from Mary E. Butler, of Pietermaritzburg, who has been engaged in teaching in Natal since 1890, but who forfeited her pension rights through failing to register her name in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1910 (Natal), praying for consideration and relief.

from C. B. Fox, of Observatory, who, after having been employed for thirteen years, was discharged from the service of the South African Railways, praying for reinstatement, or for other relief.

from Elspeth Wilson, of Pietermaritzburg, who was engaged in teaching in South Africa from 1863 until 1903, but, having retired prior to the passing of Act No. 31 of 1910 (Natal), is not legally entitled to a pension, praying for consideration of her circumstances, and for relief.

from A. J. du Plessis and 128 others, inhabitants of the district of Boetsap, Kuruman, and Taungs, praying for the establishment of a township on a central site in those districts, or for other relief.

from S. W. Nash, an outdoor officer in the Customs Department, Cape Town, praying for leave to contribute certain arrears to the Pension Fund, or for other relief.

Returns for 1911 submitted by life assurance societies transacting business in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

stated that when this debate was adjourned yesterday, the question before the House was a motion by the Minister of Finance: That the House do now resolve itself into Committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. Upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. Creswell: 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.”

said that when the debate was adjourned last night he was referring to a statement made by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, with regard to the increased cost of living in the United States of America. Since 1887 the cost of living in the United States had gone up by 50 per cent., and relatively wages were lower to-day than they were before any tariff was imposed. In 1888 without a tariff the United States exports vastly increased, but when the tariff was imposed the exports fell off by 700,000,000 dollars, and in one year 30,000 employees were discharged by one railway company alone in the United States. In 1840 the United States possessed 899,765 tons of shipping, and in the same year Great Britain owned 2,768,262tons. Twenty years later the shipping of the United States was more than half that of Great Britain, the figures being 2,545,000, and Great Britain 4,658,000, but in 1906 the United States had only 959,000 tons of shipping as against Great Britain’s 11,167,000 tons, whilst U.S.A. shipping had gone to Belfast. Continuing, Mr. Haggar said Australia had been referred to as affording an instance of the success that attended the adoption of a Protective policy. It was said that in Australia enormous prosperity existed, but 80 per cent, of that was due entirely to natural and unprotected industries, and only 20 per cent, was due to protected industries. Last year Australia spent £71,000,000, £24,000,000 of which, however, was borrowed money. Then only one-eighth of the entire population of Australia was engaged in reproductive work. Was it proposed to protect the fundamental raw materials of commerce and industries? No. Those were the very things the hon. member (Sir T. M. Cullinan) intended to penalise. Those materials were food and labour, and the latter was the only one which ought to be protected, but instead of that in this country it was exploited.

It seemed to him that Protection was something like that of the shark who, when he saw the boy bathing, said to him, “come in, sonny, out of the wet,” and the boy went in. (Laughter.) In France the general health bill is worse than in Great Britain, and tuberculosis worse, and members of the medical profession say this is due because fresh meat, milk, and butter are so costly that they cannot cope with disease. He challenged the hon. member last night to tell him where this “protection” was adopted as a sound policy. Take Italy. They had only one distinctive industry, and that was the silk industry, which was not protected at all, and why had they to import jams? Because the sugar was too costly, and yet Italy was one of the greatest fruit-producing countries in the world. Italian manufacturers were penalised because sugar was dear. It was stated that they were losing 40 million pounds in Italy on iron alone on account of the tariff. In Germany, also, the tariff imposed a tax of nearly a pound a head. Another point was this, as in Free Trade countries commerce was not only more flourishing, but was more stable. The hon. member for Troyeville said so many things that were right that when he went wrong he should be put right. (An HON. MEMBER: “Who can put him right?”) There were so many that were born wrong that they could never be put right. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Troyeville said that Australian butter had been knocked out, but that was not the case. In 1911 they imported 3,486,000 lbs., at a cost of £164,982. In 1912 they imported 3,980,546 lbs., at a cost of £290,340. This was very serious, but the case was put rather unfairly for South Africa. In New Zealand and Australia there was an abundance of natural grasses, and it was rather unfair to compare the stock of South Africa with the stock in Australia. He did not say that they could not make butter as good in South Africa as Australian butter, but he had never seen it in Cape Town, and if he wanted good butter he had to get Australian or New Zealand. The Government had often been charged with extravagance in the matter of experts, but New Zealand had 55 dairy experts going through the country teaching the people dairying. The hon. member for Troyeville complained about the cost of Union, and when he heard the hon. member for Cape Town and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, his mind went back to 1908 and 1909, to what they said in Natal. They stated there that Union would cost a great deal more than Federation. He found now that what Natal said then was coming more true every day. It was all very well to complain of the Government. Anybody could do that, but anybody who went through the country with his eyes open must know that things were improving, but they were not improving as they ought to improve in the right direction. If hon. members, farmers, and landowners would not see these things they would be still far too slow to catch a dead worm. The right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West, in the old Cape Parliament, introduced an income tax, but it was ineffectual, because it was to be levied only on all incomes raised within the Colony. A man, to avoid this tax, simply went elsewhere, and invested his money without paying the tax. In Natal, however, they made it clear that income tax should be paid upon all incomes derived from any source. The hon. member for Troyeville had not got the grip of income tax at all, either upon incomes or upon land Hon. members on his side of the House had said that they must not tax land that was beneficially occupied. He would like to ask them this serious question: What is it that enables hon. members to beneficially occupy this land? It was the expenditure of public money that enabled these gentlemen to beneficially occupy land, and it was only right that they should contribute to the State. The hon. member for Barkly had said that people had said to him, “No more taxation.” He (the speaker) would like to know who those people were. It had been said by a London paper that the people of Natal were the best politically educated in the country. He said that the industrial population was the most intelligent in the country, and they demanded more taxation, but taxation of the right kind. The whole burden of the song of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had been “Extravagance, extravagance from top to bottom.” He said that extravagance started at the top, and while he (the speaker) admitted there were many high salaries he would point out that there were too many salaries that were too low. Proceeding to deal with the speech of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, the speaker said that he did not think that the comparisons that were made by the right hon. gentleman were fair. He thought that they should go on developing their own country instead of comparing it with other countries. He referred to the right hon. gentleman’s remarks with regard to the expenditure on education for which no adequate value was received, and said that they must not ask competent people to work for starvation wages. People who were not teachers and could not teach were pitchforked into the best billets, while those who were competent and highly certificated were left to struggle at the bottom of the ladder. Dealing with the expropriation of land, the hon. member said he thought that was no remedy, unless the Skate should have the ownership and control of the land, and he thought that they should learn what to do from the examples presented by other countries.

He wanted to deal with two vital questions: (1) The origin and (2) the destiny of our revenue. As to the latter, where did our money go? Agricultural vote, £589,000; police, £1,075,000; irrigation, £115,000; agricultural education, £115,000; bacteriology, £55,000, making altogether £1,952,000. Which vote did hon. members want the Government to reduce.? What did they get for that amount? Stuff called meat at 1s. per lb.; bread, because the wheat was not grown in this country, at twice the price that it ought to be; so-called butter that—well, he did not want to disgrace the House by saying what it was. It was a sound principle that he who used the capital ought to be prepared to pay back some of the interest. We talked a lot about economy, and he could only conclude — if the critics were correct—that every member of the Government was a prodigal. If he could draw any conclusion at all from the critics, and the Railway Administration, “economy” meant cheapness. He wondered how many hon. members had read the report which they received the other day? There they had a report which more than justified the attitude of the Labour Party for the last seven years, which was a splendid tribute to the patience of the men and a most damning indictment of the Administration. They paid £6,000 for what, by courtesy, they” called Hansard. What did they get for it? They got lampooning, they got misrepresentation, and they got a most imperfect reproduction. That £6,000 ought to be cut out, and let them have a decent thing or nothing at all. (Hear, hear.). Another item was repairs to typewriters, £3,890. That was not all. No mention was made of new machines. A good machine, with fair treatment, should last at least ten years. It would pay this Government to have a man at £500 a year to go through this country as a practical engineer. As to bacteriology, this was the essence of quackery and imposition, and but for the fact that there were millions of money invested in advertising and pushing different serums, they would hear nothing about it. They were not justified in spending £55,000 on bacteriology. Then there was deportation of Indians, £2,400. Those who brought the Indians to Natal for their own profit should be made to pay every penny of the cost of sending them back. They had an item of Indian Immigration Board, £985. Again the sugar and tea planters should pay for their own coolies. There was also an item of churches, £6,061. The items he had quoted represented an economy of £76,880 which might be carried out with advantage. He believed that on those benches the events connected with the crisis in the Cabinet had caused pain and regret; at any rate, that was his feeling. He wanted to say to the Prime Minister that outside in the country people wanted to know the truth. In regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe, he would like to say it dealt, in his opinion, with the origin of revenue. The hon. member for Victoria West said that there could be no taxation without retrenchment. What did that mean? In all conscience the army of able-bodied pensioners was large enough in this country. If they had retrenchment it would mean the augmentation of that army. The hon. member for George spoke of the large salaries paid.

The large salary list.

Have we come to the point where we judge our prosperity by the way in which we centralise wealth? Proceeding, he said the hon. member for Victoria West said in 1910, in this country there were huge untaxed resources. If they existed in 1910, surely they existed now, for they had not been touched. Among other things, the Government ought to bring in a Factory Bill. There were girls working in this town 16 hours a day for £2 a month. Then he thought it would be a wise thing to send a small commission to Australia and Japan, in order that they might see how things were done in those countries which they wanted done in South Africa—village settlement, and so on. And, while they were in Australia, they should not forget to examine into the sugar industry, which was conducted by white men, who were paid white men’s wages. There was a big opening for trade in Japan. Already South Africa derived £100,000 worth of goods from that country annually. Japan wanted South Africa’s asbestos, mica, wool, and ostrich feathers: while Australia would take South Africa’s mealies and would send back flour. A cargo both ways was assured. Concluding, the hon. member said there were two or three questions before them. The first was: shall the white man starve, or shall he leave this country? The second was: shall we equitably adjust the burden of State by deriving our revenues from proper sources, or shall we continue the present iniquitous and unsatisfactory state of affairs? The last question was for the Government. It was: whether they would retain their power, or adopt statesmanship lines? Would they adopt sound lines, that would make this country prosperous, or would they prefer power? He was convinced that if the Prime Minister put those principles before his supporters, they would, in their hearts of hearts, be loyal to those principles. He was anxious that they should have as real a prosperity in this country as they could have.

wished to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the satisfactory statement he had laid before the House, so that hon. members could go back to their constituents without having to announce fresh taxation. Instead of a deficit, as had been generally expected, he had a balance to the good. However, the Minister had used up all his savings to achieve this end, and although he (Mr. Serfontein) did not wish to criticise the Minister, he hoped that in the coming year all possible economies would be effected. A good deal of money would be required for defence and other purposes, on which it would be difficult to economise, and they must accordingly look to other items. There was room for economy on many items. There was, for instance, the expenditure in connection with the High Commissioner in London, amounting to £29,000. He quite agreed as to the necessity of having such an official, but did think that £29,000 was too much for that office, and thought that if they had an ordinary Agent-General, as in the past, the expenditure would not be more than £20,000. Mr. Serfontein went on to complain of the accommodation provided for members in the House of Parliament. Three members had to sit on one seat, and if one member wanted to get out, he had to climb over another. He hoped the Government would see whether they could not do something for the comfort of members in the House. (Hear, hear.) Turning to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, Mr. Serfontein said he did not wish to criticise him, because the House did not yet know what he proposed doing this year. He appealed, however, to the Minister to see that those parts of the Free State which were now clamouring for railways, especially the western districts, should be provided for. There could be no doubt that these lines would pay their way. He hoped a line would be built from Fauresmith, and another from Kroonstad, to Vierfontein. Those lines would bring the whole of the western parts of the Free State at least 140 miles nearer to the harbours. The hon. members representing those parts of the Free State were now in agreement as to the direction which the lines should take, and all they wanted was that the Minister would approve the plan that was proposed. He knew that all the lines could not be granted this year, but he urged that something should be done for the Western Free State, and that at any rate a start should be made. (Hear, hear.) Another matter he wished to refer to was in connection with the conveyance of grain from Kroonstad to the seaports. He had been busy for more than a year discussing the matter with the Government, but was referred from one Minister to another, and was sent from Pontius to Pilate. It had been alleged that large quantities of the grain which had been sent to the coast from Kroonstad had been wet. Well, some of it might have been wet, bat he denied that Kroonstad grain to a value of £147,000 was wet, and he urged that a Government inspector should be stationed at Kroonstad to inspect the grain. The traders and farmers in the district would be willing to pay the expenses. Then it would appear how far Kroonstad was to blame. The Chamber of Commerce at Kroonstad even seemed to fear the existence of a conspiracy in this connection. He hoped the Minister would help them. Under present circumstances the grain was sold at the ports for next to nothing, and that condition of affairs should be altered. Mr. Serfontein went on to express his gratification at the employment of 5,000 poor whites on the railways. He hoped this system would be extended to the Cape, as it would have the effect of bringing the children of the poor whites in the schools. Proceeding, Mr. Serfontein complained of the seats on the railway platforms at Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Paarl, and Wellington being always taken up by coloured people, and he hoped the Minister would see that special seats were provided for white people. He also wished that justice should be done in the matter of the Dutch language. In regard to certain remarks recently made by Mr. E. Grobler, Mr. Serfontein said it appeared to him that with the exception of the Prime Minister and occasionally the Minister of Education, none of the Ministers had any sympathy with the Dutch language. They hardly ever heard Ministers, with the exception of these two, speak Dutch. How, in these circumstances, could they expect subordinates to speak Dutch if this example was set by the Ministers?

Proceeding, Mr. Serfontein said that much though he regretted it, he was forced to criticise the Prime Minister in regard to what was known as the Cabinet crisis, and he regretted this all the more because he knew that the Prime Minister himself was not responsible for what had happened. But the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, had to bear the responsibility. He respected and admired General Botha, but he thought that the few words of criticism he was going to utter would do more good than all the applause of the hon. member for Bloemfontein. (Mr. C. L. Botha). The removal of General Hertzog from the Cabinet meant a slap in the face to the people of the Free State, and he thought the Free State had not merited such treatment at the hands of the Prime Minister. Ever since the pre-war days, during the war, and since the war, Free Staters had always shown themselves faithful and true in any agreement or contract they entered into with the people of the Transvaal. (Hear, hear.) The dismissal of General Hertzog was a painful question in the Free State, and one which they could not lightly forget They would never forget the treatment meted out to General Hertzog, and he could only hope that the Prime Minister would see his way to try and find a solution of the difficulty, so that the people of the Free State might be got back on his side to work with the Government. It had been said that General Hertzog had many enemies. Well, let them look at history, and they would see that every great man and every great statesman had many enemies, but also many staunch friends and supporters. That was because every true and great statesman had strong and fixed principles which he would never forsake. (Cheers.) Why had General Hertzog so many enemies? It was because he was a man of firm principles. He had his principles and refused to deviate from them, and such action made enemies for him. He refused to sacrifice his principles for every trifle, and that created bitter enemies for him. It was a mistake to expel him from the Ministry. At whose request was it done? If it had been done at the request of all the other Ministers, the speaker could have understood it. It seemed to him that the initiative for General Hertzog’s removal had not been taken by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister formerly representing Natal After all, with all due respect to that gentleman, he wished to say that he (Colonel Leuchars) had never been one of their most brilliant members of the Cabinet. And yet at his request General Hertzog had had to go. That made matters even more painful for the Free State. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) had been very pleased and proud yesterday over Natal’s share in General Hertzog’s removal. Well, people in the Free State were more generous and they would never try to get a Natal member out of the Cabinet. Even if they did not think much of the Natal member of the Cabinet, they knew Natal thought a lot of him and therefore would never aim at getting rid of him. If at the request of the Free State the Minister representing Natal had been expelled, the hon. member for Weenen would have expressed very different views. If they did try the Prime Minister would take up a somewhat different attitude to that taken up in regard to General Hertzog. The speech made by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) the other day had had the effect of a bomb—as was always the case when a strong speech was delivered by a prominent member. The speaker had not seen any particular evil in the speech, and he accepted what had been said. A spider could extract poison from a flower, and a bee honey. Well, naturally they all knew that they were responsible to their constituents for what they did, but it did no harm to be reminded of that occasionally. The hon. member had not posed as a leader or attempted to tell the Free Staters what they should do. He had only stated that they would be held responsible for the attitude which they adopted in the matter of the Cabinet crisis. Now, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha) had, in his speech, posed as a champion of the rights of the Free State. Free State members knew him too well, and if the Dutch language was to be burnt at the stake they knew who would be willing to apply the first match (Hear, hear.) The hon. member always spoke English. If he was such a lover of the Dutch language, why then had he not made his remarks the other day in the language taught him at his mother’s breast? (Cheers.) If he did so, his fellow-members of the Opposition would respect him. (Hear, hear.) Another member who was full of jeers and hatred of the Dutch language was the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler). Did the hon. member know that the name of his constituency represented the blood and tears of many of the ancestors of his constituents? It was terrible. Did the hon. member know that in the past the pioneers, the ancestors of these people he hated so much had cleaned up Natal and made it habitable for the white race? If so, he would somewhat alter his attitude. It was not fitting for the hon. member to applaud the expulsion of a descendant of one of those pioneers from the Cabinet. In conclusion, Mr. Serfontein urged that true conciliation lay in both races respecting each other’s traditions and languages. (Cheers.) Then, and then only, would there be a real conciliation. When that was done no conciliation would be necessary. (Hear, hear.) It was, however, impossible to conciliate and at the same time make such sacrifices as the Free State had had to make. It was to be hoped that the present sacrifice was the last which the Free State would be asked to make.

said that an analysis of the speeches made on the Budget would show that the main charges preferred against the Government had been those of extravagance, want of morality in their methods of finance, injustice to the inland portions of the Union, and also the charge, which was levelled by the hon. member for Ladybrand on the previous day, of the disgraceful treatment of the Free State. He thought that the country and the House was indebted to the hon. member for George for his interesting, exhaustive, and penetrating address, in which he pointed out the large increase in the cost of administration. Mr. Vintcent pointed out what had happened in the Cape just prior to Union, and said that since the consummation of Union there had been considerable expansion, while education in the Transvaal, Free State, and Natal, which was at the expense of Union funds, had largely increased, and there were many additional teachers. In making comparisons with other countries, hon. members overlooked the fact that this was a very sparsely-copulated country, and he thought it had been rightly pointed out that if the population increased in this country, the very slightest addition would have to be made to the Civil Service in order to govern the extra population. Where, he thought, all had been parties to extravagance was in regard to public buildings. They had been disposed to erect most palatial public buildings, and when the pinch came, and urgently required and modest buildings were asked for, they would be refused. Then the Government had been charged with a lack of morality in regard to finance. He thought that if hon. members on the other side were in power, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth occupied the position of Minister of Finance, he would not have hesitated to take advantage of the windfall of £770,000 accrued balance of 1910-11. One of the arguments in support of Union had been economy of administration, and he thought the Government that brought in taxation at this early stage of Union would be a very bold Government indeed. The Treasurer had also been charged with having been too optimistic. He had no doubt that by a system of economies considerable saving could be effected, and, as a commercial man, he did not agree with those pessimists who said that the Minister had been too optimistic in his estimates of revenue. He thought that our prosperity to-day was a gradual one, and that we might expect, as far as one could see, no set-back during the current year. In regard to the additional interest charge debited to railways, he thought it was quite sound to debit the railways with interest on the capital cost. Reference had been made to alleged excessive expenditure on re-laying certain lines. His opinion was that the Government were perfectly justified in using a portion of the railway profits and setting them aside for construction in the first four years of Union and that by so doing they would not have contravened the terms of the Act of Union.

In regard to the complaints as to harbours not being self-supporting, he thought that, in principle, the objectors to the present system were right in their contention, because, undoubtedly, inland people were deprived of the lower rates they would have if the losses on harbours were not deducted from the railway profits, although to his mind their grievances were more imaginary than real. With increased charges at the harbours they would probably have to pay higher rates on mealies and coal. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, southwest, in the course of his remarks, had said that Port Elizabeth as a port had been disgracefully neglected. He believed that some years, ago in the old Cape days, a considerable sum was written off the debt due by the Port Elizabeth harbour. It had occurred to him (Mr. Vintcent) that it was a matter worthy of very serious consideration by the Government as to whether, instead of sinking two millions in the harbour of Port Elizabeth, they should not rather assist the port of Mossel Bay, which could cope with about six times the existing volume of traffic at a very small expenditure, and then, by way of killing two birds with one stone, connect Oudtshoorn, which would shortly be connected with Mossel Bay by rail, with the western system, thus placing Mossel Bay in the position of being able to cope with this increased trade which Port Elizabeth found it difficult to deal with. He had recently drawn attention to the bad treatment which Mossel Bay received in regard to freights from Europe in comparison with the freights to Port Elizabeth. He sincerely hoped that the Government would not cease to use their best endeavours to induce the Mail Company to place Mossel Bay on a better basis. Touching on the Excise, the hon. member said it was commonly understood, and rightly so, he thought, that the Minister of Finance intended to revise the Excise. He hoped there would not be much delay in this matter, because the suspense was likely to somewhat paralyse dealers in their operations, and he also hoped that the Minister would consider the question of protecting the holders of matured grape brandy. He trusted that the Government would also keep in view that, if they differentiated against grape brandy, they were going to depreciate very seriously their large holding of that article.

Touching on the question of the expropriation of the new Cape Central Railway, Mr. Vintcent observed that, immediately after the last session, the Prime Minister made a tour through the South-western districts, and he thought he was immensely impressed with the development which had taken place there in spite of the disadvantage of the high railway rates, a development due entirely to the enterprise of private people, without much assistance from the Government. The Prime Minister would remember that in every place he visited the burning question was the expropriation of this railway, and he thought that the right hon. gentleman was impressed with the extent to which progress was being arrested in those districts in consequence of high railway rates. He undertook to study the various Acts, and to consult the Minister of Railways when he returned to Pretoria. Well, about two weeks ago a very large deputation from the South-western districts interviewed the Minister of Railways, but he said he could do nothing. In view of the probable requirements of the country for railways during the next 25 years, he would say that the Minister, judging from the grounds of his previous reply, would he justified in giving them the same reply every year. The rates on the new Cape Central Railway were higher than on the South African Railways by from 50 to 400 per cent., and therefore they were entirely at the mercy of this company. The House would remember that the House was seeking power in the Railways and Harbours Control Bill to control the rates of that company. The Government had made a new departure in taking over the Kowie line, and they were rather fortunate in acquiring it cheaply, because the company was unable to run it to the satisfaction of the Government. The position of the N.C.C.R. was different, because it was an improving asset. Many years ago the Cape Government had the opportunity of buying the 42 miles of line from Worcester to Ashton, but did not avail themselves of it. He hoped in years to come this Government would not lay itself open to the charge that they repeated that mistake.

The earning power of that railway was growing enormously. He found that within the last five years the receipts of that railway had increased by 45 per cent., and in the course of a few months the George-Oudtshoorn railway would be opened, thus completing the link between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, and as the route between Port Elizabeth via Oudtshoorn would be considerably shorter than via De Aar, it would strengthen the position of the N.C.C.R. considerably. He sincerely hoped that the Government would seriously consider this question of taking over the N.C.C.R., and he would like to be told what the policy of the Government was in regard to that. He would like to know if they had approached the company, and what the result had been. Last year the value of the through traffic was £60,000 gross. They had been told by the Minister that during 1912 the loss on the branch lines throughout the Union was £440,000, which meant 4 per cent, on a capital of 11 millions. The N.C.C.R. were serving several districts with 205 miles of line, and that railway was costing the Government absolutely nothing. It was true that the Government had paid about £370,000 as a subsidy, but interest on that at the rate of 4 per cent, was only £15,000, so that even if the Government was to pay a £500,000 bonus it would only make it equivalent to paying an interest of £20,000 on the loss of branch lines. He would point out that the districts served by the line had a population of 120,000, or, taking also the districts indirectly served, a population of 165,000. He therefore thought the line should receive more attention than it had in the past. He would point out that as the result mainly of the reduction on the produce rate made by the N.C.C.R. last year, within a year the value of the produce carried over that railway had increased by 140 per cent., and if the S.A.R. rates obtained on that railway he felt certain that in a year or two the volume of produce would show an increase of hundreds per cent. He would further point out that in the course of a few months they would have the impossible state of affairs at Mossel Bay of Mossel Bay being served by two administrations, one charging Government line rate and another private line rate. In conclusion, he sincerely hoped this matter would have early attention at the hands of the Government. If they felt that they could not at once take over this railway, then he would say as an alternative, in justice to the large population served by this railway, they should, by means of a subsidy, arrange with this company to carry Colonial produce at the same rate as did the S.A. Railways. (Cheers.)

expressed sorrow that the Minister of Finance had not followed the example of his predecessor of having his budget statement printed. (Government cheers.) The main point seemed to him to be that in this, a year of exceptional prosperity they were face to face with the prospect of extra taxation. He knew that one trod on dangerous ground as soon as one offered any criticism in regard to extravagance, and he did not want to-day to lay a charge at the door of the Government; but still there was a considerable feeling in this country that their public service was somewhat overburdened and overstocked; that though their revenue was fairly large, the cost of administration was out of proportion to the number of the population.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that they were paying more for administration to-day than they did before Union. He did not think there was a single member who, when he went round amongst his constituents, explaining the details of the Convention, did not lay stress upon the economies which they all expected. What had come of it all? The Government when they took office had to take over a large staff of Civil Servants from the various Provinces. He thought they should instruct the Civil Service Commission to make inquiries into the matter, and if they found a large number of the Government officers or Civil Servants who could be dispensed with, they should be dispensed with. The country should be run on business lines. It was not the men of the country who ran away with the money In the country districts they had men holding positions as magistrates, receiving salaries on which they could scarcely live If they took for example the Scab Inspectors, they were men who had to work very hard indeed, and they received very low salaries. The men who did the work were generally the worse paid. Those near the centre of affairs, who could exercise a little influence were the men who really got the big salaries. There should certainly be a readjustment in regard to salaries in the Civil Service. To his mind the salaries of the higher officials were far too high in this country. The Transvaal had set the pace. In the Cape they had endeavoured to keep the salaries moderately low, and when Union came there were a number of Civil Servants drawing salaries much larger than they ever paid in the Cape. The Government would be well advised to look into the matter. There were hundreds of people always sitting on the doorstep ready to go into the Service and to work for the Government. If they had men who were doing good work he had no objection to their being paid good wages, but they should see that the country got value for the money spent.

Dealing with farming matters, the hon. member said that in spite of the heavy drought they had in South Africa there was one pleasant feature, that was the steady progress which farming had made in this country. They had seen that since the war, farmers were prepared to fall in with science. They were developing the country on scientific lines, and on all sides were making steady progress. The value of land had gone up considerably, especially in the Cape Province and the Free State. The prosperity had been enormous during the last two years. One might ask to what extent had the Government contributed in bringing about that prosperity of the country.

Referring to the pastoral side of farming, the first thing which struck one was what had been done to cope with stock disease, which they had got in this country. He did not suppose there was any country in the world where they had so much disease amongst stock as they had in South Africa. It was for the Prime Minister, who held the portfolio as Minister of Agriculture, to satisfy himself that everything that was possible was being done to promote the pastoral industry of this country. Had they got sufficient institutions where those stock diseases were being thoroughly investigated? He would not like to underestimate the immense services that Dr. Theiler had rendered to this country, but they realised that as the position was to-day, it was absolutely impossible for Dr. Theiler, with all the onerous duties which devolved upon him, to give that attention to the matter which it demanded. (Cheers.) What a large number of farmers felt in South Africa in the matter of investigating stock diseases, was that they were not doing what they ought to do. They needed more investigation, more stations established all over the country, and more scientific men. That was one of those branches in which they could not allow the question of money to stand in the way. The Prime Minister took a great interest in the farming operations of the country, and he would ask him to consider the question of coming to the assistance of the pastoral industry of the country. In the matter of plants, they had a number which were poisonous to stock, and investigations in that respect had not been what they ought to be. With regard to the agricultural side, he hoped the Prime Minister would not take it amiss when he told him that there was a fairly strong opinion that the Department was not in touch with the public as it ought to be in this country. The Agricultural Department was the most important they had. In connection with the prosperity of the country it depended upon that department. (Cheers.) What they wanted was a really live institution which could lead the way and one that was kept in touch with the public. It was not only necessary that they should have their best Minister at the head of affairs but the people under him should have their hearts in farming operations. All over the world important discoveries were being made.

Let them take one matter only, the question of dry agriculture. The country was largely indebted to the hon. member for Potchefstroom for the keen interest he had taken in that matter. He had done almost more than the Agricultural Department to bring it home to the farming community the best improvements with regard to dry agriculture. The Government had also done something in establishing stations, but they could have done more. They wanted to get more into touch with the back veld. It should be demonstrated to them that they required improved methods. The results had been marvellous in the Transvaal, they were producing more and more every year, and in the matter of mealie cultivation alone there were great possibilities. But he was not satisfied that the Government was doing all that should be done. Was the Prime Minister satisfied that those who were directing operations under him were the men who could be trusted with their great responsibilities. There was a feeling that the department was not what it ought to be. That was a matter which should have serious attention. With regard to irrigation, Mr. Wessels said he was extremely sorry to hear the Minister of Lands when he stated that the Government had practically laid it down as a policy that the country was not to expect any irrigation schemes. It was true that private enterprise was doing a great deal in this direction, but it was a great mistake to say that as far as the Government was concerned we must expect no more irrigation schemes. As to land settlement, when he addressed his constituents during the recess they were very thankful because of the passing of the Land Settlement Act, and said that that was evidence that the South African National Party was going to carry out something really for the benefit of the Union.

They are disappointed.

observed that the hon. members for Fort Beaufort and Fordsburg, speaking at Sea Point the other night, had asserted that the Government was paralysed owing to the retrogressive elements in their ranks. “ If hon. members,” exclaimed Mr. Wessels, “only knew how anxious we are to have something done, they would not make these speeches.”

We don’t call you a retrogressive; we want you over here.

If there is any paralysis it is not due to any action of any member on this side of the House. (Opposition cries of “Oh.”) The Government machinery moves very slowly. (Opposition cheers.) I am prepared to make allowances for all that, but the country is sadly disappointed. (Opposition cheers.) Proceeding, Mr. Wessels said we had thousands of people— immigrants of the very best type, immigrants that other countries would be very glad to get indeed—we had these people waiting, and all that we wanted was—

A land tax.

To put the machinery into motion so as to give these people an opportunity of going on to the land. There were still 22 million morgen of Crown land available for settlement within the Union. He did not say that all of that was fit for occupation, but a very large area could be utilised. There was much disappointment that nothing had been done in this matter. He believed that the Land Board had been given far too much power, Parliament having been afraid to give the Minister of Lands any authority, but rather than see the carrying out of the Act hampered by the Land Board, let the Minister have the Act amended if he thought that necessary. Hon. members opposite, continued Mr. Wessels, had made a great point of the question of immigration. Where the Ministerial members differed from them was that the latter took up the position that the Government must first provide for the people who were already in the country crying out for land, and there were thousands of them, and when that had been done there would be time enough to think of those oversea.

When will that be?

I don’t know. (Opposition laughter.) Considering that you have ten thousand people to-day in the country who require land, it is surely better to say that charity begins at home. (Mr. VAN NIEKERK (Boshof): Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Wessels remarked that people who thought of improving Karoo land had no idea of farming conditions, and they thought that every bit of land could be cultivated.

Nonsense.

The people who know the least about farming offer advice on the subject. (Ministerial cheers.) Proceeding, Mr. Wessels said that he was exceedingly sorry that the Minister of Lands had not spent every penny voted to him last year for land settlement purposes. If the Minister had told some reliable person to go about the country and buy land for him, every penny would have been spent. (An Opposition Member: At £10 per morgen.”) It seemed such a pity when they had got the money that these things should not be carried out, they had thousands of good young men in the country whose parents were unable to put them on the land, and if they had only this measure they would soon have excellent results. Then they said if a man could put down one-fifth, the Government would down the other four-fifths of the purchase price. He would have liked the Minister of Lands to have given this a little more publicity. A great many people did not know anything about it. There were thousands of people who would avail themselves of these facilities, but they did not know of them. He represented a constituency where there was still about a million morgen of land to be settled, and nothing as yet had taken place.

Proceeding, the hon. member said he would like to say a word or two with regard to quit-rent, and this was the last word he would say upon that subject. He was very much disappointment that only one individual had to go into these quitrents all through the country. Well, the Commissioner had brought up his report, and they were told by the Government that they were not going to do anything. He knew, therefore, that the Government were not going to make any reduction in regard to quitrent, but there was one thing that he would ask the Minister of Finance to do to assist these people. If quitrent had to be redeemed under present conditions, the money must be paid at once. It would benefit these people a great deal if the quitrent were paid by instalments of not less than £50, so that every year the people would be working off the quitrent and redeeming it. Then, again, with regard to the defence measure that was passed last year. He was pleased to see that the country had responded very readily to this, and that they had realised that they had to defend the country; but there was one thing in connection with that matter that he very much regretted, and that was that the Minister had not taken into consideration these large and sparsely populated areas all over the country. The result was that people were forced to travel very great distances in order to get training in camp. This would make the Defence Act somewhat unpopular. In mapping out these large areas, the extent of Namaqualand, the Northwest, and Bechuanaland was not taken into account, and only the population was considered. Proceeding, the hon. member said that this was the third session of Parliament, and in the matter of consolidating measures they had done very little indeed. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that if they were going on at the rate they were going on, this Parliament would expire, and they would have shown very little result. (Opposition cheers.) They must make the people realise that they really had Union. They could not go on administrating the country with different laws. Where was the spirit of Union in that case? He quite realised that the position was a very difficult one, and it was very difficult to get measures through the House. The House was very big, and it was a very talkative House—(hear, hear) —and they should have to consider, if they were going to do any work, whether they should not bring in the closure. (Ministerial cheers.) They must do one of two things, either introduce the closure or come to an understanding with hon. members opposite and appoint a very strong committee, so that they could see what measures could be put through the House. Take the insolvency law. How long were they going to wait for that? The commercial community felt that they were not, sufficiently protected. Commercial morality, he was obliged to say, was not what it should be. Acts of fraud were committed and creditors had no remedy. They wanted a new patent law, and Estate Bill, and a new company law. He wanted to be perfectly fair, but it seemed to him that if they were going on at this rate they would do very little in the way of passing consolidating measures. (Cheers.) In conclusion, he said he felt that next year they would be faced with taxation, and it was wise that the Government took steps in time.

said he realised that they had certain provincial traditions which had been in conflict to some extent. There was the matter brought, up by the hon. member for Barberton with regard to the introduction of the Railway Bill. The same criticism was advanced by the leader of the Opposition. His hon. friend’s position in regard to this matter was quite bad enough. It pained him to hear the Minister of Justice criticise the Prime Minister, who, as Prime Minister of the Transvaal, shared the responsibility for what was done there, and he hastened to say, as one who had followed Transvaal finance before Union, that that criticism was without foundation, because the Transvaal had an excellent record in this regard. The Minister of Justice was quite wrong. Only one Railway Bill was introduced in the Transvaal, and that was introduced long before the budget speech He would like to point out to his hon. friend opposite, that in 1904 his (Sir Thomas Smartt’s) Railway Bill, was read a second time only three days before the end of the session.

Which?

The Railway Works Bill.

Oh, yes. (Opposition laughter.)

My hon. friend has criticised the Government about this matter, when he himself, in 1904, only introduced his Railway Bill three days before the end of the session.

You have looked too hastily into the facts. (Opposition laughter.)

It was the expenditure of a million pounds on works.

You are talking about a Railway Construction Bill.

Well, take your Railway Construction Bill of 1906; that case is not much better. The session closed on the 20th August, and the Bill was introduced on the 6th August.

When was it laid on the Table?

That I—

It was laid on the Table the day after the Budget speech.

The hon. member is calling attention—

It was laid on the Table the day after the Budget speech.

That might be so. (Opposition laughter.)

But it is so (General laughter.)

said that was not the point. It was not introduced until a fortnight before the end of the session. He was not advocating this. In this respect the Cape had not so good a record as the Transvaal. With regard to what the Minister of Justice had said concerning the hon. member for Barberton, he could not agree. He thought that the Minister misled the House. While the Minister, in regard to the figures to which attention had been drawn, had been out 48 per cent, on 4½ million, the hon. member for Barberton had been out less than 5 per cent. on 34 millions. He did not agree with the hon. member for Barberton, however, when he complained that hon. members so often spoke in the same way, for he was afraid that he (Mr. Fremantle) could not change his opinion with the alacrity of some hon. members. (Laughter.) He did hope the Minister of Finance would stick to his guns on the question of the 5 per cent, perpetual annuity. It was a perfectly clear position, only some hon. members had not taken the trouble to read up Adam Smith. He thought it would be found that in the past finance in this country had been largely influenced by English finance, and the name of perpetual annuities clearly came from England. It was adopted when it was found that the national debt was not temporary, and it was clearly understood that it implied that the creditor could not demand repayment, and not that the State could not repay, for in the first half century after the establishment of perpetual annuities there had been, he believed, three conversions, and Walpole had been able to reduce the rate of interest to 3 per cent. It seemed to him that, in this matter, they were bound to go by the law in the main, and that the proposal of the hon. member for Barberton was an equitable proposal.

He would like to say a word in reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, as to the £455,000 a year. The hon. member should remember that an arrangement was made last year that the railway capital was to be fixed, and that the railways were to pay an all-round rate of 3½ per cent. What did they find? The Minister of Finance had been to the market in London; he had offered considerably more than 4 per cent., and he had got very little money. At the present moment, the railways were paying less than their share in regard to a considerable part of their capital. Nobody could raise money at 3½ per cent, today. Another matter was that the railways were not paying sinking fund, and the general taxpayer had got to pay sinking fund in respect to a large part of railway capital. He was one of those who believed that it was unsafe, especially in the particular circumstances of this country, that we should not pay sinking fund on our railway capital. If we paid 1 per cent, on the whole of our railway capital, we should have to pay, not £455,000, but something like £870,000. Therefore, he ventured to say to his hon. friend the member for Pretoria, North, that the railways had made an uncommonly good bargain. Then he would like to register a word of protest against rather a provincial note which seemed to him to be struck by the hon. member for Barberton in regard to this matter of the railways. After all, this question of losses on branch lines and profits on main lines was not only a question of Provinces. He represented a constituency which was served in the main by a line, the Midland Line, which was making a large profit, he thought £165,000 a year. He thought it was unfair to suggest that all the profit-making lines were in the Transvaal, and all the loss-making lines were in the other parts of the Union.

He was unable to associate himself with the criticism of those who complained that in a period of bounding prosperity the Minister of Finance had estimated for a deficit. The present Government entered into Union with a surplus, it was true, an enormous railway surplus, which they were able to devote to general purposes. They had decided now to dispense with that surplus. The result was that they had a deficit. If they had taken the railway surplus for general revenue, as they were allowed to do under the Constitution, they would have had a surplus to announce. He thought they had done a right thing in reducing taxation as fast as they could. His own belief was that the Minister was not going to have such a large deficit as he had said he was going to have. He doubted very much whether there would be any deficit at all at the end of the year. As to the charges of extravagance, he was bound to say that he thought the charges had not been made out against the Government. They were very much indebted to the hon. member for George for the valuable statistics he had brought forward. It seemed to him that, in dealing with Governors, the hon. member had left out Provincial Administrators, which, he thought, ought to be counted in the Governors’ vote. If he had done that, he would have found that there was not a very large saving for Governors. Still, he did not think that there had been extravagance, except in one point. What he (Mr. Fremantle) did think was that we had got an extravagant system in the Civil Service in consequence of the plan which was, unfortunately, adopted by the House of having only one branch of the Civil Service, with the result that we paid our administrative staff too little and our ordinary clerks too much. The right hon. the member for Victoria West had spoken about institutions dotted up and down the country, but they had had no instances quoted to them in support of the general charge of wasted money. He trusted the Minister would be able to give reasons for the increase of expenditure before the debate closed. They all knew many of the reasons for the increase of expenditure since Union. There was the condition of the Civil Servants’ salaries before Union, when in the Cape they had been unable to give increments to their Civil Servants for some years. Now, in a time of prosperity it was only right that they should treat their Civil Servants fairly, and let them enjoy those increments. He did not think there was any reason for criticising the Government on those grounds. There might be extravagance here and there, but he did not believe that the higher salaries paid in the Civil Service were extravagant, or that on the whole there was any extravagance except that their system was extravagant in so far as they had one branch of the Civil Service instead of two.

He did not feel clear that there was a definite South African financial policy which had been laid down and was being pursued by the Minister. He agreed with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth that in view of the circumstances of this country, where they had large dwindling assets, they were bound to pursue a policy of reducing, at any rate, the dead weight of debt as far as they could, and developing this country out of revenue. (Opposition cheers.) This necessitated the observance of constitutional practice and strict control by Parliament. That was the real South African policy which the hon. member for Barberton introduced. He laid the country under a debt of gratitude to himself for doing so. The Transvaal had a wasteful system of balances. He dreaded the introduction of that system into the Union. The hon. member for Barberton agreed so far that he said they should devote all future balances to the liquidation of debt. Unfortunately he did not agree to that in regard to the first year’s balances. He thought it would be wise if they handed over that balance to the Debt Commissioners He felt very uneasy because of the expedients which the Minister of Finance was resorting to, to try and get behind the law of this country, that the balances shall be applied to the extinction of debt. Those rigid constitutional doctrines had been built up by men who had been driven to it by hard experience of public finance and who found they were the ways that led to the saving of public money. He trusted the Minister of Finance would be very cautious in departing from those sound principles. (Cheers.) Also he did not feel confident that the Government was prepared to view some of those financial questions as they arose in a bold and decisive way, without which unfortunate results would arise. He had spoken of the Civil Servants. The system they had now was bound to result in enormous waste. He was sorry that the Minister had not grasped that problem and did not insist at all costs on the right thing, which was a small staff to do the responsible work and a large staff to do the clerical work. That was the only sound thing to do, from the financial point of view. It was the same as regarded the Financial Relations Bill, education, and matters of that sort.

It seemed to him that the tendency was to slip in the wrong direction; to throw all the load on the Government and to throw no responsibility on local authorities. (Opposition cheers.) The thing was most unsound. They spent more money and got loss for the expenditure, (Opposition cheers.) He hoped the Minister would see that this was not a theoretical business, but was a business that went far to the root of financial questions. With regard to finance, he could not understand the attitude of the Minister of Finance and the Government as a whole. They were entirely indifferent to statistics. (Cheers.) He thought the Minister had been spoilt by everybody tolling him ho was a heaven-born genius, quite unique. (Laughter.) He thought as the result of this their Minister had made up his mind that he was superior to statistics. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) was one of those plodding individuals who was prepared to work with statistics and spent hours of time and gallons of oil in working out facts. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was not usually supposed to be one of the least brilliant men in the House, yet he was compelled to spend an enormous amount of time over statistics. But the Minister of Finance did not trouble about statistics. He came into the House without them, and compelled hon. members to make their criticism on the Budget without the facts which were absolutely essential. The path of the hon. Minister was made clear before Union in regard to the gathering of statistics. There was an Inter-Colonial Conference. Why were its recommendations not given effect to? Look at the miserable state they were in in regard to the statistics in connection with banks. It had probably leaked out to the hon. Minister that a petition from the banks had been addressed to him asking that statistics should be published as in the old days. With regard to education they had no statistics at all. (The MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: “You cannot expect it. It is Provincial.”) Why should they not? They had got it in Australia and they should have it here. Was it not a Provincial matter in Australia? Those statistics were given both in Canada and Australia. After all, they had to supply the money, or a large part of it, but for some reason they were entirely indifferent to that question.

Proceeding, the hon. member asked why they did not have cash accounts any longer? It would be a great advantage to the Minister. He had got an overdraft in London of a million. How did that happen? It happened because his hon. friend had not got his hand upon the finances of the country as he ought to have. An overdraft of a million in the London banks was a thing for which the people would have to pay. Why had they got that overdraft? They had plenty of money—at least the Public Debt Commissioners had. At any rate they had enough to get on without overdrafts from London banks. That overdraft in London was due to the fact that the Minister of Finance was probably too busy looking after the Defence Scheme, which undoubtedly was a success, and he had not got his hands on the finances of the country. They were in the clutches of the London banks, and he did not think they would get out of them without great difficulty. He agreed with the hon. member for Barberton with regard to the Loan Account. He did not think it right that they should have wild estimates such as they had last year with regard to the probable amount of what would be spent. The Prime Minister made a perfect Estimate—he was not 6d. out. His hon. friend the Minister Without Portfolio was not quite as good— he was 6s. 8d. out on a total of £578,837 for Posts and Telegraphs. For land and settlement the Government wanted £361,500. His hon. friend the member for Bechuanaland had been drawing attention to that. They only spent £113,700. For irrigation, and important matter, they must have £345,000. They actually spent £164,000, and so on. The Government was not carrying out that policy of development they promised last session. They were making these false estimates, which led to extravagance and waste. He did not see how they could go on without statistics in a happy-go-lucky way, hoping it would work out all right.

With regard to the Loan Account, he took a grave view of that. Their credit was extremely good. If they took our Cape 3½ per cents, last year, the lowest point they touched was 95. The lowest point the Canadians touched was 94, and all the other colonies were lower than that. Therefore they could say that the Cape 3½ per cent, had been the highest of the Colonial Stock, and therefore there ought to be no difficulties with regard to Loan Account. What did the Minister of Finance do? He waited until the market was in the worst possible position since Union. He did not make any inquiries. Why did he not go into the market before? On the 9th of May the bank rate was 3 per cent., and remained at that until the 29th of August, but he did not go into the market when it was 3 per cent., but when it was 5 per cent., the highest point it has reached since Union. What possible explanation could he give except that he did not study the position?

: He would be forced to.

said that everybody knew that they were bound to raise a large sum of money. He had no business to be forced to. He ought to have listened to the advice of the hon. member for Victoria West not to follow blindly the advice of the bank people in London, who were going to make a large profit. If he had gone to any ordinary stock broker in any part of the world he would have been told not to have put off his borrowing until the English autumn. What had been the result? It was a very serious one. He had got his London overdraft of one million, he had got his two millions of bills which were going to mature. He had raised three millions from the underwriters in England. That was all he had got. What were they going to do for the development of the country? What were they going to do regarding the loan expenditure which was coming before the country ? They were going to spend six millions. Altogether they wanted nineteen millions, of which they should have eleven millions from the Public Debt Commissioners.

With regard to the six million loan expenditure, he did not see how the Minister was going to provide it, except by going into the money market at the very worst possible time for borrowing. In fact, he was afraid the Minister was going to make the country pay very heavily in more ways than one through his not having watched the money market. But he hoped the Minister was not going to try to save himself by endeavouring to raise a local loan. (Opposition cheers.) For if he did, he would put a stop to the development of the country. The Minister might do some good if he issued bonds in small denominations to certain classes of small investors. But when the whole country was famishing for capital, it would be a great mistake to issue a big internal loan. In the past he and others had advocated a South African loan, but the circumstances had changed. Had the Ministry any idea of the entirely altered banking conditions in this country? Between March 31, 1908, and December, 1912, the fixed deposits in the South African banks decreased by £2,300,000, while the floating deposits increased by £4,500,000. The country had entirely changed its conditions, and business was booming. To ask for a local loan in such a time would not be a patriotic policy, would not be in the interests of the country—(Opposition cheers)—and he hoped his hon. friend would not pursue such a course. He trusted that his hon. friend was not going to try to remedy one mistake by making another which might be more disastrous. He was afraid we would have to go slow in regard to our loan expenditure, but perhaps that might be a good thing. Mr. Fremantle went on to say that he wished entirely to disassociate himself from what the Minister of Finance had said in regard to the Sinking Fund. The Minister said that we were paying off debt at an enormous rate, but he (Mr. Fremantle) did not agree with him. Our Sinking Fund was not large enough. The railway capital was not entirely reproductive debt. The Public Debt Commissioners said that we had a dead-weight debt of five million, but this included £5,000,000 of railway capital on which no interest was paid, and now we really had a dead-weight debt of eleven millions. That was not a very large debt, but it was considerable, and it was a debt for which, considering their circumstances, a sinking fund of £640,000 was quite inadequate. They must also consider that railways were comparatively new inventions, and how could they say that some other form of traction might not be introduced. (Hear, hear.) He never agreed with railway men who said they ought not to have any sinking fund, and he could not agree with the Minister that they were making adequate provision for the reduction of their railway debt, if they were simply providing a sinking fund of £640,000. He did not think this policy of cutting down the sinking fund or cutting down the provision for reduction of debt was a policy that squared with the fundamental principles of hon. members on that side of the House, who were conservative in the matter of finance, and who were certainly not speculative or gambling, but this provision of only £640,000 was, in his opinion, simply gambling. He trusted that they would be extremely vigilant in these matters. He was only sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth again made some remarks which he (Mr. Fremantle) might have misunderstood. As he understood him, he thought the hon. member was in favour of this system of balances, because he said the Minister should not have depleted his balances, but have increased them. He hoped his hon. friend was not in favour of balances at all, but that he would insist on taking each year, and let it pay for itself. In dealing with the finances of the country he took a more cheerful view than certain members on both sides of the House. He ventured to say last year that the Estimates of Revenue which the Minister gave were inadequate, and this year also he believed that the revenue would largely exceed the Estimates. The front bench opposite was not right last year, and their prophecy had not been fulfilled, in the same way he did not think their prophecies would be fulfilled during the present year. The hon. member then moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned till Monday.