurer to estimate his expenditure and then proceed to bring up his revenue to his expenditure. He thought his hon. friend could hardly claim that he was a doctor so far as estimates were concerned. And when his hon. friend the hon. member for Barberton spoke the other day of the railway being such a great sinner in this respect in regard to loan expenditure, he could not help thinking of his hon. friend as he had been in the past. He was informed in the case he had in mind that the amount was two millions. His hon. friend said that the amount was two and a half millions. He would not always take his hon. friend’s figures, but he would do so on this occasion. The position was that the money in that case was not available for three months. It could not be drawn upon until three months of the year had elapsed. Then a great deal of the money was required for the purchase of raw material, and owing to the labour conditions the material could not be supplied. That accounted for a considerable part. Another reason for the delay in the expenditure of the money was the fact that it was very difficult to get a supply of labour.

But let them see now how his hon. friend has estimated. His case was hardly better than that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. If they took the year 1911-12 they would find that the hon. gentleman was out in his estimates of revenue and expenditure to the extent of £1,659,000. His hon. friend was out in revenue to the extent of £1,317,000. That referred to his revised Estimates. In his original estimates he was out in revenue and expenditure by £20,000 more. If they took his estimates of 1912-13 he was out by £1,344,000 in regard to revenue and £441,000 in regard to expenditure—in his revenue and expenditure he was out £1,786,000. He admitted, that in this country it was a very difficult matter to estimate correctly. The revenue was dependent mainly on conditions over which the Treasurer had little or no control, and he said that when people were examples of the difficulty of correctly framing estimates, and when they had been largely out themselves, they were hardly the persons to call others to book who had, perhaps, done no worse.

Has the Cabinet no responsibility?

Oh, yes. The Cabinet is responsible. But it is not the rest of the members of the Cabinet who are critical. It is the other people. Continuing, he proceeded that it has been said—and in saying a few words on this subject he wished to remove the misapprehension that existed—that large sums of money were spent on relaying the permanent way. Now that was the policy of all the four colonies before Union. It was continued after Union, and every sixpence of the money that had been spent on relaying the permanent way subsequent to Union had been submitted to Parliament, and it was distributed fairly—he would not say that it was equally spread over the four Provinces—though the Cape and the Transvaal—having the longest mileage—got more than the others. He was very much surprised when he heard it said that this money might well be spent in constructing new railways. But that was against the provisions of the South Africa Act, and they could not have constructed railways out of that money even if it had been available. With regard to the regret expressed by the hon. member for Barberton at the announcement that there would be no reduction in railway rates, and that the people of the North would be dissatisfied, he would say that it had always been his endeavour to reduce railway rates.

But he would say to his hon. friend the member for Barberton that, in that respect, he (Mr. Hull) had given him very little support. When he voted in favour of the £450,000 being retained by the railway, it was the then Treasurer who pressed and insisted, and said that he had been legally advised that it was money that should come to the Treasury. He (the Minister) knew that legal opinion was in favour of the Treasurer, but he thought that it was hardly a fair course to pursue. He did not blame the hon. member for having taken that £450,000, because he was advised to that effect. But he (the Minister) did all he could to prevent that money going into the general revenue of the country.

It was in the Act of Union.

I know that, but I think that it is hardly fair for the hon. member to express regret at the fact that there are to be no further railway-rate reductions. If that money had not been taken into general revenue, there would have been £450,000 for the reduction of railway rates. Continuing, he said that the hon. gentleman who had just spoken had referred to the necessity of developing the resources of the country. He thought that if that hon. gentleman was better acquainted with the circumstances of the country, he would realise that there was a great deal more development work going on than he appeared to be aware of at the present time. In this connection the hon. member for Yeoville spoke of the life of the mines, and had said that they would probably live for another hundred years. He (the Minister) hoped that they would. He noticed, however, that the hon. member was very reticent as to the amount of gold that would be produced later on. He (the Minister) hoped that the mines would last for a hundred years, and he believed that they would; but the hon. member put it that in building up the future of the country they must look to the gold mines. He (the Minister) thought that the development of the country, outside the gold mines, had been very rapid.

If the hon. member would get the Irrigation Department to give him statistics of the works that had been completed, the works that were in course of construction, and the works that had been authorised, he would find that the development of the country in this respect had been more extensive than he apparently imagined. He was not merely referring to Government works, but works also that had been taken in hand by people who had banded themselves together. As the result of works on the Sunday’s River, the Fish River, the Breede River, and other rivers, hundreds of miles of valley land, with splendid soil, had been turned into irrigable land, and the extent of this work that had been going on was surprising. Anybody who did not know what was going on could not realise what an effect all this would have on the country in the course of the next few years. The amount of individual effort in this direction—apart from cases where several were associated in enterprises—was surprising. Still the hon. member he referred to talked as though nothing was being done. The Government gave these people all the help it could, and, in this connection, he thought that the Government of this country compared most favourably with any in the world. Then let them take agriculture generally. If they went through the Union, they would find the advance made by the farmers in the cultivation of the soil. Modern methods were being employed, and astonishing strides had been made. If they looked at the improvements which had taken place—in fencing and in paddocking—if they looked at the improved methods in farming, then they would see that the farming industry was on the high road to great progress. If they looked at the returns, they would find that in 1908 their agricultural produce exported amounted to £6,600,000; to-day it was £11,163,000—a very remarkable increase indeed. And in view of the improved methods of farming alone, the increase would be very much greater than the period for 1908.

Then, if they came to stock, they would find also that the increase was quite phenomenal. The number of cattle in 1904 was 3,500,000. In 1911 it was 5,790,000. Horses in 1904 amounted to 449,539, and in 1911 they amounted to 719,414. The increase in woolled sheep, from 1904 to 1911 amounted to 10,000,000. and in other sheep the increase was 4,300,000, so that there had been an increase of 14 to 15 millions in sheep during that period. That was a most remarkable increase, and one that spoke eloquently of the prosperity of the country. He did not think, unless they discovered new mines that the gold output would increase very much more. There were always people inside the House and outside the House who were always wise enough to tell the farmers how to manage their business, but he could tell them that if they added the exports and the food produced and consumed in the country, then, he thought, the total production of the farmers was greater than that of the mines. (Hear, hear.) This was an industry that would last for hundreds of years, and it was an industry that would help to carry the burden of the country upon its back when the gold industry had disappeared. While wishing the gold industry all prosperity, they must remember that it was a, passing industry, and, in consequence, today the expenses of government had increased very considerably. There were some things that flowed from that gold industry that were not fully to the advantage of the country. (Hear, hear.) He did not say that the time was near by when they were going to produce all they required for their own use in the country, but where it was possible to grow and manufacture certain articles that were imported, great progress was being made. He believed that South Africa would eventually produce all its requirements, and would become an exporting country, and would be able to hold its own with their competitors in other parts of the world. He did not say that they were going to be another United States, but he believed that the country had a bright future before it, and as they progressed and their agriculture advanced and the population increased, they would find, to some extent, that expenditure would increase also. Increased expenditure was not necessarily harmful, it depended whether it was necessary expenditure; and, secondly, whether it was beneficial. Wasteful expenditure was prejudicial to the public interests. If there were no increased expenditure, that simply meant stagnation. As their population increased, so would their expenditure, and he hoped that the House would assist the Government to curb its expenditure. It was not only in South Africa, that there was this tendency to increased expenditure, but all over the world. He remembered that old Cape Colony had something like 11 millions of an income, and their expenditure went up by leaps and bounds. He remembered telling his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) that unless they put a check to this expenditure he foresaw a crisis and a setback to the country. People in South Africa wanted the Government to do everything. Enterprises that the Government embarked upon should, he believed, have been done by private endeavour. (Hear, hear.) The duty of the Government was to administer the affairs of the country economically and justly, but people were continually pressing the Government for additional expenditure. He was not going to forecast what the Railway Estimates were going to be in the ensuing year, but since Union there had been great progress, and as far as he could read the signs of the times, they were going to continue upon that line. The outlook in all the States was satisfactory, although he believed that if it had not been for Union their commercial prosperity would not have been so great. He hoped the good wishes of the hon. member would be realised, and he felt confident that the country was in a sound financial position. (Cheers.)

said he did not propose to deal in detail with the Minister’s excellent speech, but to confine himself to the most uninteresting portion—namely, the public debt. He congratulated the hon. Minister of Finance for having made his speech a week earlier, because if he made it a week later he would have had to have added another £4,000,000 to the public debt. Proceeding, the hon. member said that they could not take credit for paying their sinking fund. A large part of the money was borrowed under exceptional circumstances and at a very low rate of interest. If they had not created a sinking fund they would have had to pay additional interest, for otherwise they could not have got an Imperial guarantee. In all, in two years and ten months, during a most prosperous period, they had paid £783,000 off the debt in addition to the sinking fund for which they were liable.

With regard to the public debt at Union they were told by the responsible Government at that time in an excellent speech by the first Treasurer, that the debt of 116 millions might be divided into the part on which they had to pay interest, and on which they had to provide for a sinking fund, and the part on which the railways should pay interest, and not pay to a sinking fund. It amounted to what had been called a reproductive debt, amounting to 80 millions, and a non-productive debt amounting to 36¼ millions. At Union the policy was laid down that there was no necessity for the railways to provide a sinking fund. He had great doubts about the soundness of that position, for changes in methods of transport were not unlikely to occur.

He did not say that aeroplanes were going to supersede railways, but it was impossible for anybody to say that enormous changes were not likely be occur within the next quarter or half a century. They had only to walk to the railway station in Cape Town and look at the old engine which was exhibited there to realise what changes had been made in South Africa. They might expect that even more rapid development would come. They must be prepared for great changes in the future. He would not dwell upon the possibilities of the monorail, but electric traction was practically a certain thing, and in a few years the hon. Minister would have to face the problem of electrifying some part of his railways. If electrification was inevitable for short distances, who could say that they would not be called upon to apply some other method than steam traction for long distances too. Undoubtedly the harbours were a useful asset to this country, and he noticed that 9½ millions of money had been spent upon them. He did not know by how much they had been written down, but it was decided at Union that they should not be written down any further. If their railways were a sound asset, would he be told that private individuals would buy the harbours for 9½ millions? If so, they would be bought with a view to making a profit. At present they cost £200,000 a year. The hon. member thought that in South Africa the harbours were run on the wrong principle. They were in the same position with regard to the harbours as they were with the railways. They could certainly get their harbours built to-day for a very much smaller expenditure than 9½ million pounds. There was one thing that they should keep in mind. They were apt to take up the position that everything was sound, if it would last their time. He was one of those who wanted things in the country to be put on a sound basis, which would last into the future. Was it sound policy to say they would pay as little as they could off that public debt, which was a permanent weight round the necks of the people? The Government had abandoned the policy of revenue balances being used for the redemption of debt. When the Minister gave them his Budget speech there was a loan on the London market of £4,000,000, and there appeared within a day or two of his interesting speech an article in a London paper, which said "Another point of considerable interest is that not only will the Union establish a very substantial sinking fund, but we believe some undertaking will be given that all realised surpluses will go towards the extinction of debt.” Yet this year the Minister had taken and spent the whole surplus except a paltry, £45,000. He did not think that the Minister’s speech had reached London at that time. Perhaps it was because it had since reached London that the underwriters were now left with a great deal of the present loan on their hands. (Cheers.) But supposing the country had carried out its original policy, and supposing the Treasurer’s first estimate was right, that the loan would be raised in 36 years, was that sound business? When one remembered that this was an unreproductive debt, he thought they would have to come to the conclusion that to say they were going to repay it, but they would repay it, in 36 years was not a sound financial policy. They might say that though this was not a reproductive loan it would help in the development of the country; but there was much of this debt that had been as much lost as if it had been thrown into the sea.

The Estimate of 36 years meant: Provided they did not add more to it in the meantime. Well, if in the last six years the Cape had borrowed two millions which was not reproductive to meet deficits, who was going to say that in the next 36 years they were not going to borrow more money that would be not reproductive. Who could say that there would be no native rebellion in that time? They knew the folly of such rebellions; but they had seen over and over again little tribes going to war and costing the country money. Who would guarantee that there would be no European war that would involve South Africa inside of thirty-six years? Who would guarantee that there would be no Treasurer’s deficits that would have to be made good by loans? If the public did not realise this danger ahead, statesmen should realise it and should also realise that they had to hand the country over to posterity in a good condition. He could not understand how a Government representing those who arrogated to themselves practically a monopoly of patriotism and those who talked of their sons coming after them, could be satisfied to hand down to posterity a weight of debt, a great deal of which ought to be met at the present time, but which was not being paid off. (Cheers.) He could not do anything but blame the Government, not so much for their spendings as for not putting aside a larger amount of their surpluses when they had them for the redemption of debt. During the time this Government had been in power they had had unique opportunities of putting the finances of this country on a sound basis. It was understood by everybody that immediately after Union the finances of this country would be re-organised. The Minister of Finance said the country was not in a constructive mood. When he came into office the country was in the most constructive mood it had been for the last half-century. It had just gone into Union. He supposed the Minister would tell them that the country was paralysed by that effort. But he had a docile majority and he could have gone in for some constructive legislation that would have put the finances of this country on a sound basis. It was true they had a majority now, but it was not so docile as it had been then. The Government had to be careful not to tread on the many corns of their supporters. He could not help the feeling that this patriotic Government must have come in some way under the influence of the “fortuin soekers.” He had a couple of grievances which he would like to place before the Government. The first affected the Minister of Agriculture and was in regard to the simultaneous compulsory dipping of sheep. A year or two ago there was talk of simultaneous compulsory dipping, and last year he was asked with other farmers what he thought would be the right and proper month for that dipping to be carried out. He stated the month and expected that a month would be proclaimed, but it was not. This year he had been told that he would have to dip his sheep in March, because there was going to be compulsory simultaneous dipping. At the end of February he saw a notice in the “Government Gazette” which said that simultaneous dipping should take place from March 1 to April 30, “except in the following districts.” “Except in the following districts” included practically the whole of the Western districts, a lot of the Eastern districts, and half of the Free State, and in these cases the time was extended from March 1 to November 30—simultaneous dipping extending over nine months. (Laughter.) Since then it was only fair to say that two proclamations had been issued, one saying that this had been withdrawn in regard to certain districts, and the other altering it again in certain other districts, and enforcing the original regulation that sheep must be dipped between March 1 and April 30. That appeared late on in the middle of March, when half the month had passed. Was this regulation going to be carried out? Of course, it was not. It was making an absolute farce of the whole thing. The Minister would never get rid of scab in this country if he carried on his work on the present lines. He would like to say a few words about gal-lamziekte. He did not blame the Government for not being able to do what was impossible; one hoped that it would be possible some time to discover a remedy for this disease, but it would be possible sooner the more they looked for it. He had the greatest respect for Dr. Theiler, but he did hope that he was not the only man in the universe who could deal with this question, and he certainly thought that somebody should have been appointed to continue his work while he was absent in Europe.

He wished to draw attention to a matter in connection with the railway. Formerly the railwaymen at Kimberley and Vryburg received a local allowance. During the bad times before Union this local allowance was taken off. A year ago, in response to representations, the local allowance was restored to the railwaymen at Kimberley and Vryburg stations, but the men on the stations in between were still loft without any local allowance whatever. That, he maintained, was a decided injustice. He was told that the reason was that the men at the intermediate stations had never had a local allowance, and, therefore, there was no reason why they should be given one. That did not seem to him to be a satisfactory reason at all. He was next told that the cost of living at these intermediate stations was less than it was either at Kimberley or Vryburg. He had endeavoured to find a single item in which the cost of living was less, but had been unable to find one. Such a differentiation was not in accordance with the geographical lines laid down by the Public Service Commission. The real reason, he believed, was that Kimberley was a big centre, where the men could make themselves heard. Vryburg was a comparatively large centre, but the one or two men at the stations along the line had no power of making their voices heard, and, therefore, the Administration felt they could deal with them as they liked. Continuing, he said that the fact that these men did not like their members to bring forward their letters showed that they stood in fear of the Administration. He would not go into these matters further at the present time, but he would ask the House to express an opinion when they reached the Estimates. He proceeded to deal with the regulations in connection with the removal of goods and the unloading of trucks. The regulations now in force were, comparatively speaking, new, he thought up this matter long before they were framed but no alterations in the old regulations had been made. Of course, the man who lived 10, 12, or 14 miles from a little up-country station did not count, out if such a state of affairs prevailed, say, in Cape Town, he was sure it would not last a week. He thought it was a monstrous state of affairs, and he put these grievances before the House for the reason that he could not get satisfaction else-where.

said that the Minister of Justice had made it clear that it was not the business of the Government to do anything towards the development of the country, and the same sentiment was expressed by the right hon. the member for Victoria West. He (the speaker) was not enamoured of what they were doing in this country, and contended that they were living on capital produced by the mines in the country. He pointed out that 41 million pounds worth of minerals and 12 millions of other produce had been sent out of the country. But they must remember that 36 million pounds’ worth of goods had been brought in from other countries, and he maintained that they had only given 12 millions in exchange. He was the last one to say that what they were doing now was not financially sound, but the point he wished to make was that they were living on their capital. He thought it was wrong of members to talk of the prosperity of the country as it existed to-day, because if the mines were taken away the country would be bankrupt. How were they going to develop the country on other lines? When they suggested a policy for conservation of water they heard old members say, “Foolish!” He said that South Africa had been standing still for the last 50 years, and he contended it was the duty of the Government to develop the country, because it was too big a matter for private people. He pointed out that the Commerce and Industries Commission recognised that they had got to start on the land, and his hon. friend was wrong in saying that this was extra taxation. They advocated the abolition of preferential rates, and they were supported by Chambers of Commerce, and even the minority report, in this respect. By doing this they would equalise taxation, the coastal ports would have to pay their share of the £600,000 now borne by those who used the railways. The farmer’s price of his wheat was regulated by the wheat imported in the Cape Town docks, plus duty. The consumer’s price was largely regulated by the high price that imported wheat was charged on the railways.

Continuing, the hon. member said that the producer did not get the benefit of the cheap railway rates to-day, nor did the consumer get it, and the consumer had still to pay a high rate on the imported article, which was the price the storekeeper chose to charge him, and the middleman took the profit. The same thing happened with regard to sugar and other things. For imported wheat, the railway charged for 500 miles inland 800 pence, and for South African produce 227 pence, a difference of 49s. 9d. per ton. If they took cement, it was conveyed 850 miles on the railways for 172 pence, while for the imported article the amount was 1,082 pence—a protection of £6 17s. 4d. That was the protection which the wheat industry had, and his hon. friend on his right claimed to have read the report, and said they had put on extra taxation. If they had a protective duty on cement, it would be made in Cape Town and the railways would be saved the trouble of carrying cement from one end of the country to the other. As to what the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said, what he (Sir T. M. Cullinan) had said was that they were importing with regard to dairy produce what they could have produced in that country. He dared say that they were importing more dairy produce now, but he wanted the farmers to produce more in that country. As to the railway position, they recognised that the railways had to be run on business lines. They had not acted up to clause 127 of the Act of Union, which distinctly said that the railways should not make any profit. If they took the Cape group, there was a loss of £94,000; but the O.F.S. group had made a profit of £285,000, the Transvaal group of over £1,800,000, and the Natal group of £464,000. When they had made a bargain with the inland portions of the Union, they ought to carry it out; but the hon. member for Victoria West said “No,” and did not see why they should not make a profit out of the railways. Here the Government brought in a Budget which showed no relaxation of taxation. Then, if they took the loss on the harbours, the present Minister of Justice, when he had been Minister of Railways and Harbours, told them that he would regulate the loss on the harbours, and that a charge per ton on goods imported would make up the loss. But that had not been done, and the inland people had to make up the loss on the harbours to-day. Why did not they have equalisation of taxation here? As to the interest on loan, when they had entered Union, the railways were paying interest on a certain sum, and the Act of Union said that the railways must pay interest due on capital. Thirteen millions was to be taken as capital now that had been previously paid off and on which no interest was paid at date of Union.

Oh, no.

said that the Controller and Auditor-General had said that there was a loss on rolling-stock of six millions, and no account had been taken of that. The General Manager had said that it might be much less. Most of this was in the Cape.

Oh, no.

quoted from the report of the General Manager of Railways in regard to the payment by the railways of £450,000 per annum in respect of non-interest bearing capital. Commenting on that the hon. member remarked, “If we are going on with this strictly legal point, I say it was not the intention of the Act. Let us reconsider the matter, and if the House is of opinion that this money should be paid in perpetuity, let it so decide.”

: We have decided.

said that with regard to the Railway Betterment Account we had three million in renewal funds floating about.

It is in the hands of the Public Debt Commissioners.

said the railways should be run like any other business concern, and be kept up-to-date. We were not, he hoped, going to provide everything for posterity. He maintained that we had £1,900,000, namely loss on Harbours budgeted for £337,000; Preferential rates £600,000; Interest on £1,300,000, £455,000; Betterment, £400,000; Surplus, £143,000; Total, £1,935,000; which might he used towards the reduction of railway rates. Any sympathetic Government would have done that already. The Minister of Railways had said that the rates on coal were low, but as a matter of business principle he (Sir Thomas) maintained that they should be made lower than they were today. (Hear, hear.) A company had been granted power to supply electric energy to the Rand, and as the use of motors in the place of steam engines would naturally result in a diminished consumption of coal, the extended use of electric current would seriously diminish the amount of coal carried by the railway for steam raising purposes by mines and other enterprises. He was not against the use of electric energy in fact, he believed that in ten years the trains themselves would be propelled by electric power—but would it not be better for the railway rates to be lowered, and thus prevent the electric companies doing all the business? The poor gold mines which paid more to the State than the rich ones did, had either to erect new machinery, which could be driven by electric power —and this they could not afford to do— or else they had to go under. Eventually the Victoria Falls Power Co. would take all the coal traffic away from the railways, but why should Government force the position and hasten the day when electric energy would supersede the cartage of coal? The Government should go into the matter from a business point of view. The hon. member was still speaking when

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when business was suspended he was dealing with the question of the bewaarplaatsen. The farmers, who were legislating at that time, said that they were going to give the Government such and such rights in regard to the gold, but they were going to place in the hands of the Government the control of all the minerals. Those farmers, having put their trust in the Government of the day, themselves being the Government, felt that they were quite safe. These people were entitled to half those rights, in equity, if not in law. Sir T. M. Cullinan next referred to the position in regard to the Premier Diamond Mine. He said that the Government of the day, of which the hon. member opposite (Mr. Duncan) was king, considered that it was equitable that the Government should take 60 per cent., and only give 40 per cent, to work the whole mine. The Government of the day were not the owners of the land. They were a nominated Government. They were not the owners of the soil. Was it right to-day to come and throw across the floor of that House ideas that the Government were now acting unjustly? What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. The Government must consider what the value of the Premier Mine was to-day. On this basis, the half-share which he considered they would have to hand over to shareholders, if they acted in this equitable manner, was five millions. With the two million pounds bewaarplaatsen the Government had to find seven million pounds— that was the position. Another matter which he thought they should bring in this session was the question of patent and trade marks of this country. People were being put to a lot of inconvenience. They had different conditions in the four Provinces, and if the hon. Minister would bring in a small Bill it would help the people who were working in that direction a great deal.

Hear, hear.

said he would like to say something also with regard to Excise. The question was not a difficult one, and the Government ought to tackle it. (Cheers and laughter.)

There was another question he would like to bring up—that of the rebate to other countries. They had a sort of reciprocity of 3 per cent, with Great Britain, Australia, and other countries, which amounted to £600,000 per annum. He did not agree with giving rebates, and there was no reciprocity from Great Britain. He had no objection to a contribution to the Navy, and they should make that big enough, but he thought they should not go on with that rebate system. He did not think the manufacturers really benefited by the 3 per cent., but the middlemen. The differentiation in railway rates was another question he would like to bring forward. He referred to the difference in the price of the carriage on raw material. For instance, steel compound girders were made up and then sent North as South African produce, and the raw material was charged the same as the finished article. With regard to the question of Protection, the hon. Minister had not brought in his Tariff Bill. He wanted to think out the best way of building up the industries of the country, and he thought hon. members had gone out of their way to attack the principle. The hon. member said that his remarks were made in no spirit of hostility to the Government; he considered, as a representative of the Union, that it was his duty to his constituents and to the country to give his views of what he thought was the best and the only way to build up this country, and he wanted to impress on the Government the principles he had indicated with regard to building up the industries of South Africa.

expressed his thanks to the hon. Minister for allowing the debate to be re-opened, for he thought the debate had not been wasted. He thought there had been many interesting speeches by hon. members on both sides of the House. The speaker referred in terms of eulogy particularly to the speech of the hon. member for George, who, he said, had brought forward some very interesting figures indeed. The speaker also mentioned the speeches of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, Central. There were, in addition, two good speeches made by hon. members on the other side of the House—that of the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Barberton. He had generally listened with great pleasure to the Minister of Justice, because, on whatever subject he dealt with, he always made the best of his case. He (Mr. Oliver) considered that the hon. Minister had not done himself justice in his speech that day. When he was trying to defend the Minister of Finance, his main theme was that they must not blame the Minister for bringing forward a wrong estimate, because other Ministers had done the same thing. But they ought to gain experience, and if Treasurers had made mistakes in the past, that was no reason why they should make the same kind of mistakes. In another respect, the Minister of Justice made the excuse that other people had done the same. He referred to the Railway Construction Bill. The Minister said he brought in his Railway Construction Bill at a very late time, and it was always the habit of the old Cape House to do the same thing. He (Mr. Oliver) was told that was not correct, but, in any case, the Minister would have been on better ground if he had said that he had brought in the Railway Construction Bill at a late time, because it was not the intention to put it through the House.

The Minister of Justice had taunted the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. Central (Sir E. H. Walton) with what he had done when he was Treasurer at the Cape, but had not recounted all the circumstances. There had been a crisis, and instead of the revenue realising 11 millions, it had realised more than one million less than had been budgeted for by the hon. member’s predecessor. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had had a taste of the same kind of thing that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had. He (Mr. Oliver) maintained that no Treasurer in the world could have justly estimated the revenue in those years, business men having also gone wrong. No one could have foreseen that the revenue would have dropped as it did in those years. It was an easy thing to increase expenditure, but it was not easy to reduce it—if the Minister of Finance bad had any experience of that. (The MINISTER OF FINANCE Yes.) Those of them who had been in the country for forty or fifty years knew that it was a country of surprises. He hoped that they would not have another depression, but he very much questioned whether they would go on for a number of years without having a set-back. He agreed with a great deal of what, the hon. member for. Barberton (Mr. Hull) had said, especially as to what he had said about railway matters; but he did not agree with certain things which the hon. member had said. The hon. member began to bless the Government, and then went on another tack; and if there had been one speech in the debate that was detrimental to the Government, it was that of the hon. member, for not only had he charged them with wasteful and extravagant expenditure, but he had gone into two departments—that of railways and agriculture—and said that there had been unnecessary waste.

said that he had never referred to the Agricultural Department. He had not said there was waste, but had referred to matters which led to waste.

said he understood the hon. member had referred to the Agricultural Department, and, at any rate, that he had referred to some other department than the Railway Department. While the hon. member had commenced by blessing the Government, he had wound up—he would not say by cursing the Government—but had pointed out their errors. The hon. member himself had been two years in the Government, and now blamed things he had consented to when he was in the Government.

Read my speech of last year.

said they were dealing with his speech of the present year. He was at one with the hon. member for Pretoria District, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan), as regards differential railway rates, and he would like to see them abolished. He objected to those rates for the following reason: that while they carried Colonial produce at cost, and in some cases below cost, the up-country consumer did not benefit by it. Whilst that was done, in order to make up the deficiency caused by that, they paid far more for their imported goods than they ought to pay. He would rather see the rates equal, and if the producers suffered, he would rather see them get it in another way. He had understood the hon. member to say that the middleman got all the profit, but he did not agree with that. If a bag of wheat could be got at Cape Town for 20s., it could be sold there for 18s., were it not for the 2s. duty. The producer, say, at Malmesbury, got 20s. now, but he would only get 18s. if there were no duty. The producer actually got more than 20s., because any up-country buyer would pay more for Colonial wheat than for imported wheat, as he had to pay 2s. or 3s. a bag more for the carriage of imported wheat on the railways than wheat grown in the country. It even paid the producer to sell his wheat to the up-country consumer, and then buy imported wheat for himself, for his own use.

said that the hon. member had misunderstood him, and pointed out how it would be advantageous to have the duty paid at the ports.

continuing, said that when the hon. member said that they were giving the oversea producer £600,000 on account of the 3 per cent, rebate, he could not agree with him. Who got the benefit? The consumer in this country. (Sir T. M. CULLINAN: The middleman.) No; competition was such in this country that the middleman did not get the profit. As to what the hon. member for Victoria West had said, he had taunted that (the Opposition) side that while they objected to unnecessary and extravagant expenditure, they had cried out for a contribution to the Navy. If the hon. member had been present he would have said to him that they on that (the Opposition) side of the House made a difference between their just obligations and the expenditure of money on such things as Barbary ostriches and marble palaces. Referring to the naval contribution, Mr. Oliver said he looked upon that as an insurance premium. (Hear, hear.) Up to the present the Transvaal and Free State had had that insurance entirely at the cost of the British Government, but the Cape and Natal had given a small contribution, although nothing like the cost of the insurance. In the old days, when our revenue was very much smaller than it was now, the Cape felt justified in giving £50,000 to the Navy, and Natal £35,000, making a total of £85,000. But was £85,000 a fair contribution seeing that now it also included the Transvaal and the Free State? (A MINISTERIAL MEMBER: “More expenditure.”) He did not expect all the people of this country to look at this matter from an Imperial standpoint, but he wished to put it to them from the standpoint of self-interest. Supposing the time should come when the British Navy would not be able to defend our trade routes, and supposing that Navy were wiped out, what would be our position? Some people argued that we could defend South Africa against all comers, but it would not be necessary for a foreign fleet to land a single man to bring us to our knees. All that the enemy would have to do would be to stop the sea-borne trade of the country. There would be no occasion to bombard our ports, and in six months we should be bankrupt. (Mr. J. M. RADEMEYER: “Six years.”) It was to the best interests of this country that we should do all we possibly could to assist Great Britain in retaining the command of the sea. (Opposition cheers.)

Continuing, Mr. Oliver said it had been admitted that South Africa was passing through a time of great prosperity, but the question arose whether we were justified in increasing our expenditure so as to live up to the whole of our income. In his opinion we were not. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Finance’s statement for the year 1912-13 was a very satisfactory one, and certain increased items of expenditure were absolutely justified. Although he was a member of the Opposition, he was prepared to admit that in many things the Government were deserving of credit. (Ministerial cheers.) For instance, if the Government had not increased the expenditure on Defence, and had not tried to rectify the deficiencies in the salaries of the Cape Civil Servants, it would have been neglecting its duty. Many things the Government had done met with the approval of the Opposition and of the country, but was the Government justified in increasing the expenditure to such a large extent? It was very easy to do that, but it would be a very difficult matter with the increased Civil Service and with large sums to pay in interest, to cut the expenditure down again. Unfortunately, when the Minister of Finance found that he had a million more than he had expected, he brought in supplementary estimates—he looked round the country to see how he could get rid of this surplus.

: You disapprove of that?

The hon. member himself said he disapproved of it, and if he did not he ought to have. (Laughter.) Proceeding, Mr. Oliver said that when they came to the Estimates of 1913-14, they found that the Minister budgetted for over a million deficiency. Thus, not only swallowing up the net gains of previous years, but leaving a large deficiency. When the Union wanted the small amount of four millions, people would not lend it, but if the Minister had cut down his expenditure it would have had a good effect on the money market of the world. It would have been wiser for the Minister to have cut his coat according to his cloth. He would like to say a word or two about the sinking fund. The surplus left over from last year, according to our law, ought to have gone to the reduction of debt. He put it to hon. members that they should go into those figures and consider whether we were in times of prosperity contributing what we ought to do towards the sinking fund. (A VOICE: “More than enough.”) He would also like to refer to the Pension Fund. Speaking of the Pension Fund in connection with the Cape Colony before Union, he had no hesitation in saying that then, at any rate, it was in a bankrupt state. What had been done? He found, according to the Estimates, that the Railway Department were preparing for it. He believed they were voting £75,000 a year for ten years in order to accumulate a sum of £750,000 for the Railway Pension Fund. If that were a wise course, why not do something on similar lines in days of prosperity towards building up a Pension Fund in connection with the general administration of this country? He could not find that anything had been placed on the Estimates for that purpose. It was the duty of the Treasurer and the House to see that the Pension Fund was put on a fair basis.

The hon. member went on to say that in the course of the debate reference had been made to the improvement in production in this country. They had been told that our exports amounted to £62,000,000, of which minerals and precious stones accounted for £49,000,000, and about 12 millions for other products. He welcomed the improvement as far as it had gone, but he thought there was still great leeway to be made up. We were importing some 35 millions of products from oversea, and we were only sending out 12 millions of products, so that but for the minerals we should be bankrupt at once. Now, minerals would not last for ever, and he was one of those who said that we ought to take the opportunity of building up something which would eventually take their place. We were in a position, if we acted wisely, to supply other markets with many of our products. He knew it had been said that it was hardly a fair comparison to say that we were exporting about 50 millions of minerals and precious stones, and only exporting about 12 millions of other products, because, while we did not consume in this country any of the gold and diamonds, we were consuming far more of the other products than we exported. Well, he did not know whether we raised of other products 50 millions to-day. (A VOICE: “More.”) He did not know how the hon. member could say how we consumed 50 millions of the products of this country. Alluding to immigration, he said that they had passed a law which might have been very useful, but it seemed to him that it was only used to keep people out of this country. There seemed to be a fear on the part of those who held land that it might be wanted for land settlement schemes There was no need to touch any land in private hands for that purpose. We had millions of morgen of unoccupied land to-day available for settlement. The Government had obtained a large tract of country from the Rhodesian Railways at a very small cost. That land could be made fit for occupation at once at a very small expenditure upon tapping the underground waters and conserving them. It might be a very good thing for the Government that the railway and general estimates were combined for the purposes of this debate, but he was not sure that it was wise to combine these matters, because it made it impossible for a speaker to do justice to both without wearying the House.

Proceeding, the hon. member expressed his appreciation of the manner in which the Minister of Finance had sat through the whole of the debate, and listened closely to the arguments of those who were criticising the Budget speech. There were other Ministers who had not thought it desirable to remain in the House while hon. members were speaking on matters connected with their departments. He thought it was only ordinary courtesy to have done so. He was amused at a complaint in the public Press with regard to himself that every year he brought forward the injustices of up-country people. Well, that was why they sent him; if he did not state their complaints and their injustices, he would not be doing his duty. Certain hon. members representing coast constituencies had also brought forward their complaints, and thought they were entitled to do so. Proceeding, he said he was very sorry to hear the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours could not look forward to any reduction of up-country rates.

I said, in the near future.

said he regretted that the hon. Minister thought that the statement was necessary. When they came into Union, they were told by gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury benches that Union would mean a great reduction in the cost of administration. He did not think it was so. The Administration was on a higher scale than before they went into Union. They were told that the Railway Administration made a profit of over two million pounds a year, and that when they came into Union, on business lines, the profit would be entirely wiped out, and they would get the advantage of that profit made in years gone by. They had got some of it, but not all. They were building up some very large reserve funds, but it was not necessary that they should go on for ever. The railway reserve fund would eventually be sufficient, and then was the amount paid year by year to go to the benefit of the people paying rates? It was only right that the people that had been paying for the betterment of the railways should reap the benefit of it. For that reason, he was very much disappointed that in the near future they were not to have improvement. He maintained that some of the charges on the railway, especially in the Transvaal, were excessive, and as pointed out by the hon. member for Pretoria, North, if they did not reduce those rates, they were going to lose that trade. Where there had been a profit, made out of the carriage of goods, was it fair and reasonable that that amount should be added to the capital of the railway? To pay interest on their own profit was not a fair proposition. Up-country people were actually charged interest on their own money.

It was stated that they were carrying on the harbours and railways on business lines; that was not so—nothing like it. They had harbours on which a great deal of money had been spent. The business principle would be to make the people who used these harbours pay for services rendered. Surely people who received those services should contribute towards the deficiency? But what was the position? The up-country people were called upon to pay more for their cost of living, and those very people were having to pay for the whole of that deficiency. There was no getting away from that. The money was taken from the railway profit. Was it? fair proposition that those people should have to pay for services rendered to others? He quite agreed that there could be no reduction of rates if the Railway Administration was carried on as in the past. Certainly there were lines of the Union—main lines—which were paying magnificent profits, but year by year they were building and developing lines which were not likely to pay. He was in favour of developing the railways, but on business principles. If the losses on developing lines were to be continued, and these losses had to come out of the railway profits, the up-country rates would be increased, because, instead of there being a profit, there would be a loss. The business lines were these: that if they built developing lines which would not be likely to pay for some time, let them carry out the clause of the Act of Union which dealt with the matter. Was the House going to accept the full responsibility of a new railway line without a full knowledge of the circumstances, and whether the line was likely to pay or not? It was the duty of that House to see that the Railway Board carried out its functions, and the Board should report whether such a line was likely to pay or not. If there was likely to be a loss, the Railway Board should recommend to the House what should be done in regard to that loss. The hon. member went on to say that the ports were also going to benefit by developing lines. The people living on the coast did not pay a brass farthing towards the cost of these developing lines. He was glad to see that he had the Prime Minister with him, and he hoped that he would have the Cabinet with him, too. Dealing with some of the anomalies of railway rates, the hon. member said that they could get up a truckload of galvanised iron tanks at a lower rate per 100 lbs. than galvanised iron, although ten times as much galvanised iron could be sent in one truck compared with galvanised iron tanks. If there must be heavier taxation, let it be put on those who were able to bear it; but he would like to point out that a salary of £30 per month, which had been referred to, was not too much for a man living in the interior who had a family to keep; and as to 3s. 6d. a day, it was a starvation wage. (Labour cheers.) They were all prepared to meet heavier taxation, if it were necessary; but let there be no waste. The hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours threw it at him that it was extravagant to pay a man a living wage, but it was true economy. He could not agree with everything that members of the Labour Party had said with regard to white labour, because in some industries it was impossible to pay 10s. a day, and coloured labour was necessary, but he did agree with them that to give a man 3s. 5d. a day was an injustice. The hon. member went on to deal with a statement made by the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) in regard to the importation of contract labour. He said that the hon. member had given him the names of two firms, and he had written to them that a statement had been made in the House that they got assistants from Europe at a lower rate of pay than they gave to assistants who did the same class of work in this country. He had received replies, which he proceeded to read. One was to the effect that the firm did not import assistants at a rate of pay which, added to the cost of passage, was less than the market rate for local hands, and the assistant, by paying the passage money again, could give one calendar month’s notice. No assistant, as far as the firm was aware, had ever given them notice under that clause, and they had never engaged an assistant on the other side of the water unless there was a vacancy. The other reply was to the effect that the firm only got assistants from Europe when they could not get assistants in South Africa. South African assistants were preferred because of their better acquaintance with local conditions, and being more used to the climatic conditions.

said it was stated that a lot of money was wasted on the harbours, but where would Kimberley have been without the harbours? (Laughter.) There were only four ports in the Union, and they should be kept up to date at all costs, for if the country were developed by means of railways the ports must be developed as well. We could not do without the ports.

You can’t do without Kimberley.

said it seemed to him that if an up-country member was at a loss for an argument he blackguarded the ports. (Laughter.) With regard to Cape Town, conditions were so rapidly changing and ships were increasing in size to such an extent, that it was necessary that increased accommodation should be provided. Then the amount of work being done at Durban was marvellous. He would be very sorry to see the time come when people would object to money being spent on the ports. Money would have to be spent at Durban, which required a new dock. This was essentially a farmers’ Parliament, with a few merchants, and no one seemed to realise the necessity of keeping the ports fairly up to date. As the landing appliances were improved, so the up-country merchants benefited in the shape of reduced dock charges. By a stroke of the pen the General Manager of Railways could so alter the accounts as to show a profit on the ports, and he (Mr. Searle) would be willing to show how it could be done. (Laughter.) If he were allowed to take over the ports as a business enterprise, he would guarantee to pay the whole of the interest on the capital and show a profit as well. Until the ports were properly equipped we should not be in a position to grapple with the increased exports we expected to have in the future.

Port Elizabeth, went on Mr. Searle, had been the most sadly neglected port on the coast. (Cheers.) The whole of the Midland people realised that Port Elizabeth had been badly treated. One reason for Government’s neglect of it in the past was because of the admirable way in which the harbour officials had carried on the work in the face of difficulties. In fact, an expert had reported that the manner in which the landing work was done there with lighters was second to none in the world. (Cheers.) Port Elizabeth had now come to the end of its tether until it had increased facilities. Years ago, 400,000 tons a year was thought to be the maximum amount of cargo that could be handled there per annum, but now Port Elizabeth was handling over 800,000 tons a year. Having remarked that the Midland line showed the largest profit of any line in the Union, no matter how the figures were jerrymandered — (laughter) — Mr. Searle paid a warm tribute to Colonel Nicholson’s report on Algoa Bay, it being one of the best documents of its kind on that port that he had ever seen during his many years connection with Port Elizabeth. A few years ago the sum of £80,000 was put on the Estimates for the extension of the Dom Pedro Jetty, but nothing had been done in the matter. His object in rising was, firstly, to correct those members who were so persistent in looking upon harbours as things that could be dispensed with. He would like to appeal to the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he brought forth his railway measures, not only to do justice to Algoa Bay, but to do a little more than even the late Minister tried to do or did.

said that he proposed to be frankly provincial, and to leave questions of high finance to more able critics. He might have gone into the question of whether in times of prosperity they should budget for a deficit, or whether the State should or should not surrender the bewaarplaatsen, and several other questions that had been raised in the course of this debate. He might refer to the legislation before them, such as the Carnarvon Commonage, the North Barrow Lands, and the Wines, Spirits, and Vinegar Bill. It seemed to him an amazing thing that more importance should be attached to the question of whether there should be ten per cent, more of sugar in beer than the settlement of the very important native question. He felt that the whole system was wrong which allowed any portion of the Union to suffer as his Province suffered at the present moment. They considered themselves to be the Cinderella State, and, he thought, when he had made the few remarks he had to make, there would be some in agreement with him that they had some grounds of complaint. One would have thought, after what had been done in the past, after the great sacrifices they had made, that there would be some sort of desire, some sort of wish to give that smaller and weaker Province something more fairly in proportion to what the others were receiving. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Free State should get more generous treatment than it had hitherto received. So far as the Free State was concerned, Union had been a bad thing. (Ministerial cries of dissent.)

Turning to the question of the railways the hon. member said that last year the Minister of Justice made a statement that the Free State workshops were in a state of the greatest possible efficiency, and he quoted figures to show that that was so. Undoubtedly they were most central, and if they were properly equipped could do really good work. What was their reward? In the Estimates the Transvaal had nearly a million, the Cape a million, and Natal a million, whereas the Free State workshops had £200,000. They were told they could not do the work. The real reason was they were not furnished with the required equipment. It was recognised by authorities on the matter that the work could be done and should be done. What they took to be a promise of £75,000 had been made, but they looked in vain for that amount in the Estimates. They saw that Muizenberg was to have a new railway station built, but there was no money to spend on the roof of the engine sheds in Bloemfontein, and the Wynberg-Muizenberg line was being duplicated while there were thousands of miles in the up-country districts calling out for railway development. In the Cape the loss on branch lines was over £212,000; Natal, £108,000; Transvaal, £101,000; and the Free State only £19,000. The mileage loss was: Transvaal, £289; Cape, £163; Natal, £147; and the Free State, £79. The people in the Free State were paying more than their fair share of the loss on the branch lines throughout the country. He hoped that they might receive better treatment. The statements he had made indicated the position occupied by the Free State in railway matters, and he could go on indefinitely multiplying such instances.

Under the general Budget their position was infinitely worse. Let them compare the salaries paid to the officials of the Free State with the salaries paid to officials anywhere else. Magistrates, Government analysts, postal officials, in every case the Free State officials were paid less. The hon. member went on to quote instances, firstly of a young man who had admittedly done good service, but after three years of work was in exactly the same position as he was when he started. Another instance was that of certain professional men in Bloemfontein who had qualified as analysts and did an important technical work after eight years without any increase of salary and suddenly they found the word “assistant” placed before their names to prevent their reaching a higher rate of pay. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the case of an official in the Registrar of Deeds Office in Bloemfontein, who had, he said, twelve officials under him, and received a salary of between £400 and £500, while a similar official in Natal, who had only nine officers under him, received a salary of between £500 and £600. The Administrator of the Free State himself had complained of this unequal treatment, and a high official of the Prime Minister’s own department had stated that, in his opinion, the Free State clerks did not come out well in regard to the adjustment scheme, as applicable to them. Continuing, the hon. member said that he was only afraid that when he had brought that matter forward, a promise would be made that the matter would be dealt with; but the time had arrived for them in the Free State to say that they were tired of promises. If the Prime Minister were placed in the position of the Free Stater, he might appreciate what he (the hon. member) was trying to do on behalf of the Free State. He was not prepared blindly to follow the lines which were laid down. The Free State was a purely agricultural community, but what had been done there in regard to agriculture? They had heard so much of the development that was going to take place there since Union. He represented a purely agricultural district, and they had not a Scab Inspector there to whom they could look for information and advice. The sum of £10,000 had been promised for an Agricultural College in the Free State. The Minister made an inspection of the property, and cancelled the sale. Another promise was then made to place £5,000 on the Estimates for another college. What had happened? The same thing again. The money had been “saved.” They had purchased a piece of ground, and for the third time they had the sum of £5,000 on the Estimates, and he thought a great deal more than that could have been placed there. He himself had spent more on a building than that. The farce was continued. A sum of money was set down for a principal, but where were they going to put him? He must again protest against that niggardly treatment of the Free State, for not a sixpence had been spent in it on an Agricultural College, for which they had been waiting three years, and had had three promises made. Then they had a Bursary Fund of the sum of £110,000, which they had themselves collected, but with Union it had gone to the redemption of public debt, and the Administrator of the Free State had said to his own Council that there was no longer that separate fund for the continuation of Free State bursaries. What they complained of was that these bursaries the money for which they had themselves collected were not earmarked any longer for Free State boys. The sum of £233,000 had been set aside for public works out of which the Free State was to get £11,600, and, judging by past experience, he expected a very large portion of that would be saved. The General Post Office at Bloemfontein was wholly inadequate, and so, too, were the buildings set apart for the use of the Appeal Court. Why the sum of £70,000 should be placed on the Estimates for the new residence of the Governor-General, when Bloemfontein could not get money for an Appeal Court, was a thing no fellow could understand. However, he supposed all this sort of thing was good enough for the Free State. Up to the present the Free State members had accepted the position, but so far as he was concerned he was tired of having nothing but promises, and they had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when they ought to make themselves heard. The Free State came into the Union with a debt of only £50 per head, and because it had been frugal it had been made to suffer. The Free State might be small and inconsiderable, but it did hurt them when they heard the Ministers in their speeches refer to the Cape, Natal, and the Transvaal, but very rarely did they trouble to mention the Free State at all. The Free Staters had no objection to seeing the Prime Minister sitting with his lips glued to the fair cheeks of Natal—(laughter)—but they did object, while he was engaged in that pursuit, to his dipping his hand into their pockets.

Proceeding, Mr. Fichardt said he wished to refer to the dismissal of their Minister from the Cabinet. Did the Prime Minister think that the Free State was satisfied with the present state of affairs and was quietly going to accept that position? What the Free State members wanted to know was, was it the party that required the Free State member to be turned out of the Cabinet, or was it somebody else? (Hear, hear and laughter.) Did the Prime Minister think that the reasons he gave in his manifesto for the dismissal of General Hertzog were accepted as sufficient by the Free State people? If he did, he was sadly out of touch with the Free Staters. If they in the Free State were to be sacrificed in order to secure one or two doubtful votes in Natal, then he could understand it. Sins which were given as the reason for the dismissal of General Hertzog were sins which were allowed to be committed by other members of the Ministry with impunity. They were told, if they might quote from the Prime Minister’s manifesto, that for the Prime Minister to continue with General Hertzog was to see the two races divided into two hostile camps. He did not know by what process of argument or logic the Prime Minister arrived at the judgment that it was better then to have three hostile camps in South Africa. That was what his policy led to. Another reason given was that the Minister was frivolous. Ye gods, what a crime!

Then he had ridiculed conciliation. He would like to say here that it would be impossible for anybody to make conciliation more ridiculous than its present advocates. Could anything be more ridiculous than some of the expressions that they had heard on this subject? For whom were they provided? For the visitors in the drawing-room, and all the while they knew that the family in the back parlour were fighting like Kilkenny cats. If there were to be any conciliation at all, that conciliation should first of all certainly be among themselves. He was sick of this talk about conciliation. The great bulk of the people in this country—English-speaking and Dutch-speaking—were manly people, and they were sick of this slobbering over one another. If they wanted conciliation at all, let them talk less about it. If they wanted conciliation let them join together in undertaking some large work—a work which was more likely to bring the people together than for everlasting prating this mawkish sentiment about conciliation, which there was no necessity for in South Africa. The Free State were not satisfied, and they would remain dissatisfied until some better reason was given for the dismissal of their Minister. They knew that General Hertzog never departed from the principles of his party—(hear, hear)—and they were, therefore, unable to see why he was driven out. And in any case, whether there were sufficient reasons for his dismissal or not, it was due to the Free State that a public statement should be made in connection with that dismissal in that House. If they were to look for a precedent for it he need only refer to what had happened on the occasion of the resignation of the Minister of Finance, when there was not only great inquisitiveness on the other side, but they desired to get the fullest possible statement of the whole matter, so that the whole people might know the reason of the dismissal. Up to the present they had had nothing. Why? Well, he supposed it was because the Minister came from the Free State, and following along that line of treating the Free State with neglect, it was unnecessary to make such declaration. He did not know whether other members were satisfied with the treatment which the Free State had received, but they would find that their constituents were not satisfied, and he felt sorry for them when their constituents had dealt with them. It was not a pleasant duty for him, but he desired to warn the Prime Minister there and at that time that he was overstraining the loyalty of the Free State to such an extent that it was perilously near the breaking point. The Free State had given in the past unselfish loyalty, and that loyalty had been of the greatest possible value to the Government. What had they received in return? Nothing but neglect, and their interests entirely disregarded. They had a right to expect that they would not be penalised for their loyalty. They expected to receive at least the same consideration as other Provinces. The Free State meant to have in future its fair share of the good things that the Government had to offer.

moved the adjournment of the debate. (General laughter.)

assured hon. members that he had no intention of speaking for any great length of time. Proceeding, he said it was almost impossible for him to sit still long after the very eloquent speech they had just listened to from his hon. friend the hon. member for Ladybrand. The speech had filled him with amazement for two reasons: one was the reference to the general complaints of the Free State, and the other was what he might almost call the most disloyal and almost unmannerly attack upon the gentleman who was still supposed to be the hon. member’s leader, for he still sat there behind the Prime Minister. (Ministerial cheers.) On no occasion until that moment had he heard his hon. friend the hon. member for Ladybrand, either publicly or privately, say anything to show that he intended to express want of confidence in the hon. gentleman who was his professed leader. On the contrary, shortly after that Parliament met, he remembered seeing in the Bloemfontein “Friend” a contribution by the hon. member in which he advised the gentleman whom he now referred to as the Free State Minister, dismissed from the Cabinet, to remember that he was a young man, and that it was best for him to retire from Parliament for some time, as he had ample time later on to show what a great South African he was. He advised General Hertzog not to split the party, but to try and keep the party together. (Ministerial cheers.) He had puzzled his brains since his hon. friend had spoken as to that volte face.

What has happened ?

said that he believed that his hon. friend had had some hint from one portion of his constituency that it was best for him to jump off the fence, and that lit was best to jump off on that side on which he was that night. He (Mr. Botha) had objected to the Cabinet, as a whole, because of the policy which they had endeavoured to carry out, or rather, the absence of policy. But he could assure that House that he did not think a single member of the House but was concerned with the stab in the back given to the Prime Minister that evening. He could only explain that extraordinary exhibition they had listened to as the result of a considerable amount of inexperience and impetuosity on the part of his hon. friend. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) was far more learned in the ways of Parliament than the hon. member for Ladybrand. The hon. member for Barberton had the audacity to get up and criticise the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance, which was on the same lines as that introduced by himself for two years. The hon. member desired very much that the members on the Opposition side of the House should pull the chestnuts out of the fire for him, but he must not think that they were going to be so childish and simple as to be taken in by him, and pull out the chestnuts which he wanted to pull out. He believed that the hon. member for Barberton was as strong and as violent an opponent of the Prime Minister as the hon. member for Ladybrand had just said. He believed that the hon. member for Barberton wanted to get them (the Opposition) to declare themselves to support the Prime Minister, and that this way would be the best way of damning the Prime Minister. He did not need to say anything about that, because he thought that the leader of the Opposition was quite capable of directing the course of the Opposition without taking the advice of the hon. member for Barberton. They were not at that stage going to interfere with the Prime Minister and some of his unruly supporters; it was no business of theirs at present. It was no business of theirs whether General Hertzog was a member of the Cabinet or not. They objected to the Cabinet, as a whole, and if they could turn them out they would do so. The hon. member for Ladybrand and others, who were trying to undermine the influence of the Prime Minister, had not the moral courage to stand up and show by their vote that they had no confidence in the Prime Minister There was plenty of room on the Opposition side of the House—(laughter)—and if there were any gentlemen on the Ministerial benches who were not satisfied with the Government, let them come out into the open manfully.

The hon. member for Ladybrand had spoken, not only as a representative of Ladybrand, but as the representative of the Free State. Up to the present, however, he (Mr. Botha) had not felt that his hon. friend represented the Free State. As to the hon. member’s threats as to what their constituents would do with the Free State members if they did not support him, if the hon. member went to the Free State he would find that it was not so entirely at one with him in regard to the crisis as the hon. member would like the House to believe. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member was going a little too far when he asserted that the Free State was going to let its members hear about it if they did not follow the hon. member for Ladybrand. He thought the hon. member had jumped off the fence much too soon, and also he had jumped off on the wrong side of the fence. (Ministerial laughter.) As to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk), he (Mr. Botha) did not know much about that gentleman’s constituency, except that he knew that it had returned the hon. member. (Laughter.) As to the extreme neglect under which the Free State had suffered under Union, he (Mr. Botha) agreed with the hon. member for Ladybrand, but he was amazed that he never had the hon. member’s support when he (Mr. Botha) brought forward these grievances in the early days of the Union. During the last three years he had tried to impress upon the House the unfairness and the injustice which the Free State citizens had suffered. What support had he got? Had he ever had the support of the hon. member for Ladybrand? In any of the divisions had the hon. member helped him to get these wrongs rectified? No, he had constantly supported the Government. He now came forward suddenly with this as a stick wherewith to beat the Cabinet in matters in which he himself had supported them. Let them now endeavour—and the hon. member spoke for the Free State members—to pull as much as possible out of the wreck, and get the Government to grant to the Free State Civil Servants, at any rate, tardy justice. The bursary refund had been referred to; what about the National Bank fund? What about the three-quarter million? (An HON. MEMBER: “Bridges.”) Who was responsible for that but the late Minister of Finance? Who was responsible for “collaring” all that money and paying it into Union funds? They were waiting for their roads and their bridges. An hon. member said there were six bridges in Bloemfontein, but Bloemfontein had paid for them. At this point the hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.