from P. Brocklebank, who entered the service of the Natal Government Railways in 1900, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

from J. G. Putterill and 88 others, inhabitants of Harrismith, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief, and a similar petition from E. E. Watkeys and 723 others, inhabitants of Bloemfontein.

a similar petition from the Reverend L. S. Creed and others, inhabitants of Woodstock and Salt River.

a similar petition from J. M. Fisher and others, inhabitants of Alice, Victoria East.

read the following message to the Senate: The House of Assembly transmits herewith for the information of the Hon. the Senate a resolution adopted this day in reference to the message from the Hon. the Senate dated the 13th February, viz.: That the question 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 power to such Select Committees to delegate their powers to such of their members as may see fit for the purpose of such conference, and that the hon. the Senate be informed by message accordingly.

moved: That Messrs. C. L. Botha and H. W. Sampson be members of the Select Committee on subject matter of University of South Africa Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

was about to put the question that a message be sent to the Senate, stating that this House concurred in the amendments, when

rose and said he would like to mention a point in connection with the Dutch translation of “King’s warehouse.” He saw that it was given in the Bill as “Staatspakhuis.”

I am only dealing with the amendments made in the Senate. There is nothing else before the House.

asked whether it was not necessary to have a definition of Marine League?

The only matter before the House is the amendments made by the Senate.

The message to the Senate was formally approved.

moved that the fifth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts be adopted, which was agreed to.

proceeding with his speech, recapitulated some of the statements which he had made the previous evening in regard to the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) and the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull). The hon. member said that the hon. member for Barberton had also thought fit to twit the Opposition with not demanding from the Prime Minister an explanation as to the policy which he proposed to follow when he had formed the new Government. As far as the Opposition were concerned, the Government consisted of exactly the same personnel of which it consisted the previous year, with two exceptions. One gentleman from Natal had been substituted by another, and he did not think that they, on his side of the House, were so curious to know in what respect these two gentlemen differed from one another. Another gentleman, from the Free State, had been dropped out of the Cabinet. It might be interesting to them to see the dispute going on in the country, but so far as they (the Opposition) were concerned they had seen no particular change in the policy of the Government. One was always trying to find the reason for people’s conduct, and when he had read the speech of the hon. member for Barberton, he began to puzzle his brains as to what the reason was for the hon. member’s extraordinary curiosity, and the extraordinary methods by which he tried to satisfy that curiosity. If the House would permit him, he would give what he thought was an explanation. It was that the hon. member for Barberton was trying to get members on the Opposition side of the House to declare themselves very strong supporters of the Prime Minister; and when the hon. member did that he must do so with an object. It had struck him (Mr. Botha)—and he asserted it in the hope that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) would meet that assertion—that the hon. member had twitted them in order that he might use a stick with which to beat the Prime Minister. Was it not clear that the hon. member relied upon the racial question, and that it was the object of the hon. member, and those who had preceded him, and were ready to follow him with that weapon, that they were endeavouring to charge the Prime Minister with being supported in his Cabinet by the British section of the community. (Cheers, and an HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.) He did not think that weapon or that stick was as strong as the hon. member for Barberton thought. He thought that when he came to use that stick too frequently it would break in his hands. He did not believe that the Dutchmen of South Africa were going to allow themselves to be used in that degrading fashion. He appealed to the House and the country to see that they were not going to carry on their politics in that fashion, and that they realised that they must not run in parallel streams, so that mischief-makers could not make use of those parallel streams, and set the one section up against the other. The question was whether they were going to be so simple-minded and foolish, even supposing for one moment that they were inclined to say that in that squabble between the two Ministers they declined to support the Prime Minister. He did not think members on the Opposition side of the House were going to be so simple-minded as to be used in that fashion by the hon. member for Barberton and those who thought with him. Members on the Opposition side of the House had not entered into that squabble because it was not their affair; but they were honestly trying to see that the Government carried on legislation for the benefit of the whole country, and not for the benefit of one section or one race. (Cheers.) Might he say to the Prime Minister that he had been, he might almost say, grossly insulted by people sitting on his (the Government) side of the House, on account of this conciliation policy. To a large extent, he thought that the Prime Minister deserved it, because he should have grasped that nettle from the very first; but he had been weak enough to be steered hither and thither by the mischief-makers behind him, who wanted to lead him into the racial camp. The proper attitude for the Prime Minister at the time of Union, when he had got a unique opportunity which he thought would never occur again, would have been to lay the foundation-stone of the Union on a pure, non-racial basis. He had declined to do it, not because he himself thought it was wrong, but because he thought the forces behind him were so strong that he could not do it. He hoped that when that nettle came again the Prime Minister would seize it with firm hands. He had heard it, and he thought every South African had heard it, that unless one barked loudly one was suspected of not being a true South African.

The members of the Free State knew that the trouble never was whether Dutch should be taught in the schools or not. There was never any trouble over this matter among the people of the Free State, but there was a question whether they could force these things down people’s throats. The compulsory teaching of a language was offered freely as a settlement of the language question; it was refused, because the protagonist insisted upon making the teaching of both languages compulsory. He defied any member of the Free State to say that the Free State desired to interfere with people in the use of their own language. Upon this false basis they had now got an idol who was held up to them as the only one who stood up for the Dutch people.

This reputation was a false reputation, and it was bound to fail. Patriotism was a word that they derived from the Romans, who had said and who had taught that patriotism came from the soil and belonged to the soil, and the sooner they recognised in South Africa that, no matter what language a man spoke, as soon as he belonged to the soil he became a South African, the better it would be for the country. (Opposition cheers.) As soon as they recognised that, so soon would they make an end of the weapons that had been used against the Prime Minister. He had had no intention of speaking upon the subject in this manner, and he only wished, with regard to the general question, to make another appeal to the Prime Minister, and he hoped in this respect he would have the support of his hon. friend the member for Ladybrand. He heard that they were going to establish a certain portion of the Defence Force at Bloemfontein. This would not only do good to the whole of the Free State, but also to the whole of South Africa, because they would have a force located centrally, which could be better used as a striking force if necessary, but they had also cantonments there adequately equipped with water. He made this appeal for the establishment of such a force, in the first instance, because his constituency was interested in it, and, secondly, because it would be a step in the right direction. There were several grievances which he might bring forward, but he would like to leave them until they came to the Estimates. After the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand, he now felt that he could count upon his support. He had now convinced him, at least, that if they wanted anything from the Government it did not do to be meek and mild to them—not too much of a sheep. If they wanted something they must treat the Government in a manly way. If he might give his hon. friend one word of advice—which he knew he would not follow—because he always took the psychological moment at the wrong time—(laughter)—it would be that now he had taken up a definite stand, let him stick to it manfully, and let him show that he had no confidence in the Prime Minister. It was not fair to sit behind the Prime Minister and shoot at him. Of course, they would all be glad to see him on their side of the House, but they would not be prepared to accept him as a member of their party unless he was prepared to subscribe to their principles. (Laughter and hear, hear.)

said the last speaker had been astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand, but personally he (Mr. Steyl) was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, who had spoken a lot and talked for a long time but said very little. He hoped the Government would not attach too much importance to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein had said. He wanted to put himself forward as the champion for the Free State, and that was why he was so much opposed to the hon. member for Ladybrand. As a matter of fact neither hon. member was the champion of the Free State. The hon. member for Bloemfontein had tried in vain to climb on the back of the hon. member for Ladybrand, and when he saw that had tried to get on the back of the hon. member for Barberton. It was too slippery, however, and the hon. member came off. His knowledge of the Free State was really not very considerable. As a matter of fact, they knew the hon. member too well. As regarded the hon. member (Mr. Botha) telling the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) to join the Opposition, he could assure him that none of the Free Staters would ever cross the floor. But he was also surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Ladybrand, whose speech had struck him like a thunderbolt. Well, the hon. member for Ladybrand seemed to be an expert, and should have warned Free Staters long ago that matters were so bad. He agreed that there was something in the complaints of the hon. member. As to the salaries of Civil Servants in the Free State, the fact was not that these salaries were not large enough, but the salaries of people in the other Provinces were too large. As a matter of fact, they talked too much of large, palatial buildings, and forgot the people whom they styled “backvelders.” Why were they backvelders? Simply because we leave them and do not do anything for them. The hon. member for Ladybrand would do much better if he fought for roads over the Platberg or helped to get Nauwport for the people who were totally unable to come into contact with civilization. Within 30 miles of Bloemfontein there were a hundred families suffering from want because they could not get their produce to market. That would be a better policy than the policy of putting a lot of money in bricks and mortar. Then they came to other arguments of the hon. member for Ladybrand, who seemed to think that he was the champion of the Free State. That was all very nice, but he wished the House to understand that he was not going to be dictated to by the hon. member what he should do. The hon. member was too young to tell him what was the opinion of his constituents, and what he should do. (Cheers.) Proceeding, Mr. Steyl said that after having listened to all the speeches in this House, he wished to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the state of his finances. He had listened with interest to the speeches of hon. members opposite, who always accused the Government of being too extravagant. But when they retrenched one Civil Servant, they never heard the end of it. The arguments of hon. members opposite did not carry much weight with him. As regarded the speeches of Labour members, he was sick of their arguments for eight hours’ days and of their continual complaints. They said 15s. a day was not enough. Did hon. members know that at one time he worked for 5s. per day, and then put in eighteen hours? (Hear, hear.) No Government could exist if they accepted the proposals of hon. members on the cross-benches. (Laughter.) Mr. Steyl proceeded to urge the necessity of an Agricultural College being given to the Free State. They did not want to have all their sons become “meh of figures,” and it was essential that steps should be taken. In conclusion, the hon. member referred to a serious danger to the wool staple of South Africa being created by the xanthium spinosum, a plant which he had seen growing freely all along the railway lines. If this plant once started doing its harm, the wool staple would be ruined. Scab was nothing compared with the disease caused by this plant. He hoped the Minister would give strict instructions to scab inspectors to have this noxious weed exterminated before it was too late. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not wish to follow the last speaker into the quarrel between the ex-Minister of Justice and the present Prime Minister, although he would like to congratulate the hon. member on the extreme skill with which he managed to cling to the bop of the fence, which seemed to be extending over the whole of the Free State. (Laughter and Opposition cheers.) It would be more profitable if, instead of following the example of recent speakers, he (Mr. Long) tried to find, to some extent, if the promises held out by Union had been realised, not by the present Government, but by the Government which preceded it The fact that there had been a change of Government during the recess gave the House an opportunity of reviewing the work of the past Government, and seeing whether it had succeeded, as it should have done, in carrying out the work naturally laid on the first Union Government. It was not easy to find in a compendious form any statement of that which was expected to accrue to South Africa as the result of Union. There was only one place in which such a statement could be found, and that was in a book entitled “The Government of South Africa,” a work, by the way, in the preparation of which he had had no hand. That book had been prepared by a body of gentlemen who had applied themselves to show how dis-union had been impeding the development of the country, and suggested the establishment of a “single sovereign Government, competent to speak and to act for South Africa as a whole.” The book made an elaborate survey of the system of Government in the four Colonies before Union, and pointed to the hampering and impeding effect which disunion had, not only on the four Colonies, but on South Africa as a whole. It was pointed out, for instance, that with regard to the administration of justice there was an enormous loss of efficiency through the fact that there were four Supreme Courts and that the only common tribunal to which appeal could be made was the Privy Council. And they suggested if one single Court could be established for the whole of the country greatly increased efficiency would be found in the administration of justice. In that respect they had, as a result of the National Convention, achieved a single Appeal Court of South Africa. He thought in that respect Union had realised their most sanguine expectations. But he would point out that the one single Court was hampered and hindered in its work, unless the system of law which it had to administer became one single system, and the differences between the four Provinces were wiped out and the laws made uniform. What had they achieved in establishing uniformity of laws for South Africa?

The authors of this book pointed out with striking effect how the laws of the country had hampered the administration of justice There was the registration of land. There were great differences in the laws of the different Provinces, and with those differences they had, so far, made no attempt to deal. It was true they had established a centralised office for the registration of deeds, with branches in various parts of the country; but so far as uniformity of laws was concerned they had done nothing. The same applied to the registration of mining titles, on which there was even more divergence than in regard to registration of land. It had had an enormously damaging effect in retarding the advancement of certain parts of the country. There had been no attempt whatever on the part of the Government to arrive at uniformity of law in regard to mining titles. Then came the question of patents. It was true that a Commission had been appointed by the Government, and it was the only codifying Commission that had, he believed, been appointed by the Government. But, so far, the Government had introduced no Bill embodying the findings of that Commission. It was the same with regard to inventions, trade marks and copyrights. He believed the Government had actually drafted a Bill dealing with copyrights, but it had not been introduced into this House. Those matters were of great importance to people engaged in commercial undertakings in this country. A man who invented something had still to register his invention in the four Provinces separately, as he had to do before Union. Then came the question of company laws, a question of vital importance to the commercial life of this country. The hon. member proceeded to quote the assertions of the authors on this subject, and said that all those criticisms with regard to the Company Laws of South Africa before Union applied to the laws of South Africa to-day, three years after Union. The Government had made no attempt to introduce uniformity, and had not even taken what seemed to the authors of this volume to be the obvious step that they should immediately appoint a competent Commission to codify the laws with the object of eliminating the differences existing between the laws of the four Provinces. (Opposition cheers.) The authors emphasised the disabilities to the whole country that arose from the fact that the four Colonies had no common system of defence. There they had made a great advancement. Thanks to the Minister of Defence they had a uniform system of defence for the Union. (Cheers.)

Then they came to another question which was no less important to the future of this country, and that was the native question. Had they made any attempt whatever, three years after Union, to deal with the native question? Had they made any attempt to show to the natives that there was a single authority in South Africa to which they had now to look, a single justice and a single power, instead of the four authorities, the four justices, and the four powers to which they had to look before Union. There perhaps, one should not be too hard on the Government. He did not wish to be an unreasonable critic. He wished to be a critic that gave credit to the Government for the difficulties with which they were confronted. And he did not think any Government would have done much more than the present Government had done with regard to that question, because there were differences in the different Provinces that made it perhaps unwise for any Government to deal with the question so soon after Union. (Cheers.) Then they came to other questions which were very much less controversial. They came to the question of the restriction of immigration into the Union—how they were to keep out undesirables. There, he thought, it was not too severe to say that the record of this Government had been a lamentable one. They had made two separate attempts in the last two years to pass a general Immigration Law. In the speech made by the Governor-General at the opening of this session, if was announced that a similar Bill was to be introduced this session. Some days ago it was explained that owing to the illness of the Minister of the Interior the Bill had been delayed. It was still delayed.

It is on the Table.

I see I have been anticipated by a few minutes, but I do not see that that anticipation affects my criticism. Continuing, the hon. member said the restriction of immigration was not so important. Far more important was the encouragement of immigration. (Opposition cheers.) If the record of the Government was lamentable with regard to the restrictions of immigration, what was one to say with regard to the records in connection with the encouragement of immigration? He thought the question really needed very little comment. There were various minor matters. There was, for instance, the matter of naturalisation of aliens—a question which was not unimportant in a country where there was a large immigrant population and where, in different parts of the country, a man had to go through different formalities to become naturalised. The question of vital statistics had not even been touched. They were told now that a high public servant was to be entrusted with that work. Surely it could have been touched before. It was rather a tardy beginning. The question of public health again was an important question that should be dealt with. The Minister had made two attempts to deal with it, but without success. Then there was the subject of education. Primary education, of course, belonged to another body, but in that House they had had an illustration only during the last few days in regard to university education of the way in which the Government was inclined to sacrifice the ideas embodied in its own Bill to the interests of a particular section. Then, as to the question of uniform taxation throughout the Union, he thought it would be agreed that, prior to Union, it was felt that one of the most certain benefits which was likely to accrue from the establishment of Union was a uniform system of taxation. They were now, however, told by the Minister that it would be an impossible task to try and make a regular and uniform system of taxation throughout South Africa, He would like to break an economic lance with the hon. member for Troyeville in reference to his views on Protection. The time had gone by, he urged, when any man in any modern Parliament could try and set up before the members of that Parliament an idol with regard to the tariff question, before which he called upon them to fall down and worship. Whether that idol be the idol of Free Trade or the idol of Protection, it was his opinion that the day for idol worship of that kind had long gone by. As showing how dangerous dogmatism was on a question of this kind, the hon. member quoted Adam Smith’s views in regard to the importation of corn into England, pointing out that within fifty years from the time when the book was written, Adam Smith’s declarations were completely contradicted. Proceeding, he referred to the question of the public debt, as dealt with in “The Government of South Africa,” and especially drew the attention of the hon. member for Barberton to the statements made therein with regard to Cape Perpetual Stock (Vol. 1, p. 303).

What is the value of that?

The only value which this book has on the subject is that it was written after consultation with the permanent officials and Ministerial heads of the Treasury of the Cape Colony at the time. A large number of those who hold this stock are trustees, widows, and people of that kind, who were anxious to obtain gilt-edged securities, and who were advised by the heads of the Treasury to buy this Perpetual Stock.

And they paid a very high premium.

Up to 145. Proceeding, the hon. member said that it might be a good motto to apply to the South African loan, that if the State would repudiate its financial honour, it was visited by financial ostracism. Really the decision lay in practice with the Minister himself, and he could not help feeling, and he had been told by gentlemen concerned in that matter, that the impression was that the Government of the Union was going to redeem that stock, certainly not at anything like the premium obtained in the open market before Union, and at a price that had been paid by the Public Debt Commissioners of the Cape, in order to pay for as much stock as they could. Coming to the question of local self-government, the hon. member said that the anticipation of those who had thought that, under Union, and especially under unification, there would be a unique opportunity for that country to develop local self-government, and throw on localities the duties of self-governing themselves, had been bitterly disappointed. The Government had not extended the principle of local self-government in the different Provinces of the Union, and did not intend to extend that privilege—for it was a privilege, as well as a duty—of local self-government. Summing that matter up, they found that as a consequence of Union, the unifying of the administration of their public servants, unifying the administration of their railways, and unifying their system of defence, these three things were a necessary consequence of the Union out of which no Government could possibly have escaped, and they had benefited the whole of South Africa through the fact that Union had taken place. But no Government could have taken office in the Union without assuming the burdens of the Act. These three matters which he had mentioned were obvious things which could not have been avoided by any Government, and could not have been avoided by that Government: but, beyond that, what had they done? Very little, it seemed to him. They had passed a few Bills relating to the administration of various departments, and they had passed an Act dealing with the administration of justice, an Irrigation Act, and an Act dealing with miners’ phthisis, but, with the exception of these Acts, the only other important Act that had been passed during the three years of Union had been the Prisons and Reformatories Act, a very characteristic illustration, it seemed to him, of the way in which the Government of that country had regarded doing the work of the Union. In conclusion, the hon. member hoped that, from his side of the House, an amendment would be proposed that, while not suggesting additional taxation, the Government would be called upon to readjust the incidence of taxation, so as to make provision for the poverty which existed.

said that the Minister of Railways and Harbours had not yet paid his promised visit to Middelburg. He complained that the rates on coal from Witbank to Middelburg had been increased instead of decreased, as had been promised. There were complaints of the cartage of goods on the railways. They had to pay the cartage in Middelburg although the people themselves fetched the stuff. He referred to the cartage of artificial manure. The people were very disappointed with the Minister of Railways himself. Last year he had presented a petition signed by 2,000 people, asking for a railway line from Pietersburg to Middelburg, and the Minister had said that he agreed with the use of such a line, which would run through a fertile country, yet nothing had been done. Such a line would help to develop many coal mines, and would pass along the Steelpoort River, the Olifant’s River, the Elands River and the Ligula River. It would also pass through the labour colony. Owners of land would, if this line were built, be able to take large numbers of poor people on the farms. The hon. member went on to urge that the building of such a line would have the effect of a rich gold field being developed, while a fillip would also be given to the iron and tin mines and the cotton industry. When the line reached Pietersburg it would help the tin and copper mines beyond that place. Such a line would be much more useful than one across the Springbokvlakte. Farms not properly occupied, the owners of which dwelt in England, ought to be leased. Such persons ought to be doubly taxed. Proceeding, Mr. Du Toit complained that the Minister of Railways and Harbours had never found the time to see for himself what could be done in that part of the country. Last year the Minister had promised to send an engineer, and when he obtained a new portfolio his successor made the same promise, but had never lived up to it. A serious grievance of the hon. member was that white and coloured people still had to travel in the same compartments. It was useless to put “engaged” on the window of a train, a white man not knowing the intention, often had to share such a compartment with a big buck nigger. (Laughter.) Last year it was stated that a cable had been sent to America for additional coaches for the natives, but those coaches had not yet materialised. He had personally visited the cattle market in Johannesburg and found everything going on fairly and in a straightforward manner with regard to such. The hon. member for Troyeville had stated that the people to the north of Belfast gave the Government their continual support, but the hon. member did not know the conditions. The country had been captured and divided amongst poor people. Before the war they were independent, but were impoverished by the war and ruined, and now they badly needed help. The hon. member knew nothing of those people The hon. member next drew attention to article 35 of the Standing Orders, which laid it down that at the adjournment of the House, all members should retain their seats until Mr. Speaker had risen. As a matter of fact, as soon as the motion was moved, all members rushed out in undignified haste. This was disgraceful. How could they expect the public to respect their laws if they broke their own regulations in that way. (Laughter.)

said he did not quite follow what the hon. and sartorial member (Mr. Du Toit) had said —(laughter)—but he would like to congratulate the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) upon having brought the debate back from the position it had been leading—into the caucus room—to something like real criticism of the principles of the Government.

He only said, however, something like. The hon. member started exceedingly well, and he (Mr. Madeley) had felt that the hon. member was about to give them real criticism, but as they said in soccer football, that although the hon. member’s midfield play was excellent, he did not finish well. He dodged and wriggled exceedingly well. Although he was apparently acting with the best intentions in the world, and speaking with an extremely fine choice of language and quoting extensively from the large tome he had by him, he did not, at the finish, make one single practical suggestion, but he hinted that from people upon that side of the House some suggestion would come. This suggestion was to have the effect, not of imposing additional taxation, but of substituting one method of taxation for another, which would bear more equitably upon the taxpayers of the country. If the hon. member really wished taxation on those lines, why did he not move an amendment to that effect. An amendment to that effect had already been moved by the hon. member for Jeppe which practically covered everything that he wished. That amendment read as follows: To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “this House regrets that in the financial proposals for 1913-1914 the Government have not arranged for the more equitable adjustment of the incidence of taxation by substituting a tax on the unimproved value of all land, agricultural, mineral, and urban, for taxes which are at present raised on the necessities of the people.”

Hon. members on both sides of the House had drawn a pair of red herrings across the trail of the debate in the shape of arguments on the subject of Free Trade v. Protection. The hon. member for Yeoville, who was strongly opposed to Protection, had declared that because of Protection the poorer classes in America were unable to wear woollen clothing. But could the poorer classes in England, which was ostensibly a Free Trade country, afford to wear wool? They could not. And frequently terrible accidents arose through the wearing of flannelette, which the poorer people had to use as a substitute for woollen clothing. In fact, the poorer classes in Great Britain could not only not afford to wear wool, but thousands of them could not wear anything at all. He himself had seen in England little children on cold winter’s nights sitting over steam traps in order to get warm, they having no homes to go to. He had seen children fighting for crusts of bread in Free Trade England. Then in Protectionist America they had, in New York alone, 200,000 men out of work; in Free Trade England there were twelve million of people living on the verge of starvation, and one million out of work, with something like four million dependent on them. In Protectionist Berlin there were 150,000 people out of work at the present moment. As a matter of fact, Free Trade and Protection had nothing to do with the question at all—(Labour cheers)—and people could not say that Protection or Free Trade were good or bad.

The Labour Party was going to bring the House down to what was the cause of the whole trouble, and that was not Protection and not Free Trade. (Hear, hear.) The whole of the cultivable land in England was owned by a certain small section of the population, and there were instances of tremendous tracts of land, out of which the whole of the farming population had been turned in order to make deer forests and pheasant preserves, whilst thousands of acres were laid out as grouse moors. The real reason why this poverty-stricken condition of affairs obtained—not only in England—was due entirely to the ultimate control of the land being in the hands of a few. In South Africa we had the same state of affairs which hon. members did not realise, or they would put their feet down on it, and they would not sit there and gibe, at those on the Labour benches who were trying to remedy matters. No fewer than 8,500 men had applied to the Union Railway Administration for work— work at any price—and out of that number 400 had obtained employment, thus leaving over 8,000 men still walking about looking for work. Probably some of those men were married and had children.

In this country, as in others, people were being made paupers and criminals. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe was a comprehensive one. It not only altered the incidence of taxation but would prevent the state of affairs now existing. Regarding the statement made by the hon. member for Troyeville that this country was bounding ahead because their imports and exports were increasing and because the amount standing to the credit of certain individuals in the banks were large, he would like to say that the country was not bounding ahead, it was bounding backwards. He would defy anyone to say that ten years ago there were 8,000 men looking for work in this country. He found the debate most amusing, because on the one side hon. members criticised the Government and its finance and on the other side hon. members accused the critics of using arguments they had used when the critics were in office. It only showed how little constructive ability there was in the House. He always thought it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose. The Opposition had a chance of turning the Government out of office, when, a few days ago, there was a semblance of rebellion on that side. They did not, and it only showed what they had always contended, that the Opposition was only another wing of the Government. On the voting on the Wines and Spirits Adulteration Bill certain sections of the Government’s supporters crossed the floor. The majority against the Government was 10, so several of the Opposition voted with the Government. They dared not turn them out. On another occasion they dared not make it too obvious, so some Opposition members remained in the Lobby during the voting. Certain Opposition members had been very keen lately in advocating the taxation of land, but on this Budget debate they had been exceedingly quiet on that subject. The only member who touched on it was the hon. member for Cape Town, and he, suddenly realising what he was doing, pulled himself up very short. If hon. members were in agreement with the amendment and they really wanted to see the taxation of the unimproved values of land, why had they not supported the amendment? The fact was they knew if they voted for it now they would not be able to wriggle out of it in the future. It was the word “ minerals” in the amendment that frightened some of them. They were not preaching a subject that was untried. A Conservative House like that built upon precedents, and that was what they were doing. There would have been no taxation of land values in Australia unless they had a Labour Party in power, and that was what they would have in this country before long.

It will take a very long time.

challenged hon. members of the Opposition in that Conservative House to fight the next general election on the amendment then before the House, introducing no side issues. If the party had done its duty a lot of matters would have been rectified, and miners suffering from phthisis would have been in a better position. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) had referred to the Bill passed in that House—the Miners’ Phthisis Act— as the result of the humanity of this country being stirred—to the extent of what? asked Mr. Madeley. Eight pounds a month! What a stirring was there! The hon. member went on to quote from the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, which he described as a gruesome and painful document. Up to the time that the report was prepared, 1,648 awards had been drawn up. The total sum awarded was £93,888 18s. 8d. If hon. members would work out the average they would find that it amounted to £64, and humanity was stirred, according to the hon. member for Liesbeek! The Bill was passed as the result of this humanity, and their consciences were shaken to the extent of £64. Quoting from the report, the hon. member pointed out different cases where the normal expectation of life of certain of these miners who had been working for 8 years underground was 26 years, and the expectation of life given by the medical advisers was 1½ years. In other cases, where the estimate of expectation of life was 3½ years, it was even worse in reality, for out of 39 deaths of men who had been actually examined, the medical officers’ expectation gave them 7 3-5 months whereas the actual duration was 1 4-5 months. So these people were to get £8 a month for less than two months. That was a fact. They on the cross-benches had endeavoured to point out the effect of a monthly payment, and as far as possible to have a lump sum granted to those men, but without success. In very few cases did the men who left the mines from miners’ phthisis live to gain any material benefit themselves. His hon. friends said they had passed the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. What had the Government done since the Bill became law? He blamed them for not bringing in an amended Bill to pay sufficient compensation to those men to enable them to live in comfort, and to assist their wives and children afterwards. Unless they touched the pockets of those who controlled the mining industry they would never get miners’ phthisis stamped out.

He wanted to touch upon the question of education. The Government had now been in office three years, and he wanted to know what they were going to do with regard to education in this country. Upto now it had done nothing. He did not care what the cost was, they must have all their children properly educated at the expense of the State. That was not being done to-day.

The hon. member said they were doing nothing.

Well, he must qualify that; they had voted £40,500 for higher education, but the children of the State would receive very little allocation of that amount. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in the Free State alone—and that was where he joined issue with the hon. member for Bloemfontein—even in the Free State alone, there were 15,000 children not getting any education at all. (An HON. MEMBER: No, no.) Hon. members who represented, or rather misrepresented, the Free State, should wander round the Free State and find out something about its conditions. In the Transvaal, which was, after all, the best educated colony in the country—

No, no.

answered that he admired the hon. member’s patriotism, but it was parochial. There were still hundreds of children in the Transvaal who were unable to be educated because there was no room. What were the conditions they found in the Cape? Too few schools and too few teachers. Every day, no matter what newspaper they looked at, they would find large numbers of advertisements for teachers, that was because the State in the Cape of Good Hope had not taken upon its shoulders the whole burden of education. His hon. friend had the lie given to him direct because he referred to a lady teacher receiving a salary of £5 a month, but that was perfectly true, and he could not understand what it was that actuated some hon. members to make interjections. They would find hundreds of teachers advertised for at £40 a year, and those who had not the certificates required by the advertisements would receive less; heaven knew what they would receive. He had worked these cases out, and he had found that in some cases teachers in the Cape Colony were receiving less than a municipal sanitary man. (An HON. MEMBER: Shame.) It was perfectly true. It was time the Government did something. He did not say they should waste money, but they should not hesitate to spend money where they required it.

He wished to draw attention to a question which was going to be of the utmost importance to the people of this country, the condition of affairs that existed at the present time as a result of the signing of that iniquitous mail contract. The contract itself was not iniquitous, but the results accruing from it were. This country was being placed in the hands of the most powerful combine that the world had ever seen, not ignoring the Standard Oil Trust. In spite of the denials of the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson), he was mixed up in it, and he could not get away from it. He did not say the hon. member was a leading light in the combine. There was only one leading light; the others were all puppets. The hon. member was mixed up with that shipping combine. The Minister without Portfolio had said that the Government had made as good a bargain as they could hope to get. Was that not sufficient to show the House that they were in the hands of somebody more powerful than themselves? The Minister, by his weakness, by his puerility, had given us as a nation into the hands of one man. The hon. member went on to quote a cutting from a newspaper showing the acquisitions of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., and the shipping it now controlled, and he asked if the House did not recognise the gravity of the position?

Did you vote for the Post Office Bill?

I did, most decidedly, because that was a monopoly. I made it perfectly plain when I spoke on the question that it was because I was opposed to monopolies, and there is no reason why, because I voted for the Post Office Bill, I should vote for the gathering into the fold, or rather placing the rope round the neck, of the Union by Sir Owen Philipps. Proceeding, he said he understood the right hon. gentleman to say that this was the result. It was the result of the Minister’s weakness. Why didn’t the Minister do what he (Mr. Madeley) told his Government to do? (Laughter.) The reason why the Government did not do it was because there were too many people with their fingers in the Union-Castle pie, and the Government of this country was afraid that it would lose quite a number of its supporters if Parliament legislated against people like those. Let them have State control of their line of steamers, State control of collieries, and everything which tended for or against the comfort of mankind, and a Government that would run such enterprises on really and purely Socialistic lines, and they would have absolute success, absolute happiness, and absolute comfort for the people. If hon. members on that side would vote as they talked, they would vote for his hon. friend’s amendment. He hoped some of the hon. members on the opposite side would support them, because, although farmers, they were not all landowners, and then they would be able to throw out a Government which had proved itself to be inept, incompetent, and incapable of carrying out the government of a country of this description. (Hear, hear.)

said that hon. members on the Opposition had spoken about nothing but immigration and land taxation. It was very easy to talk about things of that sort, but not quite so easy to carry them out. The time had not yet come for such things. Did the hon. members realise that the rural districts which the wished to tax, had no railways, and no ordinary facilities in regard to schools, etc.? He referred to conditions in the north-west, where the people had to fight against all sorts of difficulties and where even the children had to go six or seven miles every day in order to get to school. If these parts were properly provided for the people living there would be quite willing to pay taxes. The hon. member went on to complain of the delay which was experienced so often on the railways in the despatch of goods. Another important grievance was that Government officials in the Free State often received smaller salaries than officials in other parts, though speaking generally salaries were too high. He honed the Prime Minister would see that this was altered. Turning to the Minister of Railways, Mr. Theron hoped the Free State would in future not be neglected in regard to railway construction He was convinced that only by railway extension could the country be helped along. (Hear, hear.) He also wished to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt), who last night had posed as the champion of the Free State. The hon. member had also threatened other members who did not agree with him with the ire of their constituents. Well, he thought that was one of the worst and “weakest straws” any member could clutch at. Surely every man could fight for himself, and it seemed to him that it was a sign of great weakness for one member to threaten another who did not agree with him, with his constituents. (Hear, hear.) The Free State members were quite well able to justify themselves to their constituents.

at the outset referred to the matters which had been dealt with by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha), and said that with much of what the latter had said he was in agreement. It was scarcely possible for a man who was thoroughly in sympathy with the views which had always been expressed on certain great issues by the Prime Minister to withhold his support from the right hon. gentleman; not that he was going over to the right hon. gentleman’s side of the House or anything of the kind. In regard to the matter which had been brought forward, the Prime Minister had not seen fit to make a statement to that House, and it was not the duty of the Opposition to force him to do so. He must congratulate the Prime Minister and the present Ministry, and he presumed they were in agreement with the Prime Minister on that matter, on having disassociated the Government of that country from the pernicious racial doctrine. He must express his pleasure and congratulation to the Government upon the purification of the party, if he might say so, as far as it had gone. He believed that there was a great dividing line in that country which went even deeper than commercial matters or matters connected with language, and he looked forward to the day, and believed that it would come, when they would not speak of “English” or “Dutch” any more, but call each other “South Africans,” and when the dividing walls which might still exist between the two great nationalities of South Africa would disappear. That could be done by cultivating a policy of friendship and equality. He was in favour of a policy of equality of opportunity for the two languages, and leaving matters to the future to evolve as they might in the natural course of events. But to look forward to there being two parallel streams for ever in that country—he was going to say that he would like to leave the country if that was the prospect before them. (Cheers.) If the Dutch language became the principal language of that country, he would be satisfied with it so long as it was by the natural course of evolution. (Cheers.) He would do nothing to hinder the development of the Dutch language or to crush it as the French language had been crushed by the Dutch Government of the olden days. He looked upon the action of the Prime Minister and the Government as meeting with the approbation of people on both sides of the House who were non-racial, and who believed that it was only by carrying on non-racialism right throughout from top to bottom in their whole system that they would ever attain in that country what they desired to attain. But by approving of the action of the Prime Minister, that did not mean that they were going over to the hon. gentleman’s side of the House, or that the Prime Minister was coming over to their side. He felt that the speech of the hon. member for Liesbeek was convincing that they had been unable to carry out the promises of Union. He knew it was a big question. He had said, previous to Union, that on account of the differences existing between the four Provinces, it would almost be impossible to unify, and that it would be better to federate, and to hand over those matters that they could unify, such as the railways, the post office, and defence, but it was no use arguing on that now, as Union was an accomplished fact. What he would say was, that in every session it had been almost impossible to get legislation upon a unified basis It seemed to him almost sometimes that unification was a farce—he would to God that they could have unification in all their great matters —but he would say this, that the difficulties had been tremendous in regard to this consolidated legislation. They had seen Bills introduced into the House for the purpose of consolidating the laws of the country, and they had seen them going down lower and lower on the paper, and finally they had been withdrawn altogether. Sometimes also, on account of the dissensions, they had seen new Bills emerge, and the old principles given up.

That did not look like unification—in fact, it seemed that the Government had been a moral coward during the course of its existence, and when it had come to carrying such unifying legislation, they had given it up at the dictates of their own side. That was the reason of the miserable failure that had been brought to the knowledge of the House by the hon. member for Liesbeek. His own opinion of responsible government was that it should formulate measures upon certain principles, and that it should abide by these measures, and if they could not carry their measures, then it should give place to other people who could carry theirs. He thoroughly believed that the people on the Government benches actually believed that they were the saviours of the country, and that no people upon that side of the House could carry on the Government so well as they did. (Ironical cheers, and laughter.) They had brought this policy down from old Republican days, and they wanted to introduce a Republican system in that House. They could well understand that where everything—as it did in the United States—depended upon the election of the President, who remained in office until his successor was elected, they could understand that system, and that the Government should stay in office until another President came into power. That was the Republican idea, but that was not the system they had in the Union. Here they had responsible government. (Hear, hear.) Well, they would have a chance of turning them out at the General Election— thank God!—otherwise they would never leave the Treasury Benches. (Laughter.) He said this was the old Republican idea, which ought not to be carried on in the House, but the point was: that if it was allowed to continue much longer, those upon his side of the House would be infected by it; and if they got into power, they would try and carry on the same thing. (Laughter.) They were being governed by caucus and Select Committees. (Hear, hear.) When a Bill came back to the House from a Select Committee, there was a difficulty in getting any change made in it, and in moving amendments with the expectation of them being carried. It was a sad thing to see that they must go on in this way, and to hear it said by members of the different Provinces that they should keep their own laws. They were federating, but they were not unifying. (Hear, hear.) He would like to see all this altered. He would like to see the Minister in power taking the responsibility for any measure that was introduced. (Opposition cheers.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that in the speech of the hon. member for Liesbeek reference had been made to the native question. (“Hear, hear,” and laughter.) Well, he represented a large native constituency, and it seemed to be the general idea that he must say something upon that question. He wanted to point out, in the first instance, that the natives at the North were not represented in Parliament. If they were represented, then they would find the members upon both sides of the House speaking upon this question. He hoped that day would come, and that it would not be left for two or three members of the House always to speak upon this question whenever it came forward. He was one of those that thought it was impossible to get uniformity in native policy at once. In any case, it would be a long time before they got it; but what he would say was this: that had the Unionists been in power, they would have laid down a basis or a foundation principle upon which they were going to proceed, and upon which their superstructure would be raised. What was the foundation that the present Ministry had laid down? They had never been able to ascertain what that policy would be, except that it was laid down as a fair and just treatment of the native.

His charge against the Government was that in dealing with the natives the underlying principle should have been a difference of treatment between the civilised native and the uncivilised native. It was the only foundation on which they could establish a uniform native policy in South Africa. It was impossible to conceive that they could lump the coloured people with the native, who was in a state of semibarbarism. He had never made a distinction between the coloured people and the native. He realised that they must treat the civilised native in the same way as they treated the civilised coloured man. In the Free State and the Transvaal they stuck to the word “coloured” as meaning all people of colour. They would never come to the beginning of the right native policy until they realised the distinction between the civilised and the uncivilised native. He pleaded with those who held opposite views to study this matter and say whether it was possible to conceive that it was the right policy to keep people who were progressing out of a state of semi-barbarism in the same class as those who were still semi-barbarians. What uniformity of laws could there be when in the labour regulation in the Transvaal they laid down that a coloured man who had a certificate to be an engine-driver in the Cape could not exercise his vocation there? Regarding the franchise, he would say that when the National Convention determined that the franchise should remain the same in the Cape Colony and in the other Provinces he did not believe that the delegates thought that the principle of differentiation because of colour would enter into everything. He did not think the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman)would have voted for that if he had thought it would bar coloured men from becoming skilled workers. But, that was the case to-day. His quarrel with the Government was that they had been going in the wrong direction. It was time that they called a halt. And he felt it his duty to urge that different treatment should be meted out to the civilised and uncivilised native. He sat with the Opposition because that party had laid down the principle that they would treat the native question according to the degree of civilisation attained. What was to be the end if they went on in the other way? They had already pushed the intelligent coloured man back. He was absolutely willing to be their friend, but they had pushed him back. Let them read the native papers and see what the native said because of their sense of rank injustice. It was time to call a halt. Was their present policy a sane policy? The time would come when we would reap the fruit of our doings. We could not sow injustice and expect to reap a harvest of peace and plenty. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, Mr. Schreiner said a return had been presented to the House showing that in the years 1910, 1911, and 1912, 144,000 morgen of land in the Transvaal had been registered in the names of natives, the value of the land being £95,000. A subsequent return, however, indicated that in the first return there were included 54,000 morgen which had not been purchased by natives, but which were old grants from the Transvaal Republic to the natives. The first return had been taken in the wrong way and was calculated to lead to panic legislation and to induce the House to put a stop to natives all over the Union purchasing land. The natives knew that the Squatters Bill was being held over their heads, and under these circumstances it was only human nature for them to try to buy land. For the ruling trace to make a tremendous fuss, and endeavour to prevent the natives buying land throughout the Union, because of certain purchases of land by natives in some districts of the Transvaal was ridiculous. Coming to the question of the taxation of natives, Mr. Schreiner said he did not think there would be much difficulty in getting uniform taxation of natives throughout the Union. In the Transvaal the taxation of natives was too high. The Transvaal taxed every adult native male £2, with a reduction of £1 in case of farm servants and municipal location residents, and an additional £2 if he has more than one wife. Natal levied 14s. hut tax and 20s. poll tax (at present suspended) on adult males who do not pay hut tax, the Orange Free State one of 20s., while the Cape levied a hut tax of 10s. and another 10s. for each, wife above one, and a quitrent of from 15s. to 20s. in lieu of hut tax where individual tenure and toll was granted. In addition to this, in Glen Grey and in eighteen districts of the Transkeian Territories the Native Council levied a tax of ten shillings a head on adult male natives, which brought up the taxation in those districts to 20s. or more.

The General Council of the Transkei was holding its annual session at the present time, and the budget of its Treasurer estimated the available revenue for the coming year at £82,000, out of which it was proposed to spend £21,800 on education, £8,388 on agricultural and industrial education, £16,000 for cattle and sheep dipping tanks, £12,000 for dipping operations, and £20,000 for public works (roads, bridges, etc.). This was an object lesson of what has been accomplished up to the present under the liberal native policy of the Cape Province, and of a system which should be extended as far as possible throughout the Union. The sum raised by this direct taxation on natives in the Union might be roundly estimated at £400,000 in the Transvaal, £200,000 in Natal, and in the Cape (including the Native Council tax) about the same sum, £220,000, and £60,000 in the Orange Free State, or a total of £900,000, while the indirect contribution to the revenue through the customs of the other than European population could not be less than one million.

No.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his speech, referred to the question of indirect taxation of natives which many people had not considered sufficiently. Certainly it was difficult to get to know or to make a true estimate of what the native did contribute. From his study of the question and of the evidence that had been get-at-able, he thought they might fix an indirect contribution from Customs and so on at between 3s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. a head. If they took round figures, there were about 5,000,000 other than European in the Union, whose indirect contribution to the revenue would come to about £1,000,000, so that on the whole directly and indirectly there was contributed close on to £2,000,000. That was a considerable sum, and the worst of it was that it was not spent upon them. They did not get the benefits in return for the taxes they had to pay.

Turning to the question of the education of natives, the hon. member said that in the Cape Colony they had no need to be ashamed of themselves, for 60 per cent, of the money went back to the natives and coloured people for their education. Natal’s contribution was about 12 per cent, of the native taxation, the Orange Free State 9 per cent., and the Transvaal 6 per cent, of the £400,000 which the natives there paid in taxes. Those figures had only to be quoted to show that they were not giving the native a fair return for the money that they were getting from them. In connection with the taxation of natives there were certain principles which ought to be borne in mind. He did not think there was any justice in taxing the native just because his skin was black. There ought to be a foundation principle that they should not tax the native simply because he was a native. There were natives and coloured people living in just the same way as the Europeans, and such ought also to be taxed as Europeans. Natives should not be taxed on the wages they earn by labour unless European labourers were taxed in the same way. The general idea seemed to be “There is a native, he’s a black man; tax him”; that idea was entirely wrong and could not be defended on any ground whatsoever.

If any particular tax should be levied on the native it should be a sort of land tax, because the native was at present to a large extent a peasant landowner and ought to remain so. He was paying what was called a poll or hut tax, but he was really paying the tax because of the land he occupied That was the principle they ought to adopt with regard to the native. It would keep him on the land. They should change the hut tax into a quit-rent, and let it be a tax on the land he occupied. That was fair enough and it was in accord with taxing the land. (Labour cheers.) About the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, he was in favour of taxing the land, especially unimproved land, but he would return to that later. If they levied a taxation of that kind on the native they would raise sufficient taxation to pay for all the benefits he received. It might be asked what amount should that taxation be? He had a clear idea of that. A Select Committee sat last year and took a great deal of evidence in regard to that question of taxation. If that evidence had been laid on the Table it might have led to some proper scheme of native taxation and he wondered why the Government had hesitated to publish the evidence. He had come to the conclusion that £1, or perhaps half-a-crown more, levied as hut tax or quit-rent would amount to about the right thing; that would cover expenses. The Government of Basutoland had introduced a similar tax of 20s., and with that and their share of the customs they had paid all the expenses of administration and they had a large surplus over, out of which they had built and paid for their railways. That was an example of what could be done in a native area.

It must never be forgotten that we had native reserves outside the Union, and he supposed that everybody expected and hoped that these would be brought into the Union some day. These people in Basutoland, Swaziland and the British Protectorate of Bechuanaland were watching this Parliament very keenly to see what we did in regard to our own natives, and if we levied taxation upon our natives which was considered unfair, these people, as far as they were concerned, would never come into the Union.

With regard to the question of segregation, he was glad to hear from the Minister of Railways the other day his repudiation of the rather crude idea about segregation which had been put forward by a certain member when he was in the Ministry. He hoped that this was the view of the whole Cabinet. He was glad to hear the Prime Minister on the same occasion indicate that we must proceed slowly in this matter. Mr. Schreiner went on to say there was a good deal to be said on behalf of those who contended that we should keep the natives together in one place, and allow them to go forward in their own way, as far as they could. That was a good ideal scheme, but they had to take things as they were. They could not go and evict thousands of people from their homes. Segregation, as far as it was a good policy, must be carried out gradually. To go and put all the tribes together in a segregated area was, of course, out of the question. The days were past for any plan, of that kind. He did not fear that there was going to be an amalgamation of the white and coloured races. There was as much feeling amongst the natives at the present time in favour of keeping their race pure as there was amongst the white people. The question of social segregation would settle itself. As to industrial segregation, the members on the cross-benches wanted the natives not to be allowed to compete with skilled labour anywhere. This was brought forward in the interests of some mythical people whom they were to introduce into this country to take the place of the natives. The people in this country should have equal rights about work. Industrial segregation was a wild dream. In regard to political segregation, he maintained that if they had civilised natives or coloured people living in the midst of white people, in the same electoral districts, those people should be allowed, on such franchise as they might determine, to share in the political privileges of the country. He did not say that every native should have such privileges, but he did say that the best in the native races who would be on the side of the Europeans would, under a system of strict political segregation, be driven to the other side. The hon. member went on to refer to a grievance of the Civil Servants in the Transkei, who, despite the fact that the cost of living was as high as in other parts of the country where local allowances were made, were not given a local allowance. He urged that it was a matter that Government should consider. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, he was in favour of a tax on land, and especially on unimproved land, but a tax on the unimproved value of all land, agricultural, mineral, and urban, was altogether too complex a question to be decided off hand. Concluding, Mr. Schreiner said we should depart from the old policy of repression so far as the natives were concerned, and if we adopted a policy based on civilisation, and not simply on the colour of a person’s skin, he had no doubt that that Parliament, or some future Parliament, would be able to evolve a native policy that would be worthy of South Africa as a nation. (Hear, hear.)

said he had too much respect for the House to trespass very much on its time. He could not refrain from saying, however, that he did not like the financial methods of the Minister of Finance, because in the Estimates we found ourselves with a deficiency of at least a million, and it appeared to him that the Minister of Finance was not taking a wise course in shirking the unpopularity of taxation—(hear, hear) —and was staving off the evil day by using money which should have been handed over to the Public Debt Commissioners. The balance of the surplus of 1910-11 was £770,000 which went into revenue, besides this there was a balance of £118,000 of revenue over expenditure for 1912-1913 was £585,000, but after he had given back £73,000, which he owed to the Bewaarplaatsen Fund, his real balance was £45,000. Then there were additional Estimates crammed into expenditure for 1912-1913 which properly belongs to 1912-1913, so that, when they came to look into the matter, they found that the Minister of Finance had collared £1,400,000, which should go towards the reduction of debt. He (Mr. Watermeyer) was very sorry that, when circumstances were not such as to warrant extreme measures, we should use money which should go to the Public Debt Commissioners. This was a precedent upon which the House should not be silent, and from which we will reap bitter fruits in the future. Part of the surplus was due to savings which had been effected on the bridges and post office votes. Yet he had been fighting for three solid years for new public offices at Clanwilliam. (Hear, hear.) How could he go back and tell his constituents that the Government which he had the honour to support had been humbugging them over this matter? The present public offices at Clanwilliam were not even fit for a Chinese laundry. (Laughter.) Then the post-office accommodation at Calvinia was hopelessly inadequate. Again, a telephonic extension was necessary, because parts of the Calvinia districts—and not uninhabited parts either—were 150 miles from the nearest telegraph office. Such a state of things was unhealthy, and not calculated to civilise the people.

The hon. member said he associated himself with the remarks made by the hon. members for Bechuanaland and Prieska. It was painful to see that £120,000 of loan money, put down for closer settlement, had not been used. They were inquiring into the avenues of employment for white people. The Government had lots of Crown lands in those districts. There were plenty of young men seeking for themselves places on which permanently to rest the soles of their feet. On the one hand, they were trying to find employment for destitute whites, and yet year after year those pioneers by descent—for those were the ones to open up the country—were allowed by the Government to wander about, getting poorer and poorer. They were crying to be settled on the land, while the Government were putting difficulties in the way, making these people poorer and throwing burdens on the State. That was one of the most important questions before the country, and he hoped the matter would be immediately dealt with.

said he had listened with regret to all the complaints that had been made. Whose fault was it, he asked, that the Government could not get laws passed; and, while listening to what had been going on, he had thought of the words of a great Afrikander, “Are we in earnest?" He thought they would have to alter their standing rules somewhat, so as to enable the Government to get some measures through. At present some hon. members talked the time of the House away by long speeches, in which they said nothing. He did not wish to restrict the freedom of hon. members, but urged hon. members to mend their ways. Proceeding, Mr. Geldenhuys said he wished to know from the Minister of Native Affairs when the Bill dealing with natives owning and renting land would be introduced. It would be difficult for him to go back to his constituents without this matter having been dealt with. No matter how long they sat, something should be done. (Hear, hear.)

In regard to land settlement, he remembered reading a speech made by the Prime Minister at Standerton foreshadowing an additional Land Settlement Bill. Such a measure was urgently required. Apparently the Minister of Lands could do nothing under the first Land Settlement Act, but he hoped he would be able to do something under this new Bill. He was not in favour of giving doles to the people, but all the same they should see what could be done to get the people on the land. Why had the £200,000 voted to be spent under last year’s law not been used? Surely the Government realised the necessity of getting the people out of the towns on to the land. An amendment had been proposed from the cross-benches. Well the Labour members had only one ideal: “Tax the land, eight hours’ day, and a high wage.” They did not quite know what the minimum wage was, but it seemed to be higher than the amount most labourers were satisfied with. The speaker represented a number of working people who were satisfied to get 8s. or 10s. per day.

Why should hon. members on the cross-benches run ahead of necessity and propose this land tax, while there were many articles of luxury which could be taxed? Who fixed the land tax in Johannesburg? It was the tenant. In some parts of the Transvaal the land tax was too low, but so long as no tax was required it was wrong to impose it. Why should a tax not be placed on theatres, bioscopes, and motor-cars? He noticed now that the Labour people had started on Sunday evening meetings in the bioscope theatres. The leaders seemed to be a sort of ministers of religion, their meetings being announced in the newspapers with text and all, but they only preached the wrong religion. Mr. Ware, a great Labour leader, was next week going to preach on “Poverty and Unemployment.” He hoped Mr. Ware would in his sermon refer to the many sixpences that were wasted on bioscopes. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Geldenhuys went on to urge that something should be done in regard to the report of the Sunday Observance Commission, so that legislation might be introduced. Where was the report of the Commission? It had been appointed in 1911. If he engaged a man to do work, then he told that man when he wanted his work finished. Why should that Commission not be told to hurry a little? The Commission was too long, and the people were clamouring for something to be done. In the speaker’s opinion a time should be fixed within which the work of a Commission should be completed. He had voted to allow the mines to work on Sundays, but only on the understanding that an inquiry would be instituted. The Commission had been sitting for three years, and still there was no report. This country could not hope to prosper until certain conditions were changed. One of those conditions was the desecration of the Sabbath. He hoped the Minister of Defence especially would see that no Sunday training was indulged in. Last year when there was a drought a day of prayer had been called for, and when the speaker went to church he had to pass between the cannon belonging to the Defence Force. Then, again, shooting matches had been held at the Cape at Easter, whilst in Johannesburg the Defence Force was regularly drilled on Sundays. And yet they still had a law in the Transvaal to the effect that rifles could not be fired on the Sabbath. If the law-givers acquiesced in the breaking of the laws, what was going to happen? In a Johannesburg paper recently he had seen an announcement of a Sunday shooting match between two corps under the Defence Force. Such a thing, he urged, should not be allowed by a Christian Government. Mr. Geldenhuys went on to urge the introduction of an Electoral Reform Bill, Under which people who had the vote should be compelled to vote. There were people whom it was impossible at present to get to the ballot box. He also thought that candidates should be forbidden to keep clerks or open offices or spend large sums of money, which only made it impossible for poor people to become candidates.

Another law which this country wanted was a liquor law. There was something wrong with the present liquor law. How otherwise could they explain the fact that in Johannesburg 1,200 people were in prison for contravening this Act? This Act was ruining the country, he held. The right hon. member for Victoria West had recently stated that Johannesburg had a very bad influence on the natives. Well, wherever there was a large gathering of people there must naturally be temptation. But the right hon. gentleman need not have gone so far from home. Here in the Cape the coloured people were being wiped out and ruined through drink. It was not the drink supplied by farmers, which was light and harmless, which had that effect, but the large quantities of liquor which these people were allowed to buy freely from the bottle stores. In conclusion, Mr. Geldenhuys dealt with the question of the bewaarplaatsen, and said that in his speech the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had quoted all that suited his views, but had not referred to the report of the Commission of 1908, which had stated that the Government was not entitled to more than half of the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen. In 1898 he (Mr. Geldenhuys) had voted in favour of the original owners getting half of the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen, and that attitude he would continue to take. If the Government took all the money they would commit a kind of robbery. He urged that something should be done this session in regard to the matter. He had no personal interest in the bewaarplaatsen, but they must act with justice.

said he was somewhat bewildered at what was going on in that House, and the feeling which came over him was that of pity and sorrow for the Government, which had been attacked on all sides, but the Ministry said nothing, and those who attacked it from its own side always gave it their vote. Complaints had been made as to the attitude of the Opposition over this matter, but the Opposition could not have done anything more than they had done in drawing attention to the extravagance of the Government and to the action of the Government in spending money which ought to have gone to the Public Debt Commissioners. As to the surplus, a surplus gained by the saving of money which should have been spent on Public Works was not a surplus at all. (Hear, hear.) The Opposition had done the things it ought to have done, but it was asked to do more. Taxation was in the hands of the Government, but Government put off its imposition. There was a great difference between extravagance and increased expenditure. He objected to constant references to the Civil Servants, and to the demand that their salaries should be reduced in days of depression. He also objected to the non-completion of public works. Referring to the salaries of the Ministers, Mr. Van der Riet said that he did not think that the Ministers were overpaid at £3,000 a year, seeing what they had to do.

But they don’t do it.

said that the increased expenditure on the Civil Service was largely due to the fact that a considerable number of officials had been removed to Pretoria, and to the fact that the Union had taken over the highly-paid Transvaal Civil Servants, so that in some ways one could understand the Civil Service Vote being increased.

But what he could not understand was that, although there had been increased expenditure over the Civil Service, yet its members were discontented. That discontent was due to the fact that there had been too much legislation for them in the way of regulations. Having commented upon the way in which the Judges’ travelling allowances had been cut down to such an extent that they were not able to maintain the dignity which was expected of them when on Circuit—(hear, hear)—Mr. Van der Riet observed that the Civil Service was graded.

Degraded.

said there were extraordinary regulations with regard to payment of the Post Office men, there being different scales of pay for officials in different towns. In every branch of the Civil Service there were discontent and distrust, and the officials were afraid of the consequences to themselves if they dared to complain. All through the country there was a feeling that in future the Civil Service would not offer inducements to men to work to the best of their ability, and thus ambition had been cut away because of the new grading system. On top of that there came something which was causing greater discontent than anything that had preceded it, and that was the proposed examination which certain grades of the Civil Servants would have to pass before they could obtain transference to a higher grade. Proceeding, Mr. Van der Riet complained that necessary works, such as irrigation schemes, had not been pushed forward in his part of the country, and the construction of telephones had not been proceeded with. If the farmers were convinced that money was spent on reproductive works such as these they would be prepared to submit to their fair share of taxation. All through his part of the country people were pressing for irrigation works—schemes which would benefit both town and country.

The present state of affairs on the Government side of the House must lead to extravagance on the part of the Government. Last night the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) attacked the Government, telling a woeful story of how the Free State had been neglected, and the hon. member added that members from Natal, who were not as loyal as the Free Staters, had been bought by the Government. (Opposition cheers.) That attack apparently would never have been raised? if the Free State had received a certain number of bridges.

Absolutely wrong.

That is the fair argument to be drawn from last night’s proceedings. (Opposition cheers.)

Proceeding, Mr. Van der Riet said that the hon. member for Barberton had raised the question in that House as to why the Opposition did not take the first opportunity to bring forward the matter of the split in the Government. What had the Opposition to do with the split? How could they step in when they were not called upon to do so? They never hoped to get a majority with the assistance of the late hon. Minister of Justice. It was said that they had lost a golden opportunity, but it was not in the interests of the party to which he belonged or to any other party to make a score against the governing power by making use of disaffected members of the other party. They did not want such aid. They had heard a lot about the difficulties between the Minister and his late colleagues, and they had heard a lot about conciliation. The right hon. gentleman should drop the word “conciliation.” They had had reconciliation. Conciliation meant nothing, what they wanted was fair play and justice.

That has always been my motto.

said that in that matter they should have no race feeling between them. He would do his best at all times to put an end to that racialism. He was proud of being Dutch, as proud as any on the other side of the House. He was of this country as well as his parents before him. His politics and his ideas were his own, and to suggest that it was wrong for him or any man of his persuasion to sit on that side of the House was ridiculous, as ridiculous as it was to suggest that no man should sit on the other side of the House simply because he was an Englishman. Conviction was everything, then let the right hon. gentleman drop the word conciliation and let it be fair play and justice. He said that had always been his motto, then let him keep to it. Lot them drop that talk of one party and one race. The man who divided them in any way in this country forgot that the land must come first. It was the country they served and not a party nor a race. They must forget all that. There were many on the Government side of the House of different origin and nationality. They were welded together through party for politics; let them remain there for politics and not for race. There had been unnecessary grief and trouble caused by leaving politics for race. In conclusion, the hon. member said that if he had erred in bringing the matter forward it was one which had been in his mind for many a day. He had joined the party because he had honestly and firmly believed that that party was on the direct way to fair play for every party in the country. (Opposition cheers.)

said the Government had been subjected to a good deal of criticism and the Labour party were desirous of having a land tax, but before they agreed to that they should give the subject some careful reflection. Agriculture was the backbone of the country, and it was not impossible that a tax would break it. Personally he did not wish to criticise the Government but said that he would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Harbours to the matter of the carriage of goods on the railways, because there was a great grievance with regard to the delays which took place, sometimes continuing for months. He gave an example: on 26th February he had ordered a consignment of seed oats at Wellington, and it was not till the 28th March that he was able to get delivery at Vredefort. In some oases an ox-wagon could go as fast. There was also complaint as regards the transport of fruit on the railways, which went rotten owing to the delays. Then there were grumbles as to the careless way in which passengers’ luggage was handled by some of the railway employees, and the matter required consideration and amendment. At some stations they sometimes refused to register baggage, as the speaker had discovered from personal experience. There was a great necessity for railways in the North-western District of the Cape Province and the Northwest of the Orange Free State, as well as the Western parts of the Transvaal. There was a special need for railway development in the Orange Free State; and owing to the lack of railways, the farmer could not get his produce to market. Much could be produced, but the people were awaiting suitable means of transport. He could not understand why there was so much regrading on certain sections of the line, while there was such a demand for more lines in outlying districts. In the western portions of the speaker’s constituency there was a great need for more railway lines. He did not think it was fair that so much money should be spent on relaying whilst so many districts were totally without railway facilities of any kind. He asked whether more European labourers could not be employed on the railways, especially in the Cape, which would do much to solve the poor white question? If more Europeans were employed on the railway, in the stead of coloured men, the latter would be available for farm work, for which there was such a demand for coloured labour. There were plenty of poor whites who were willing to take up such work, and they had been largely employed in the Free State on the railways. If the Cape itself had no poor whites there were plenty in the other Provinces. Dealing with the tobacco industry, he thought it deserved greater attention on the part of the Minister of Agriculture, and a greater sum should be placed on the Estimates in regard to that matter in the O.F.S. than had been put down. There was nothing more which his constituents desired than that that industry should be encouraged. On the Estimates appeared on item of £750 for tobacco culture in the Free State, but that was too little for an entire Province, and the Minister should see that something more was done. Deputations had been sent and promises had been made and a larger sum ought to be devoted to this purpose. He hoped greater efforts would be made for the eradication of xanthium spinosum. In the O.F.S. practically nothing had been done with regard to bridges. He could not understand why so little had been done to settle poor people on the land, and when would the Land Settlement Act be put into force? They were getting disheartened, because nothing seemed to be done, and it was the same with the labour colonies—nothing seemed to be done. Hundreds of applications had been sent in for farms, but the people were not given a chance to work the farms, although the Government had bought land, it was allowed to lie useless, whilst there were thousands of poor whites waiting for their chance to get it. He thought that the expenses connected with the administration of the country were too heavy; and, instead of these having been reduced under Union, as they had been promised, they had been increased instead. He hoped that the Government would take that into consideration, and remember that any new tax under the circumstances would create dissatisfaction. He warned the Government. He wished, in conclusion, to make a few remarks about the “champion speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand Mr. Fichardt), who in that speech, had spoken of “we Free Staters,” and had posed as a leader. The hon. member had had a chance to be a leader in the past, many years ago, but in those days he was thousands of miles away, and he had missed his chance. In regard to the hon. member’s further remarks he (Mr. Van der Merwe) refused to be intimidated by threats and if anything was to be settled by his constituents, then no doubt his constituent and he (the speaker) would be able to settle the matter without the hon. member for Ladybrand.

said that until the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, he had intended to take up another line altogether, but several of his remarks were so calculated to exercise a pernicious influence, that he felt he must take another course. The hon. member had referred to the report of the Commerce and Industries Commission. He felt that report ought to have had another name—it should have been written in back village Chinese and should have been termed a “report to abolish all external trade.” The Commission had not looked in the proper direction where a solution to the question was to be found. He would point out that they had in the United States, which was held up as an ideal to them, Protection, trusts, and unemployment. He found by the latest figures that according to Professor Warner 75.4 per cent of all the misery in America was caused by unemployment, and, taking New York alone, according to Professor Devine, 68.4 per cent, of all the wretchedness and misery had to be attributed to unemployment. In England, according to Booth and Rowntree, 68 per cent, of the evil had to be attributed to unemployment. It was rightly said by hon. members on the cross-benches that neither Free Trade nor Protection could have anything to do with the present position. They found the same evils in different countries with different policies. So long as the present system of industry was allowed to go on they would have the same evils and they must cure by changing the system, or meet the effects. They were told by hon. members that they must be protected against cheap labour. If they needed protection against cheap labour, surely they needed it most against the cheapest labour. This was not proposed; it was proposed to protect against highly-paid labour. They were also told it was because of the cost of white labour in this country that Protection was necessary. But if on the one hand they had a large amount of white labour, on the other hand they had a large amount of cheap native labour, which should be pointed to in defence of Free Trade. Mr. Haggar went on to say that in order to produce our own wheat we should require 400,000 acres of land for the purpose, and it would take us more than 25 years in which to arrive at that stage.

Oh, no.

said that those who talked about taxing unimproved land should tax Table Mountain. (Labour cheers.) The labour which we would require to grow our own wheat did not exist either here or in any other country, yet we proposed to tax the food that came into South Africa, and farmers in this country had said that they would not grow wheat unless they could get 21s. a bag for it, although it could be grown at a profit at 12s. 6d. a bag. (A MINISTERIAL MEMBER: No.) In Australia, where practically all the work was done by whites, 12s. 6d. a bag was considered a very handsome price. It was because of our lethargy that we were paying twice as much for our food as we ought to pay. The working classes were too intelligent to accept the gospel propounded by the hon. member for Pretoria, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan), and he (Mr. Haggar) was astounded that the hon. member had not more intelligence and self-respect than to air a theory, the bottom of which was knocked out before it was propounded. (Laughter.) Bismarck had never accepted the policy of Protection, but resorted to it for a special purpose, and he (Dr. Haggar) challenged the hon. member to show where Protection had ever been adopted because it was a sound policy. Whenever countries had gone in for Protection they had done so as a rough and ready moans of raising funds. It had been argued by the hon. member that every country should be independent and self-contained in regard to food and clothing. But if Great Britain were self-contained she would not want our produce. Then the hon. member said that we were living on our capital; he (the speaker) thought we had lived on the capital of others; if the wealth we produced we were spending or re-investing locally, we were doing the best thing we could. Again, the hon. member wanted to equalise taxation—a dangerous confusion of thought. (An HON. MEMBER: No.) Then there was no thought at all. Equalisation of taxation implied equal services received. (Laughter) Hon. members on the Opposition side of the House deplored the absence of population. Universally it was believed that it would be a sad thing when population went away from a country. Let them take Germany when the tariff was in force; emigration went up from 33,000 annually to 817,000 annually. That was a loss of population for Germany. Regarding the conditions of the working classes in protected countries, Mr. Arnold White, formerly United States Ambassador in Berlin, stated that in the manufacturing districts of that city they would find industrious people living, not human lives, but lives of the lowest animals, and the food they consumed was scarcely fit to throw to pigs and dogs. Female labour had increased 100 per cent, during the last few years. During the American Civil War, in Lancashire the infant death-rate decreased very much because the mothers could stop at home and look after the children. In the German manufacturing towns where the women were employed, the infant death-rate was five times as high as in similar towns in England, simply because the mothers had to earn their living at low rates of wages, and thereby neglected their children. Even in the best of times in Germany unemployment was far greater than it was in England. In Prussia alone, in consequence of the tariff the cost of living went up to no less than £5,000,000 annually. The cost of living was increased so much that the Ministers of the Crown had their salaries increased. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to Little Free Trade Holland, which he said was a most prosperous country, and what had happened there ? The boats for the Rhine were now built in Holland with plates that came from Germany, and cheaper than they could be built in Germany, while they were equally as good, and then were sent back to Germany. The hon. member went on to quote a number of figures to compare the cost of living in Germany with Great Britain, which went to show that while the prices of food and rent were dearer in Protectionist Germany, wages were higher and foodstuffs lower in price in Free Trade Britain. Ex-President Roosevelt, speaking of the industrial conditions in America, said that to find equal labour conditions in Great Britain they would have to go back 100 years. The greatest prosperity of the U.S.A. had been between 1846 and 1861, and it had never been equalled since. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, speaking at the City Hall, said he did not believe in taxation through Customs, because the poor man with a big family had to pay out of all proportion to his income. The hon. member, however, said he was in favour of a revenue tariff. What was the difference? Proceeding, Mr. Haggar said that in the United States there were always ten million people on the verge of starvation, and 98 per cent, of the people owned only 2 per cent, of the wealth.

The hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to.