as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Administration of Estates Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments and moved that the report be printed and that the House go into committee on the Bill on Monday.

Agreed to.

laid on the table the report of the Railway Board on the proposed lines.

moved the formal motion.

said he wished to raise a very strong protest against the way in which the business of the House was conducted. (Cheers.) In fact, the business appeared to be conducted without the slightest regard to the convenience of members. (Hear hear.) Up to yesterday the first Order for to-day was the Immigrants Restriction Bill—a most important measure and one to which many members had given a good deal of time and attention and they had come down today prepared to discuss it. But on opening the Order paper this morning they found that the Immigrants Restriction Bill had been placed fourth, while the Financial Relations Bill, which yesterday stood No. 17, had been promoted to first place. How could members who were occupied in committees all the morning give adequate consideration to an important measure of that kind at such short notice? (Cheers.) There were many members who could not know what the Bill contained in its modified form, and now they were expected to discuss it without a moment’s consideration. (Cheers.)

said he also wished to appeal to the Minister on the subject. He (Mr. Merriman) left the House at 9.45 last night and then the Financial Relations Bill was very far down on the paper. He had not the slightest idea that the measure was going to be brought up for discussion today. When he came down this morning at 9.30 he found the Bill was the first Order.

He knew that there were some people who might say that this was a very clever move on the part of the Government. Some people could carry all these clauses in their head in separate water-tight compartments—(laughter)—but others, like himself, tried to master the Bill in detail, so that they could intelligently follow it in the House. But if the Bill was stopped for a fortnight it passed out of their minds. When they saw the Bill down for a certain date they tried to keep the details before them. They might say this was a clever thing to do on the part of the Government, because those hon. members who were unable to rub up their acquaintanceship with the Bill would be paralysed, because they would not be able to discuss the Bill. He must say to the Minister of Finance that he had inflicted a measure of grievous injury upon hon. members. (Hear, hear.)

said he was very sorry that hon. members seemed to be disappointed. It was quite true that for some days the Immigration Bill stood first and the Financial Relations Bill sank further down the list, but this was unavoidable, because on Monday they had the Budget, Tuesday was a members day and yesterday there were some other Bills upon the motion paper. It was impossible for the Financial Relations Bill to come on and so it sank further down the list. He felt sure that hon. members would agree that it was a matter of extreme urgency.

Extreme what?

Extreme urgency.

Like the Public Health Bill last year. (Hear, hear.)

The urgency of the Public Health Bill was solved by the disappearance of the plague. (Loud Ministerial laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. Minister said that the sooner they had this Bill upon the statute paper the better, and it was for that reason be asked his hon. friends to assist him in the passing of the Bill. The Chief Government Whip gave notice yesterday that the Bill was to be brought on today.

said that they knew nothing about the Bill.

said he hoped that members would not be under the impression that there had been anything like quick play in regard to the Bill’s position on the Order Paper.

said he could not really see why hon. members on both sides of the House should take exception to this procedure. It was just what they had been led to expect was the usual attitude of the Government. They had been trying to impress upon the House that the Government did not seem to be able to make up their minds what they would put upon the Order Paper. (Hear, hear.) Did his hon. friend (the Minister of Finance) want the House to infer there were some differences of opinion with regard to the Immigration Rill, which they expected would be the first Order for today. It was all very well to say the Chief Whip of the Government party knew what the procedure would be, but the strongest protest had come from his right hon. friend, who sat on the Government side of the House. What he wanted to say was this and he had been looking for the paper: his hon. friend had stated that it was impossible for them to bring the Bill forward because there were other things before the House, well, they had the Budget discussion on Monday, but if they looked at Tuesday, his hon. friend would find that this Bill was down for No. 17, and the Immigration Bill was put down for the first Order on Thursday. Surely it was for the Government to say what Bills they were arranging for and in this instance the members of both sides of the House had a right to protest in the strongest way of the incompetent manner in which the Government carried on the business of the House. Every member had a right to take part in every discussion and it was for the Government to afford members an opportunity of knowing what they were to discuss. He hoped that this would be a warning to the Government. (Laughter; But he was afraid that these warnings were of no use, so long as Ministers trusted in the solid majority of the phalanx behind them, but the time might _ come when that phalanx would not be solid behind them, because even now he had heard grumbling and already, he believed that there was not that unanimity behind his hon. friends as he might have been led to expect.

asked whether the Minister of Finance would not reconsider his position in this matter? It seemed to him, however, that the remarks of the leader of the Opposition were considerably wide of the mark, because he appeared to be determined to introduce these general remarks upon every question that came up. He entirely agreed with his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West. He had been in the House yesterday, but knew nothing about the Financial Relations Bill being set down as the first Order today and having been on a committee all the morning he found it impossible to go to his house and get his notes. This was putting members to a very great disadvantage because this was a very important question affecting the interests of all the Provinces. He thought, therefore, that his hon. friend would have been wiser to alter the order. There certainly seemed to be some misunderstanding. He understood that members got no notice of the Bills that were coming on. If they wanted to make legislation in a hasty manner that would do a great deal of damage to the country. Under the circumstances and in the interests of public business, he thought that they ought not to proceed with the discussion that afternoon.

said that he had received notice yesterday that the Bill was coming on this afternoon, but he had no time to look at the Bill.

It is a very simple Bill.

No, it is not a simple Bill. It is a very complicated measure. It is not fair to ask us under the circumstances to deal with the Bill now. Proceeding, he said if the Minister had put this Bill down for Thursday instead of the Immigration Bill they would have had fair warning. Members should have fair notice to look up all their notes and so come to the House prepared.

The question before the House is that I leave the chair.

declared that the “ Ayes ” had it.

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

said that the clause seemed rather loosely drafted. He moved that the words “ other provisions made by Parliament ” be put under quotation marks (the hon. member was inaudible for the most part).

I have no objection. Painting the lily!

What will the effect of that be?

If my hon. friend will look at clause 1 he will see quotation marks there. It is a quotation from an Act of Parliament.

I cannot understand the hon. member’s explanation at all.

referred to section 118.

said that “other provisions” could undoubtedly go under quotation marks. If somebody were to read that Bill without a knowledge of the South Africa Act, he might be puzzled by the phraseology of that clause.

The amendment was withdrawn.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 3, Provinces responsible for expenditure on services entrusted to them,

On the motion of Mr. DUNCAN,

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: In line 33, after “fun” to omit all the words to the end and to substitute “ but no statutory power which any local authority or School Board, having power to levy rates, may possess at the commencement of this Act in regard to its expenditure or in regard to the levying of rates to meet its expenditure, shall be deemed to be affected by this section.”

said that no School Board, to his knowledge, had power to levy rates.

Through the Divisional Council.

said that the matter had been considered in the committee, and they had come to the conclusion that it was the correct phrase. The School Board issued a fiat or call upon the Divisional Council.

said that they might interfere with the expenditure of School Boards, and interfere with the rights they now enjoyed. The powers they now enjoyed might be interfered with.

said that this phrasing was intended to cover, and they were advised did cover, the case of School Boards levying rates. School Boards in the Transvaal and elsewhere, which had no power to levy rates, were excluded.

Jeppe) said that, if it were not the intention of the Minister to take away the powers already possessed by School Boards, the clause would have to be differently framed.

said that the clause did not take away any powers at all. It did not interfere with any rights of School Boards or any local authorities. The clause made it clear that the expenditure in the Provinces should not be confined entirely to expenditure from the provincial revenue.

said that they were faced with the position in the Cape Province that a School Board could not levy rates directly. Rates were levied for the School Board by the Divisional Council. He suggested that after “power,” the words, “directly or indirectly,” should be inserted.

thought that was unnecessary.

said that the Transvaal School Boards did not levy rates and had no power to levy rates and they were excluded from this clause intentionally. Their expenditure came directly from the Provincial Council funds.

said that the Select Committee were in rather a hurry about reporting. He thought it would be well if the Minister would look into this matter again. The School Boards in the Cape Province did not requisition for a rate; they requisitioned for a definite amount.

suggested that the clause should read, “ any local authority having power to levy rates or School Board.”

said that School Boards had no statutory powers to levy rates. He believed if they passed this clause the whole expenditure on education would be thrown upon the Provincial Councils and they would have no means of levying rates.

said he believed it was on the motion of the hon. member for Barkly himself that this clause was put into the bill. He had said frankly that he did not understand it. He (Mr. Currey) thought under the circumstances the matter might very well stand over for a little while.

said he did not think there was the slightest doubt about this. The first part of the clause provided that expenditure should come out of Provincial revenue. The second provided that local bodies which had powers to spend money and levy rates should not have their powers interfered with.

said he hoped the Minister would consent to insert the words “directly or indirectly” after “power.”

said he had no objection.

said he hoped that no powers would be conferred on School Boards which would enable them to levy very heavy rates. Power to levy taxation should be left in the hands of the Divisional Councils.

said he did not think the amendment suggested by his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) would meet the case. He thought it would be well if this clause were referred to the Crown legal advisers to see what phraseology would be suitable

said that they must draw up an Act which would safeguard against possible alterations in subsequent legislation. It was possible that an Ordinance might be passed giving School Boards a direct right to levy rates. He thought the clause might stand over until they had obtained the opinion of the legal advisers.

concurred in this suggestion.

said he could see no difficulty about the clause. As a member of a Divisional Council, the position, as he understood it, was that when the School Board instructed the Divisional Council that they required a certain rate to be levied the Divisional Council had no option but to levy it.

said it appeared to him that what the committee wanted to do was to secure to the School Boards and other local authorities the rights that they possessed before this Act came into force. The fear of several members was that under this clause as framed those who had not the power to levy rates might lose some of their rights. He moved to delete the words “ with power to levy rates,” as that would meet the case.

pointed out to the hon. members for Bloemfontein and South Peninsula that the School Board Act in operation in the Cape Province at present was the Act of 1909, according to which Act the School Board had no power to levy rates. The Divisional Councils levied the rates, but the School Boards could make a charge against the Divisional Councils to the extent of not more than one-eighth of a penny in the £ on Divisional Councils valuations. Whatever the School Boards spent beyond that one-eighth they had to get from the Education Department.

The point is that the Divisional Council cannot refuse the School Board up to one-eighth of a penny in the £.

agreed and added that as the clause now read he was not certain what the result would be.

said he thought the best thing would be to pass the clause and in the meantime, he would consult the draftsmen again, because this very point was canvassed in the Select Committee, as to the position of School Boards in the Cape.

You took expert advice?

Yes, and the alteration was made to make the position clear.

thought it would be better to let the clause stand over, so that they could find out how matters really stood. In the Act of 1909 the School Boards had practically no power.

said it was not clear that the School Board, not having the power to levy rates, was therefore protected. Under this Act the School Board might be deprived of the power over expenditure it now had. If the clause passed now, the powers of the School Board might be interfered with.

It says not.

Yes, but you see the meaning that could be put on some of these words. It might deprive them of their powers. What I suggest to the Minister is that he should take out the words “School Boards” after “levy rates. ”

Jeppe), who was practically inaudible, was understood to refer to the 5th proviso, and say that if they just deleted the words, “ having power to levy rates,” they would meet every objection.

said the clause was fairly plain, but it would be better if they removed the words “School Board,” because, when they had local authority—there were many local authorities and why should they not enumerate them.

said the School Boards had no power to demand that the local authority or municipality shall levy a rate. All that the School Board had power to demand was that the money due to them shall be paid over to them. Therefore, a School Board was not a body with power to levy a rate. He moved to amend the Select Committee amendment by inserting after the words “ levy rates,” the words, “or to make any demand on any municipal or local authority in respect of its revenues.” The suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppe would not fit the case because it would not meet the case of the School Boards in the Transvaal.

I see no objection to that and I accept it.

The amendment was agreed to.

The amendment as amended was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 4, Sources hence funds to be derived for meeting normal or recurrent expenditure of Provinces,

On the motion of Dr. WATKINS.

The put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: To omit paragraph (b) and to substitute the following: (b) the sources of revenue transferred under section 11 and the revenues assigned under section 13 to the Province.

moved the deletion of sub-section (b). He said that would reduce the sources from which the Provincial Councils might obtain their revenue from three to two sources. Instead of the subsidy, assigned and transferred revenue and such revenue as might be raised by direct taxation, it would reduce the sources to the subsidy and the revenue from direct taxation. The Bill provided that the expenditure of the Provincial Councils should be met by subsidy and transferred and assigned revenues. The latter were practically a subsidy, so that the amendment would make no difference in the first year. He proposed that the Councils should get a lump sum this year and that in the future, if their expenditure increased, they would have to find half the increased expenditure by means of direct taxation by the Provincial Councils themselves. The effect of his proposal would not be to put the Councils in any worse position than they were under the Bill. All that he proposed was to do away with this transferring of revenue, which he did not think should be agreed to until the matter had been more fully considered. The amendment would not mean wrecking the Bill, but would be simplifying it. It would have been a much sounder system to have had a capitation grant—(hear, hear)—as was suggested in the Minority Report of the Financial Relations Commission. The transfer of licences would be most unfortunate. There were extraordinary discrepancies in the way of licences in the different Provinces. Licences were a very bad and unsound method of obtaining revenue. (Hear, hear.) For instance, in the Cape Colony a baker was charged a licence of £5. If the licence were to pay for the cost of inspection of the bakery £5 was too much. Everything possible should be done to reduce the price of bread and one way to achieve that end was to make its manufacture easy. (Cries of “Order.”)

said the hon. member must adhere to the point under discussion.

said there was every reason why the revenue from licences should be kept in the hands of the Union Government. In handing licences over to the Provincial Councils, the latter would be started on a wrong line. It had been laid down that licences were a form of direct taxation, but if that were so they were a very objectionable form of direct taxation. (Cheers.) Taxation should press fairly on everybody according to their means.

called the hon. member to order.

said the clause referred to section 11, which dealt with licences.

said if the hon. member desired to move the deletion of the clause, surely he should have an opportunity of explaining why he thought licences were objectionable.

said it was very objectionable to raise that discussion at the present stage. The point was whether there should be any revenues transferred to the Provincial Council. If subsection (b) came out, the result would be an enormous taxation by the Provinces.

No.

said there would be no increase of expenditure if his suggestion were agreed to. He proposed to move later on, on clause 5, that the monies to which a Province should be entitled by way of a subsidy should be for the year beginning April 1, 1913, and ending March 31, 1914, a sum equal to the normal or recurrent expenditure actually and lawfully expended by that Province upon matters entrusted to it. The Provinces would not have to raise anything this year under his proposals, but they would have to next year and so they would under the Bill. He believed in the Provincial Councils and there was a great work for them to do, but unless the people would fairly recognise their responsibility and would say that they were prepared to pay a certain sum for the good work of the Provinces there was no good in the Provincial Councils.

They had already had two years to think about taxation and he was quite prepared to give them another to think further upon it and to see what increased taxation they must raise for this increased expenditure. Patriots that would not pay taxes for the good government of the country were not patriots at all. (Hear, hear.) He did not mean paying taxes for the high salaries of Ministers and great buildings, but for things like roads and bridges. People who would not put their hands in their pockets for matters of this kind were neither a progressive nor a patriotic people. (Hear, hear.) If they adopted this they would get away from the cumbersome machinery. They must acknowledge that the Bill was only a stop-gap.

The hon. member must confine himself to clause 4.

I am dealing, Mr. Chairman, with the reason why this money should not be handed over. It would crystallise the evils of the licensing system. They should fix a lump sum and they then got away from an invidious state of affairs. They should take steps to see that the Provinces must recognise their share in their own responsibilities.

said he endorsed what his hon. friend had stated. He objected entirely to the transferring of revenue to the Provinces. It was unfair to perpetuate a system which was in force before Union. One of the chief arguments in entering into Union was the prospective equalisation of taxation, so that people who lived in the Union would all have to pay the same taxation. By carrying this special section (b) his hon. friend was actually shirking his responsibility of equalising taxation throughout the Union. If the Provinces once got hold of these sources of revenue they were going to retain them as long as they possibly could. He could assure his hon. friend that in the Province from which he came there was a good deal of dissatisfaction in regard to this matter. If they took the professional licences, for instance—the enormous taxes that were paid in the Orange Free State in comparison to what was paid in the Transvaal and the Cape—it would be found that these taxes amounted to an income of several shillings in the £. His hon. friend proposed to continue this forever. True, the Bill only provided for a certain number of years, but having once settled the principle that they could transfer revenue to the Provinces, he believed they would continue that principle. He would assure his hon. friend that he was going to oppose this principle in every shape and form.

said he did not follow the hon. member who spoke last on the subject. Surely the idea was a sound one. The Provinces should be supported by local taxation. That was the principle of the South Africa Act, although he did not think that this was the right way to deal with it. Transfer duties were duties raised in the Provinces. Licence duties were also duties raised in the Provinces. These duties were both derived from the people of the Province and they were to be applied for the benefit of the Provinces. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, however, he thought they were most faulty, because they handed the Treasury over for the benefit of the Provincial Councils. Every Provincial Councillor, they knew, was a runner-up for a seat in that House, and his object was to increase his popularity by spending money when he had not the disagreeable task imposed upon him of raising the money by taxation. Every Provincial Councillor would endeavour to screw money out of the Treasurer and he would pose as a benefactor of his district and his Province and they perhaps would call him a very fine fellow, but it might be that they would have to impose taxation for all these amusements. Then when he went back to his constituency they would say: “What have you done? We have got to pay a land tax and an income tax. What have you done?” He was very serious on this point, because it was a dangerous thing to have the spending power in one hand and the taxing power in another. The principle was quite wrong. Since that Bill bad been before the House they had a deficiency of a million.

Will the right hon. member confine himself to clause 4.

I am trying to point out the danger of having the spending power in one hand and the person that bad to raise it being in this House. As regarded the transfer of revenue, that seemed to him to be a sound principle. When they were in the Convention their idea was to find revenue to transfer to the Provincial Councils, but they found it impossible to settle the point, and their troubles were not over by any means.

said they had all their little troubles in committee; in fact, the point had been thoroughly discussed. As far as equalisation of taxation was concerned, he did not think there would be a chance of that for many years. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, the member for Victoria West, that this was a step in the right direction.

said they had a duty to the taxpayers, and, must endeavour to protect them. They were bound to bring before the House the position as it was put before them. He thought that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had overlooked one point in connection with that particular revenue, and that was the nature of the taxation itself, because under that system they were perpetuating differential licences throughout the whole of South Africa. They were putting these things in water-tight compartments. If a man went from the Cape to the Orange Free State he found that there was a different trading or professional licence there, and it was the same in regard to Natal and the Transvaal. They had found the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) curling up and shirking the matter, but they would have supposed that the present Minister of Finance was a bolder man. He had thrown it on the Provinces, and was it not likely that they would retain their present licences? The only body in South Africa that could bring about uniformity in that respect was that House. They were leaving trade barriers in that country which should be removed, for the Convention had stated that there should be Free Trade throughout the Union.

said that there was no doubt, in regard to that matter, that there was much dissatisfaction in the Cape Province, and the Free State as well. In regard to these licences the people felt more dissatisfied than in regard to anything else. In the Free State they had received, it was estimated, in licences in 1912-13, £30,000. In the Transvaal they had only got £25,000; in the Cape Province £124,000, and in the Free State £11,000. An attorney had to pay a £15 licence in the Free State, nothing in the Transvaal or the Cape, and £5 in Natal. He mentioned attorneys because that was the profession which was first on the list. Professional men especially were heavily taxed in the Free State, and it was no wonder that there was such dissatisfaction in regard to the matter. There was every inducement for the Provincial Councils to keep those taxes on, and, as he had said at the commencement, that Bill would promote extravagance. He rather favoured the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly West.

Uitenhage) said that it seemed that that discussion was a little off the point. It was a most unfair proposition to say that they must propose new taxation to meet the ordinary Provincial expenditure. It did seem to him that the hon. member for Barkly West had not put his finger on the real difficulty. It seemed to him that the whole Bill had not been thought out as well as it should be. It was not the best settlement at all, but going round the first corner which came. He was perfectly convinced that grave trouble was going to come on account of that clause. They ought to insist that there should be equalisation of taxation, and the Minister of Finance left it to the Provincial Councils to equalise taxation, which they would not do, and they had inducements not to equalise. The result was that they were going to have trouble all through South Africa as long as that lasted. It was a happy-go-lucky way of legislating on an important question such as that was. He must say he did not follow the alternative scheme proposed by the hon. member for Barkly West. If a land tax were imposed, he thought the Opposition would be accused of its imposition, but he thought it would be the fault of the solid phalanx behind the Government.

said that on his side of the House that Bill was looked upon as a temporary measure, and it was a most pernicious measure. They were not establishing a principle, but were merely making provision, as a temporary measure, until they had a proper Commission to go into local self-government and the equalisation of taxation. He thought it would have been better to have kept to their system of subsidies for the present. The Government was dealing with the Provincial Councils in a manner which was never intended by the South Africa Act.

said that he thought that in dealing with this matter they should keep in mind the agreement made between the Administrators and the Government. As the basis of this Bill they should have equalisation of taxation. (Hear, hear.). This Bill was bristling with inequalities. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Wilcocks quoted anomalies in regard to the charges for licences in the different Provinces, and said that the whole of our taxation was very unequal, and he strongly thought that some attention should be paid in regard to the basis of the Bill to the necessity of equalising taxation.

said he was sorry that the Minister or some of those who sat behind him did not defend the Bill. After all, it was the Government’s Bill, not the Opposition’s. (Heat, hear.) The only reason for which the House would be justified in accepting this Bill was that it was a temporary measure for four years, purely a patchwork, as the hon. member for Yeoville had said, to get this arrangement going for four years. When hon. members talked about equalising taxation, it was a most plausible and beautiful cry. (Hear, hear.) This very idea of equalising taxation was to take off certain taxes which were pressing upon them at the present time. They did not stop to consider where the revenue was to come from. Once they proceeded to tackle this question of equalising taxation, it meant a complete re-casting of our fiscal system. Speaking as a member from one of the northern Provinces, he said he did not feel inclined to shoulder the whole burden of licences at present in operation in the Free State and the Cape. He did not agree with the view taken by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, in the Select Committee as to this clause, and he did not agree with it now. He was inclined to take the view that he took in committee, not that he thought it was the best, but it was the best that they could get from the House at the present time. He suggested that the system proposed by his hon. friend (Dr. Watkins) would not lead to economy, and would not be really more advantageous than the system embodied in section 4 of the Bill. He thought the House should muddle along, because it was the best thing it could do with the system laid down in this Bill. He hoped that the Government were going to make a reality of this inquiry which it had promised to give them during the interregnum of four years.

said that every speaker that got up said something which jarred upon his whole ideas of sound legislation. The hon. member for Fauresmith had said that they must come down and do certain things, because there was an agreement between the Administrators and the Government-(hear, hear) that was between the Government and their servants. The Government appointed the Administrators, not Parliament, and the Administrators, it appeared to him, had been blown up into a position that they never intended for them. (Hear, hear.) They had got much more power than the Governor-General, because, at any rate, if he happened to do wrong, he could be removed, but they could not remove the Administrators. They were there, and they were making the best use of their position, and they came there and made an agreement with the Government as to what they would take and what they would not take. His hon. friend must learn to have a better opinion of Parliament; that Parliament was the dominant power in this country, and that Parliament was a power higher than the Administrators. Then it was said that they should muddle along, and that they should muddle through somehow. That was what he was afraid they were tempted to do, what all Parliaments were tempted to do, and to trust to officials. That was not the safe way. This Bill had not emerged from the Select Committee just as clear as crystal, not quite; it was a little muddy in its course. He did not wonder when one of the greatest ornaments in the committee said they should muddle along. He hoped the hon. member for Barkly would withdraw his motion, because he must see that he was placing power in the hands of those gentlemen, named with such reverence by his hon. friend who sat behind him, even larger than they had now.

He disagreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg about the equalisation of taxation. If they were going to equalise all taxation at once, it would be a gigantic task. They made an approach to it by the transfer duties now before the House. He did not think it would be difficult to recast the licences, because there were some obvious anomalies. Take the professional licences. They had them in the Free State, but not in the Cape, because in the Cape Parliament the lawyers preponderated. In the Free State the simple farmer was dominant, and he took good care to put the saddle upon the professional man. Now, it was for them not to muddle along, and not to put an unjust burden upon one section, but to see that all sections bore a just share of the burden.

Jeppe) was understood to remark that he could not understand the idea of the hon. member for Barkly. Surely it amounted to this, that they were going to pay all, and then half of the increase. If in the Free State professional men paid higher licences than in the Cape, under this Bill they had the power in the Free State to reduce those licences.

Fauresmith): It will never be done.

Really, the hon. member must have some confidence in his own Province.

Just so. That is why I know it will never be done.

said the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly did not improve things. It put things farther back, in fact. As far as assigned taxes went, he had never been able to see, and did not see now, any virtue in them. It gave the Provincial Councils nominal control of revenues, when it had no administrative powers.

said these taxes were inherited by the Union from the Provinces. Now that they had entered into Union, they thought that, by throwing themselves into the arms of Union, they would get out of the unfairness of those taxes. But what did Parliament do? It sent them back to the very people who imposed the taxes with instructions that they should get them to take the taxes off. But they would not do it. Natal could talk about this easily, because they were the first Province to take advantage of Union, by having their very unfair poll tax taken off. The tax on Natal professional men was a mere flea bite to that of the Free State tax.

asked the Minister whether he had any objection to try to take this matter back, and try and arrive at some solution of it? Also, whether any Bill had been drafted, and what had happened to that Bill?

said the Minister of Finance hardly required any support from his supporters, as he was well able to look after himself. Now hon. members had said a good deal about equalisation of taxation. He (Mr. Louw) wished to point to the amounts paid by the people of the Cape, in respect of school fees and Divisional Council rates namely, £412,800. These taxes were not paid by the other Provinces, and if there was to be equalisation, the people of the Cape would not object to the abolition of these fees.

said the object of the Act of Union was to have equalisation of taxation. His demand for equalisation was based on the report of the Financial Relations Commission. In the Free State and Natal there were deficiencies, and he saw no possibility of the Provincial Councils reducing licences when additional subsidies were stopped. Referring to Mr. Merriman’s remarks, he said a Conference with the Administrators had been held in order to arrive at a basis of settlement, and there should be a good reason for departing from that basis.

said the hon. member for Fordsburg had raised the point of the equalisation of taxation. He had used the argument before, that the Provinces would like to equalise taxation in order to level down the taxes that were too high, and that it was a large question that affected their whole fiscal system. He would like to point out to the hon. member that they were dealing merely with taxes that were transferred, and once this Bill was passed they could deal with other taxes, but not with those transferred without the whole financial position of the Provinces.

said not a single word had previously been spoken about equalisation of taxation. That was not a new Bill. The second reading had been agreed to. Why did not hon. members point out before in which respects they wanted equalisation? But they knew the difficulties and could make no suggestions.

said that under the system they would tighten up taxation for four years, and sources of revenue could not be touched, and if money was required within the next four years the taxation would fall where many of them did not want it to fall. They in the Free State objected to the inequality of taxation, but they had no objection to a tax being imposed upon them if all the other Provinces had to pay it also. They realised that the Union was one country and they wanted equal taxation right through.

said he did not think that many of the hon. members in the House really understood what was taking place. The hon. member for Victoria West had accused him of wanting to increase expenditure, but in that respect it differed in no way from the Bill as it stood. His objection was that it would be a wiser method to provide for the expenditure but in a different way, in order to keep them from crystallisation of present evils. He knew that it was not going to be a final solution, and he recognised that it was only a temporary measure, but he thought it was better not to tie their hands with regard to all that revenue, but to go on, not muddle on, for the next four years, and the question of local taxation would in the meantime have to be solved by the Provincial Councils. That was the key to the whole position. They had to find some way of raising the revenue by direct taxation or the whole object of the Convention fell to the ground. He was not saying that no more revenue should be transferred, but that it was unwise for Parliament to tie its hands at the present time.

The amendment of Dr. Watkins was negatived.

The Select Committee amendment was agreed to unamended.

pointed out that sub-section (c) was tautological, as it read “ such other revenues as may be lawfully raised by the Provinces under the authority of law.” He moved the omission of the word “lawfully.”

accepted the amendment.

The amendment was adopted.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 5, Subsidies and additional subsidies to Provinces,

On the motion of Sir LIONEL PHILLIPS,

put the following amendments proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: In line 16, to insert the following provision, viz.: “ Provided that, if in any Province the normal or recurrent expenditure for any financial year after the year ending the 31st day of March, 1914, exceed the normal or recurrent expenditure of the previous financial year by more than 7 ⅟₂ per cent., that Province shall, in respect of the amount by which such expenditure exceeds the expenditure of the previous financial year by more than 7⅟₂ per cent., be entitled by way of subsidy in the next succeeding financial year to one-third only in lieu of one-half of that excess ”; and in line 27, after “Provided.” to insert “further.”

said that he would like to move an amendment to the amendment as follows: In lines 21 and 23, to omit “seven and a half,” and to substitute “ five ”; and in line 26, after “excess,” to insert “and the permissive annual rise of five per cent shall be calculated upon the original sum only and not upon any previous rise of five per cent.” In four years a Provincial Council’s deficit might under the Bill rise by 35 per cent. He was glad that some limit was to be put to the increased expenditure. Fortunately, the measure was to last only four years, but even during that time it was the duty of the House to put more restraint than was included in the Bill upon Provincial Councils’ extravagance. The Minister of Finance had shown himself to be very feeble in resisting the demands of the Provincial Councils. (Laughter and “Hear, hear.”) It was absolutely necessary that the House should assist the Minister in that direction by putting some very severe restrictions upon the expenditure of the Provincial Councils expenditure which the Union could not afford.

said he could not agree with the provisions of clause 5 as it stood in regard to the provision of a seven and a half per cent increase in expenditure. Hon. members should bear in mind that thousands of children were still going about without receiving any education, and he thought they should not be cheeseparing in regard to the question of education and restrict expenditure under this head. Even if the provision laid down that the expenditure should not exceed 10 per cent he thought it would not be excessive. (Hear, hear.) Of course, he (Mr. Alberts) could not move an amendment to increase the percentage, but he would ask the Minister to give the matter his favourable consideration. (Hear, hear.)

said he also wished to propose an amendment, but in an opposite direction. He would move the deletion of the whole provision. (Hear, hear.) It was quite clear to him that if they wished to do anything by which they would no doubt place the noose round the neck of education in South Africa, they must accept the amendment of the Select Committee as it stood here. He had before him statistics in regard to the annual increase in the expenditure on education in the Cape Province, and from these statistics they would notice that from year to year there had been an increase in the expenditure on education which exceeded 7⅟₂ per cent. If they wanted to limit the increases to 7 ⅟₂per cent, they would very soon experience that the Provincial Councils would say “let us leave education where it is,” and no further expansion would take place in regard to education in⅟₂ the Union. He would quote an example. In the last four years the schools in the Free State had increased from 450 to 800 odd. Most of these schools, hon. members would see, were to be found in the country districts. All this expansion had taken place, and was taking place, in the rural districts, and such expansion must naturally go hand in hand with an increase in expenditure. If there was any expansion, say in a town or village, one teacher could take about a hundred additional pupil. But if they placed a teacher in a rural district, they had to supply a building in the first place. In the Free State a teacher started with 15 pupils and in the Transvaal with 20. Naturally, expenditure in regard to education must keep on increasing. But it seemed to him that as soon as that expansion began to make itself felt there was a tendency to restrict it. (Free State cheers.) But there was another very important point which he hoped hon. members on the Opposition benches would carefully look into. There was a question which he had felt very strongly on, and which he had referred to when the education question was before this House, a danger which for a long time had made him hesitate to give in on that education question. Experience in the past had taught him what that danger was. He had felt in regard to the education law that one of the essential points was that it should be helped financially.

That new law potentially provided for parallel classes or schools if necessary. The parents could demand such under certain conditions, and everyone knew that if these demands had to be complied with they would result in great additional expenditure in regard to education, otherwise the Education Law, so far as the Dutch language was concerned, could be regarded as nothing but a piece of absolute fraud. (Hear, hear.) In all the Provinces, the majority of the members of the staffs were English-speaking, and consequently the English-speaking child was well provided for; and it was known that if one wished to do justice to the Dutch-speaking child under that new system, additional staffs had to be provided and in cases where buildings were required, they would have to be supplied for the Dutch-speaking children. When the matter was under discussion, he had pointed that out, and everyone had acknowledged that that would have to be the case, and it was said that if it had to be, they must see to it that the funds were there. The law had been accepted in the Cape, the Free State, and in the Transvaal, and what was being done now? Now people said that the funds required could not be provided unless the Provinces individually and personally sacrificed something for that purpose. Was that right? In the days when the question was under discussion, he had said that he wanted to give the Act a chance. When the people spoke about parallel classes, he had always asked, “Where is the money?” It seemed to him, as had been the case in the past, that people now said that they had nothing to do with the Dutch-speaking children of the country. If they accepted this proposal of the Select Committee, then he thought they were giving their sanction to the destruction of the principle of the Education Law. That would be distinctly unfair. But, apart from that, the ordinary expansion of education required that, proportionately, from year to year the expenditure for educational purposes should increase. General Hertzog went on to point out, how, in the last four years the expenditure for education had continually kept on increasing. How could they now be so unfair as to say that, seeing that the number of school-going children was increasing, the Provinces must be penalised for that desirable state of affairs? Were they going to achieve anything by accepting this percentage proposal? The object was to put the Provinces on their guard against spending money carelessly. But, he submitted, if a contribution of one-half of the total expenditure did not keep the Provinces sufficiently in control, then he feared that the provision of a contribution of one-third would not bring about that result. The system of proportional contribution was either good or useless. If it were useless, it should not be accepted. If it were good, one-half would have just the same effect as two-thirds would have. He warned the House not to make themselves guilty of unfair treatment of education. In the Free State, at least one-third of the total expenditure was in regard to education, and he understood it was even more than this in the other Provinces. He first of all had intended proposing that education should be excluded from this clause, but then so little would be left that it would be ridiculous, and therefore he thought it would be better to delete the whole of the provision. He considered that the Administrators and Provincial Councils were unduly criticised in regard to their expenditure. If they spent too much money, then surely Parliament had the power to stop them.

said his hon. friend in his amendment proposed to increase the limitations, but the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield proposed to take away most of the limitations. He did not want to follow the hon. member upon what he said on educational matters. He did not think that the argument concerning increased facilities for education which he had put forward had done his case much good. The Select Committee had put in this further limitation of 7⅟₂ per cent. The hon. member for Smithfield wanted to do away with this limitation, and also asked them to give a subsidy to the Free State of £100,000 for four years. He could understand the anxiety of the hon. member to get the best terms he could, but they must understand that other places had to contribute to this expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Of course, they knew it would be necessary to spend considerable sums of money in providing buildings and teachers for further education, but Provincial Councils must exercise some responsibility, and he did not think that most members of these Provincial Councils would shirk that responsibility when it was put to them. Now they were told that that 7⅟₂ percent would affect the normal expenditure, and consequently limit the development of the Free State. The estimated expenditure (current or normal) in the Free State for 1911-12 was £308,000, for 1912-13, £393,000; and for 1913-14, £482,000. In the report of the Select Committee they would see that there was a progressive increase of the following rates in the Free State: in 1911-12 upon 1910-11, for education, 14.9 per cent., and on other votes, 56.7 per cent. If the urgency for increased educational facilities was so great there, as the hon. member had told them, why had the other increase been so great, and the increase in regard to education only 14.9 per cent.? In the next year the increase had been 31.9 in regard to education and 23 percent on the other votes; and in 1913-14 the increases were 19.4 and 46.4 per cent., respectively. The net result was that the increases were 26.3., 28.9, and 28.1 per cent. He found, looking at the figures for the Transvaal, that the increases were 5.6 per cent., 12.1 per cent., and an estimated 7 percent for that year. That seemed to him to be a very reasonable rate of increase, and the Transvaal seemed to have exorcised its financial powers better than some of its neighbours. He must say that he could not agree with the proposal of the hon. member opposite. It seemed to him that the other Provinces would be well advised to agree to that 7⅟₂ per cent., or even less.

said that he had cheered the hon. member who had spoken on his side of the House, because he thought he had said 3 per cent.; and somebody had corrected him and told him that what he said was 10 per cent. (Laughter.) He wanted to point out to that hon. member whether he knew what that increase meant. If the expenditure was increased 7⅟₂ percent by that clause and that Bill lasted for four years, as he hoped to heaven it would not do, it would mean an additional expenditure of £1,210,000, which would fall upon the taxpayers of that country. Where were they going to get that from? “Oh,” they said, “an income tax,” but did the hon. member know what an income tax would bring in in that country? On the basis of the Cape income tax, which had been an uncommonly heavy income tax, it would bring in £250,000. They were taxing De Beers and the gold mines already, so, taking the remainder, he did not think they could get a million pounds in the whole Union from one of the most crushing income taxes. That was supposing they got 1s. 6d. in the £ from the rich people, 5 percent from the moderate people and 10s. from the £50 a year people a useful thing not because he was in favour of taking money out of the pockets of these people, but when he heard cries of expenditure raised everywhere there was only one way to check that and that was that when a man cried out for expenditure he had got to put his hand into his pocket and take it out of his own pocket each according to his ability. When he saw that the expenditure on education in the Cape had sprung up £200,000 in a year, he asked whether they got anything like the same proportion of children into the schools? Certainly not. Had it got any grandiose buildings? Certainly it had. (Laughter.) AH he could say from the evidence they got upstairs from ministers of religion and people who went about the country, was that the education they were giving the children was not suitable education for that country. (Hear, hear.) They were educating everybody as if they wanted to turn them all into inferior clerks instead of useful people to that country. They had to go to the bottom and try to put education on the proper basis. (Hear, hear.) Until they got power in that House to alter it, things would go from bad to worse. He protested against giving unlimited powers of expenditure to certain people. The only idea was to go round the populous centres and promise large sums for buildings. Here, instead of giving a £ for £, where the £ came from the pockets of the people so that they were careful to see it was well and not extravagantly spent they said the more they spent, the more extravagantly they spent, the more money we find for you. He hoped that the Minister would enlighten them as to what was done in other countries. He thought that in some other countries there was a capitation grant and in France there was a system the result of which was that it fell upon the locality, so that there was some check. That was not the case here and they were throwing the Treasury open to these people. He found that some people were so much in love with that system that they even wanted the checks taken away. He would vote for the amendment of his hon. friend over there and limit that extravagance to 5 per cent. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said did they think that House would vote £46,000 for the Administrator’s Office? What did he do with all those clerks? It was not for acting as an Administrator at all, but as a sort of conduit through which they distributed their money. (Laughter.) The whole thing wanted overhauling and he hoped to goodness that the House would be sensible and not stereotype that system for four years. They were doing everything they could to increase the Provincial idea that Bill was a step in that direction—and if they wanted to go in that direction, all he could say was that they were doing a great wrong to South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

said that they had heard this story from the right hon. gentleman before and he supposed they would bear it again. They all knew in this House that although, as he said, he was the father of the Provincial Councils, ever since the Union Parliament was formed he had done his very best to wreck the Provincial Council system. He had not attempted to give the system a fair trial or fair assistance and he came to that House and said that the Administrators were channels for ladling out money for other people to spend. For every penny that the Provincial Councils came to Parliament for in excess of the provision on the Estimates for 1913-14, they would have to find additional sources of revenue.

What about the extra subsidy?

The extra subsidy given to Natal and the Free State is given to balance accounts in the year 1913-14.

Without any local taxation.

said that the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville meant utter stagnation for the Provinces. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend had spoken about closer settlement. If closer settlement came about in this country they must make provision for advance, for advancing the expenditure on education, but under this proposal there would be no provision whatever for advance. In answer to the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Smithfield, he would like to say that he thought there was some misapprehension in the minds of members as to the real effect of the financial proposal in this clause of 7⅟₂ per cent. Let them take it for the year 1913-14. The estimated expenditure in the Province was one million. They were allowed under this clause to exceed that by 7⅟₂ percent., making £1,075,000. Towards that amount of £1,075,000 the Union Government would contribute £537,500, but if they exceeded that amount by, say another £50,000, then the Union Government would for that year only give them one-third of that extra £50,000, which would be £16,600 odd. Here was the important point. For the year following the normal expenditure at the beginning would be reckoned as the £100,000 plus the 7⅟₂ per cent., £75,000 plus the whole of the £50,000 and the total at the beginning would, therefore, be £1,125,000. Under this proposal the one-third contributions only took effect on the one year and then the sum total came into the normal expenditure at the beginning of the year and they were allowed to have an increase of 7⅟₂ percent on that. He thought the proposal was a reasonable one. It did not have the far-reaching, effect which he thought perhaps the hon. member for Smithfield imagined, but it did provide for that natural expansion which they on that side hoped would take place in the country and he considered it was a reasonable compromise.

said they were not against Provincial Councils if they would put them on a proper basis, but they were against this system of subsidising Provincial Councils as proposed in the present Bill. Had the hon. member ever known a single case in any country where a £ for £ grant was given without any check at all? Under clause 7 of this Bill the Administrator simply sent down to the Treasury that he wanted so much money and there was an end of it. His hon. friend said that there had been no extravagance. Let him point out the growth of expenditure in Natal. He would take the Estimates of the Province. In 1910-11, the cost of administration for the 12 months was £13,791 and it had now grown, in 1913-14, to £27,541. The expenditure on education had grown from £149.000, in 1910-11, to £201,946 in 1913-14. Hospitals again showed an increase from £30.703 to £35.796 and local works from £238.000 to £449,000. He would now take the Free State.

Or the Cape.

said he would take the Cape. He was just as much opposed to extravagance in the Cape as anywhere else. The increases between 1910-11 and 1913-14 were: General administration, £24,785 to £46,000; education. £603,000 to £864,000; hospitals, £79.000 to £120,000; and loans and public works, £103,000 to £541,000. The increases for the Free State in the same period were: Administration, from £6.948 to £21,000; education, £177.000 to £304,000; hospitals, etc., £13,000 to £22,000; roads and local works. £63,800 to £355.000. The estimates under education for salaries of clerks, attendance officers and clerical assistants had risen from £2,040 to £12,500, while the expenditure for travelling of members of Boards, etc.—just to get people to come to talk about education—rose from £264 to £2,400.

He agreed with the right hon. the member for Victoria West that they must put a check upon this and he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

said that much as he respected the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, he was afraid that, when his hon. friend asked him not to point out extravagance when he saw it, he was asking too much of human nature. He thought it was a matter of the greatest regret that this House should be asked to vote away £3,400,000 per annum for four years with no more information than they had at present before them.

In statement A in the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee they had a few figures which showed the lump sums under four different heads and they threw a lurid light upon the finances of the Provincial Councils. Let them take the general administration of the Cape Province. For the ten months 1910-11, plus one-fifth, it cost £11,000. Today, for the same service, Parliament was asked to vote £46,000.Let him take the increase from last year to this year. Last year, the sum spent on general administration was £34,000. This year, for the same officers and the same services, they wanted a further £12,000. He submitted that they should not vote away money in that cheery manner without having further evidence that it was necessary. Let them take Natal. The expenditure on general administration there had jumped from £10,000 in the first year of Union to £27,000. Parliament had no check on those enormous increases. In this connection let him point out to the House what the Public Service Commission, which the House appointed to deal with this very question of general administration, said. They had gone into it and they said they found it impossible to acquiesce in the creation by the Provincial Councils of the Gape and Orange Free State of superfluous and highly-paid posts, the salaries paid to the occupants of which were much in excess of the value of the work performed and much in excess of the salaries paid to officers performing similar duties in the service of the Union. Let him take one instance, the Cape Administrative Office. The Public Service Commission said that work ought to be one for £14,380 per annum. “ No,” said the Executive Committee; “We insist on spending £17,000.” Here they had the Public Service Commission in the first year of its work pointing out that this work should be done for £14,380 and the Executive Committee, taking advantage of a legal technicality, saying “ No, we are independent of you and we shall have an establishment in Cape Town which will cost £17,000.” Was the whole expenditure of the Cape Provincial Council based on those terms? (Cheers.) And with this document on the table of the House, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg said: “ I hope I shall hear no more of extravagance.” Extravagance! Take the Education Office. What was there before this House to justify an increased expenditure in 24 months of £200,000 on Cape education. It might be necessary, but there was not one jot or tittle of evidence before this House in support of that increased expenditure.

Increased teachers salaries.

Are you sure they are going to deal with it?

Proceeding, he said he would pass on to the Public Works Vote. There again the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg said: “Whatever you do, don’t talk about extravagance.” He did not wonder at it. The hon. member came from Natal. At the end of the year 1914 lucky little Natal would have had for Public Works £716, 000) with its area of 35,000 square miles. The Cape Province, with an area of 277,000 square miles, would have had £521,000 at the end of the same period. (Cheers.) Take that one item of Public Works and then compare the Cape’s enormous population and area and Natal’s small population and area.

asked if they were engaged on the discussion of the motion that the Bill be read a second time, because, for the moment, he thought they were. After the speech made by the right hon. member for Victoria West, when he slashed at the whole principle of the Bill, one would imagine that the right hon. gentleman was discussing some clause in the Bill which would make it impossible for the Provincial Councils to spend any more than 5 percent in excess of what they were now spending. He naturally turned to the Votes and Proceedings to see what the right hon. gentleman did on the second reading to prevent this monstrosity of legislation; but the Votes and Proceedings did not contain anything on the point.

No, it was sent to a Select Committee.

Are we going to be kept the whole way through this Bill discussing the principle over and over again? It is admitted on all hands the Bill is merely a temporary settlement and even its own parents are rather ashamed of it. Proceeding, he said the subject they were discussing was not whether they should limit the expenditure of the Provincial Council, but whether their contributions should be reduced from one-half to one-third.

said that representations had been made to them that if the vote on Education was reduced, education would suffer. But when he considered how money had been squandered on education, and how they did not get value for what they put into it, he could only say he did not want to go on with it. So long as they had the system of inspection and the theoretical schooling by which nothing was done—as long as this elaborate system of education was going on, they could not encourage it and as long as a change was not made in the system, they could not ask the Minister to give a larger sum of money by increasing the contributions.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he wanted to support the clauses which made for limitations in order to give the Provincial Councils a fair chance. He was surprised at people from the various Provinces who held that the Provincial Councils were a very necessary part of the machinery of the Government, should have taken up the attitude of encouraging a scheme which meant that the Provincial Councils were to be merely spending bodies. If they were going to exist merely upon subsidies which the Union Parliament was going to give, he could conceive of nothing which was more likely to kill the Provincial Councils in the long run. To his mind those who wanted to see the Provincial Councils have a fair chance should be the first to agree to the limitations, for those limitations were going to have the effect of forcing the Provincial Councils to be responsible for raising their own revenue to some extent. For that reason he was going to support the 5 per cent and if anyone wanted to move 2⅟₂ percent he would support that. The only way to make the Provincial Councils last and give them public confidence was to force them to raise some of the revenue themselves. He knew, of course, that these limitations were not popular with the Provincial Councils, naturally so, if the Provincial Councils were to remain in the position of having a large purse from which to spend it was only human nature that they would like a larger purse. The Administrator of the Cape Provincial Council a few weeks ago, when the Council were discussing the 7⅟₂ percent clause, said that he hoped “ that Parliament would in its wisdom remove the 7⅟₂ percent barrier, because if the Provincial Council had to find £2 for every £1, it would be necessary to impose taxation which would be unpalatable to the Council and to the people of the Province. Parliament had several ways of imposing taxation, but the Provincial Council had only one way, which was direct taxation, a most unpopular thing.” That statement of the Administrator proved that they did not want taxation. Nothing was more likely to make them unpopular than if they had to place direct taxation upon the people. The whole weakness of the Bill was that they did not force the Provincial Councils into direct taxation if they required large sums of money for expenditure. He believed the Provincial Councils should continue to exist, but they would have to bring home to the Provincial Councillors that they were responsible for raising revenue. For those reasons he would support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

held that the Select Committee had exceeded its powers. The members of the Select Committee should have noted what the spirit of the House was on this measure; in their proposals, however, they had not acted in accordance with the spirit of the House. The hon. member went on to express his objection to the 7⅟₂ percent provision and held the clause meant placing a premium on retrogressiveness. He could not see why a Province should be penalised to such an extent that it should only get 16s. 8d. for every £2 it spent They had in the Free State a fund of £110,000, the interest from which served to provide for bursaries. With a stroke of the pen that fund had been wiped out and an allowance set in its place of £100,000 per annum for four years. He disapproved that.

said towns and villages were properly provided for as regarded schools, but the difficulty was in regard to the country districts. He urged the necessity of the poorer population being placed in a position to provide their children with higher education. The remarks made by the right hon. member for Victoria West were very unfair. He was unacquainted with the needs of country districts. He would not go as far as the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) and regretted that the hon. member had dealt with the question as if the Dutch population were the only people concerned in this question. Sentiments such as those expressed by General Hertzog could only cause misunderstanding and he (Mr. Alberts) wished the hon. member to realise that there were large numbers of English people in the country districts who were just as much interested in education as the Dutch people. (Hear, hear.) Much though he appreciated General Hertzog’s championship of the Dutch people, he did not think the remarks were called for. The percentage mentioned in the clause ought to be increased.

said he agreed in the main with what had been said regarding the enormous increases with regard to expenditure and he certainly thought that something should be done to limit them. But that something he thought should not interfere in any way with the progress of the country. Provincial Councils had been condemned, but they were not responsible for their own existence. The people who were responsible were the members of the Convention. It was they who initiated the principle of establishing Provincial Councils.

No, no.

The right hon. gentleman says no, but the idea of the Provincial Councils came from the Convention. When the question came up for discussion in the Convention the subject was very hurriedly discussed. They were met with the fact that they had the Provincial Councils here and if more attention had been paid to the details they would not have had the trouble they had today. Proceeding, the hon. member said when the matter was discussed in the Cape House of Assembly he had opposed the establishment of Provincial Councils, but he had since come to the conclusion that these Councils were a real necessity and he was confirmed in that opinion by the present congested state of business in Parliament. He would like to refer to some of the remarks of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, who condemned the system of education and said it was altogether wrong But if there was anyone who was responsible for that system of education there was no gentleman who had more to do with it than the right hon. gentleman himself. The right hon. gentleman had been a member of the late Cape Legislature for many years and he had been longer in office than any other member now living and it was up to him to have altered this system if he thought it bad. The right hon. gentleman also condemned what he called the grandiose buildings that were being constructed by School Boards. As far as the Cape Peninsula was concerned, with the exception of one or two, the buildings were very plain indeed. But he thought the good sense of the House would see that in the erection of school buildings for our children they ought to try and erect them with some claims to architectural art. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend the member for George wanted to know where all the money was going to that had been spent upon education. He asked where the figures were he had not seen them. If the hon. member would only take the trouble to read the reports in the Education Gazette he would find that returns were given constantly showing where this expenditure was being made. Surely the hon. gentleman was aware that there had been a very great increase in the number of children and every year the numbers were increasing and they had to provide against that. And was the hon. gentleman aware that even the Cape Peninsula could hardly provide the necessary accommodation for the number of children. In Salt River they had to suspend the compulsory clause in the Act, for they could not provide for the education of the children. Parents wanted their children educated rather than see them running about the streets—(Labour cheers)—but they were unable to do it. And yet they had people standing up in the House and saying that the expense was too great! If there was one thing that they wanted to do more than another it was to spend money upon the education of the children. He took it that in connection with this proposition it would not be right to agree to reduce this expenditure. He wanted to put forward another amendment which would meet the position, and which he hoped would be accepted. The amendment was “To delete the words 7⅟₂ per cent.,” and to insert the words “ 10 percent for education and 5 percent for all other expenditure.” The increase in the expenditure on education in the Cape in 1911-12 over 1910-11 was 16 per cent., in 1912-13 over the previous year 14.26 per cent., and on the present Estimates 10⅟₂ percent over 1912-13. That showed that year by year the cost of our education was increasing, and yet he knew, as a member of the Cape Division School Board, that they had not got sufficient money for educational purposes.

said it was impossible to say definitely at present whether the hon. member’s amendment would increase the expenditure, but it was most likely, and he was sure that was the intention of the hon. member in moving his amendment. That being so, he could not accept the amendment.

said that he had gone into the figures laid before the Select Committee, and he found that, taking the 7⅟₂ percent as proposed in the Bill, the total increase would be £211,000, while on the basis he had proposed the increase would be £193,000.

said that the amendment would lead to increased expenditure.

said he must rule the amendment out of order.

said that the Provincial Estimates for education in 1913-14 gave £864,000 for the Cape, £200,000 for Natal, £740,000 for the Transvaal, and £304,000 for the Free State, making in all over two millions, which meant at 10 per cent. £200,000. He went on to say that, although they were all in favour of obtaining anything that was necessary for bringing education to a high standard, yet there must be some relation between the expenditure and the results. (Hear, hear.) He had obtained a copy of a return presented to the Cape Provincial Council upon education other than higher education during the past 10 years, which showed that, while the expenditure in 1901-2 was £267,000, and the number of pupils was 145,000, in 1912-13 the expenditure had risen to £774,000, while the number of pupils was 211,000, an increase of about 50 percent in pupils. He had gone through, roughly, the figures of the other Provinces, and if hon. members did the same they would find the same comparative increases. Now this House had no control over this expenditure. That was the weakness of their position. Reference had been made to the Convention. In its most despondent moments the Convention never dreamt of a Bill of this character. It hoped, and believed, that the Commission provided for would devise some system of control over this expenditure. The Minister had given them the figures as to the cost of administration now as compared to what it was the year before Union. The increase of expenditure, not on railways, not on interest, but on ordinary administration, was about £1,945,000. Out of that increase £1,275,000 was for the Provincial Councils. That was where the increase had gone; it was an increase over which the Minister had no control, and over which he did not take control under this measure. He (Sir Edgar) believed in Provincial Councils and local self-government, and people looking after their own affairs, but if they were going to do that properly the man who paid the money must watch the expenditure. The hon. member for George had quoted a remark of the Civil Service Commission in their report dealing with the expenditure of various Provinces. He could assure hon. members when they read that report they would hardly believe their own eyes. The Civil Service Commission went through the various Provinces, and when they said to a Province, “You are spending too much money,” the Provincial Administration said, “Go to Jericho; we have nothing to do with you. We will spend the money.” This lack of control was going to have most serious consequences. They were going to get under their Provincial Administrations a large number of officials who were going to be paid as the Provincial Administrations liked to pay them. They would be paid better than the officers appointed by this House, but the House could do nothing. When their own people told them that this extravagance was going on surely there could be nothing weaker and more foolish than not to attempt to stop it.

thought there was some misunderstanding. His hon. friend’s (Sir E. H Walton) reference to the absence of control in regard to the salaries of the officers of the Provincial Administration, of course, had nothing to do with this Bill. (Government cheers and Opposition cries of “Oh.”) The Constitution provided that at a certain stage the provincial services should be assigned to the Provinces, over which the Executive Committees would have full and complete control. The same control that the Central Government had over the Union service, the Executive Committees would have over the provincial services. They followed that up last year perfectly logically by a provision in the Civil Service Act, in which they provided that, just as the Public Service Commission should make reports to this House in regard to appointments of Civil Servants in the Union service, so it should also make reports in regard to appointments made by the Executive Committees in the provincial services. That it was doing. But, unfortunately, the difference was that, whereas, he believed, in every case the Union Government had carried out the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, these Provincial Executive Committees had seen fit to do otherwise, and flout the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. But that had nothing to do with this Bill.

It has everything to do with it.

That was dealt with by the Public Service Act we passed last year.

Who pays?

Well, the Provincial Government pays; but that I will come to later. I want to express in the strongest language I am capable of, our reprobation of this flouting of the Public Service Commission by the Provincial Executives.

I know that these gentlemen are doing their level best, and they are treating the provincial services exactly on the same footing as the Union services; but whereas the Central Government is strong enough to carry out those recommendations, the Provincial Executives have, for some reason or other, thought fit to dissent, and I think it is very reprehensible; and I am sure that the very strong expressions of opinion that have been made in this House will have some effect on the executives.

Put a clause in the Bill.

No, this has nothing to do with the Bill. My hon. friend misunderstands me. He says I am foolish, but he does not make an effort to be wise. Proceeding, the hon. Minister said they had settled this matter in two other Acts, and the Provincial Executives had complete control over their officers. If they said this officer was to have £600, instead of £500 a year, the Union Government could say nothing. But let them eliminate this subject. The matter they were dealing with now was something different, and his hon. friend had said that surely in this Bill there ought to be some control given to the Central Government, in respect, at any rate, of their contributions to the provincial finances. How were they going to do it? His hon. friend would remember that this was one of the very points which they submitted to the Financial Relations Committee for their consideration. The Financial Relations Committee, after investigating the matter, came to the conclusion that it was not feasible to give the Union Government any such power of control. It would lead to friction. In paragraph 39, page 15, the Commission’s report read: “We do not think it necessary to attach any condition to the Union Government, or to give the Union Government any power of control over provincial expenditure, beyond the power of veto on legislation conferred by the South Africa Act.” He had listened very carefully to the impassioned harangue of the hon. member, and he would challenge him to suggest how they were to control that expenditure in any way. The system they were following was entirely different from the English County Council system. Take the Education Board. That would exercise a good deal of control in regard to the expenditure of money by County Councils on educational matters. Although an attempt was made to introduce that system into the South Africa Act, it failed, and they had to go in for an entirely different system. They had, to a large extent, to trust the Provincial Councils.

They were, of course, responsible people, and their responsibility would be felt much more acutely once this Act was through, and when, for any increase in expenditure they would have to tax their Provinces. That would be a great incentive to economy. The hon. members for George and Cane Town, Central, had pointed out the enormous rate at which the expenditure on provincial services had been growing during the last four years. Undoubtedly this must be admitted by everybody; but they must at the same time bear in mind that the rate of increase in the Transvaal was perfectly fair and reasonable and above criticism. The reason was that when the Transvaal entered Union the provincial service was on a normal footing, and no large increase was called for. In the case of the other Provinces it was entirely different. But he thought they were through that period of rapid growth of the provincial services, and they would return to the more normal condition. The argument was that the provision made by the Select Committee in regard to the limitation of 7⅟₂ per cent would unduly limit, at any rate, the growth of educational expansion. He would point to the figures that would be permissible even under the 7⅟₂ per cent provision, and then hon. members would see that an expansion of between £90,000 and £100,000 per annum was allowed for in the Cape and Transvaal, and an expansion of from £36,000 to £38,000 per annum was allowed for in the Free State and Natal; altogether an expansion per annum of more than a quarter of a million pounds. Well, he did not think much of that additional expenditure would be required in regard to the other services. Surely it was enough for whatever reasonable education expansion might be necessary. It was quite true, as had been argued, that it was not necessary to encourage education by giving it more money.

You may kill it, though.

Yes, you may do it harm. And the danger is that so much money is being chucked away on education that afterwards people will not appreciate the benefits of it, and it will suffer.

Proceeding, he said he thought that even with the 7⅟₂ per cent limit, a very large margin of expansion was allowed. He thought they ought to adopt the compromise that had been made. Of course, it was possible for a Province to expand beyond that and expend more money, but, in that case, the Provincial Administration would have to find the additional money. Proceeding, he said that the limitation referred only to one particular year. (Hear, hear.) An attempt was made in the Select Committee, and was being made by the amendment, to make any limitation permanent, but that was not adopted by the Select Committee. The limitation was only adopted for that particular year, and the next year the requirements would be calculated on the larger basis. He thought the compromise to which the committee came was a fair one. The suggestion was made that they should have a limit of 5 per cent., but with regard to education it should be 10 per cent., but the Treasury advised that on the whole it would be better to have one limit of 7 ⅟₂per cent. If the demand for educational expenditure was so great, the saving on the general expenditure might be put to education issues. If he thought the compromise would stint educational development he would not support anything in that direction, for he thought they should not in any way restrain the growth of education. He thought the limit they had allowed was large enough, and should provide sufficient funds for education in the Provinces. For that reason he thought the compromise recommended by the Select Committee was a fair and reasonable one.

said a few years ago, when the demands of education kept on making themselves felt, the people of the Free State had passed a resolution expressing the willingness, if necessary, to be taxed to meet these demands. They could, of course, do so again now. But, he asked, why, if that Province or the Cape Province in regard to its educational expenditure exceeded a certain amount, should they be penalised for what, after all, was quite praiseworthy. Education must have so much expansion that they must expect that in one or other of the Provinces the expenditure would exceed this 7⅟₂ per cent. That would be quite natural under the law passed a few years ago. He was rather amused at the Minister’s remarks that if money was wasted it would not be appreciated. It seemed to him (General Hertzog) that there was a reaction against education in some quarters. A few years ago there was an outcry for education, but this seemed to have changed. General Hertzog went on to refer to what the Free State had done for practical education, and emphasised that educational facilities should not be restricted. It had been said by the right hon. member for Victoria’ West that in four years’ time the expenditure of the Province might have risen by £1,400,000. Well, of that the central authority would have to find £700,000. If it was difficult for the central authority to find that, how much more difficult would it not be for the Provinces to find £700,000? He held that the £ for £ system was a perfectly efficient guarantee against extravagance on the part of the Provincial Councils.

said that if his hon. friend the Minister for Finance had been the originator of the idea he could not have defended it with greater ability than he had done. Those listening to him would quite imagine that from the very beginning he was impressed with the necessity of putting some check upon the Provincial Councils. As a matter of fact, the Bill had been before Parliament now for two sessions. There never was any attempt made to impose any particular check upon the Provincial Councils until his hon. friend the member for Pietermaritzburg, North, conceived the idea of a Select Committee, and moved the amendment which had been discussed by the Minister of Finance. Really, to listen to the arguments urged during the afternoon and the evening, particularly by their great financial pundits, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the hon. members for Victoria West and for Pietermaritzburg, one would imagine they were dealing with Sovereign Powers, or Independent States, to whom they were giving a certain amount of money, and who were at liberty to spend the money exactly as they liked, but the fact of the matter was they were dealing with bodies that were absolutely subservient to that Parliament. If any Provincial Council was foolish enough to adopt the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance and pay some official £600, when he only ought to have £400, let them see that the resources of the Constitution existed to the extent that they could check these Provincial Councils. Of course, they could check them, for Parliament had absolute control.

What can you do?

We can take away their power. Proceeding, he said it was comparatively simple. If his hon. friend would study the South Africa Act he would find that there was any amount of control provided for Parliament over the Provincial Councils. They were frightened by a bogey. He looked upon the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria West as in the nature of a joke, for they quite knew where they were with regard to the Provincial Councils. Who gave them the money? Did they draw it from some extraordinary fund? He could not understand how anybody who knew anything about the subject could be frightened by the warnings given by the hon. member for Victoria West. His hon. friend the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was always ready with figures and statistics. (An HON. MEMBER: And always wrong.) He was not prepared to say that, but on that occasion he thought he was wrong. His hon. friend was able to prove a great many things from figures, but there was an old proverb which said that figures could be made to prove anything. But in this case the figures of his hon. friend did not prove correct. He agreed entirely with the hon. member for Smithfield that if they had the £ for £ principle it would be a big check upon the Provincial Councils, and, if they found that in spite of that check, they were still going to be recklessly extravagant, then they would know how to deal with them. Only the other day they had the Minister of Finance telling them that the main reason that the expected deficiency of £2,000,000 arose was that they were spending three-quarters of a million more upon education. The Minister added that surely there was none that would grudge an increase of expenditure for education. If they were having an increase of expenditure upon education of over £700,000, why did he want to curtail the expenditure?

He was going to make it perfectly clear. When they settled the education compromise they were told that by instituting these parallel classes they were going to duplicate the expenses of education. He knew if they wanted to carry out that compromise, and if the people required it, they would have to have parallel classes. It meant an enormous expense. But the Minister had no right to come to the House and say that they were going to take away expenditure that they had agreed upon. He did not know what the circumstances were in the other Provinces, but he knew if they carried out that law, and if the people in the Free State carried out the law, they would demand these parallel classes. And if they were to limit the expenditure to 7⅟₂per cent., they were going to penalise the Free State. He was going to support the hon. member for Smithfield. It was not a very old thing, it was one which came up at the last moment in the Select Committee, and they had heard today how business was done in Select Committee. Whatever their general experiences should be, they should not limit their expenditure upon education. He noticed that he Minister of Education smiled. (MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Not at you.) Well, he was glad to know that, for he was going to appeal for his support.

said he would like to move an amendment to the amendment, which was, to add after the word “Province,” the words “Except for educational purposes.”

The hon. member is out of order in moving the amendment.

Uitenhage) said they were discussing an amendment, and surely it was competent for an hon. member to move an amendment to that amendment.

said that the clause had been amended in Select Committee, and he must rule the amendment of the hon. member out of order.

said he only regretted that there was nothing put in by which the children could have a better education. He would support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Smithfield. There was no doubt a feeling in the country that they must do more for the children. They were told over and over again that they must do more for the education of the children If the Minister would only visit the Free State he would find a great many children out of school and a great many were no better educated than coloured children. He would support the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield, so that there should be no restrictions upon their education.

said he thought they were entitled to ask hon. members, like the hon. member who had just spoken, whether they could not provide other means of obtaining the money in the Free State for this additional expenditure. There were two ways by which money could be found, namely, either by economies in the administration or by curtailment in their public works. The point that he wished to draw attention to was this: There was a special report by the Public Service Commission upon the public service of the Union which had been laid upon the Table of the House. It was a special report which was dated March 22, and was signed by the three Commissioners. He did not say whether their views were right or wrong, but he thought they ought to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill whether he had given due consideration to the report, and to ask hon. members from the Free State whether some part of their object would not be attained by adopting some of the suggestions put forward. The Commission stated that they found it impossible to acquiesce in the creation and supervising of highly-paid posts, or the payment of salaries to officers in the provincial service which wore in excess of the value of the work performed, and which were in excess of the remuneration paid to officers following similar avocations in the Union service.

The Commission pointed out that the staff of the Provincial Administration in the Free State was costing £19,359, but upon the reorganisation of the staff, the Executive Committee proposed to increase the total remuneration of the staff to £24,000. The Commission stated that if the recommendations were carried out on lines similar to those of the Public Service, the cost of the staff on reorganisation would be £19,735; but, according to the recommendations of the Executive Committee, the ultimate possible cost of the staff would be £26,064, while the ultimate possible cost, according to the Commission’s recommendation, would, be £21,907. He thought it was impossible for them to say that the whole scale of salaries for the Union service was ridiculously low. He thought they were entitled to ask, when it was proposed that there should be no limit upon the expenditure on education, whether they could not, at any rate, provide some part of that expenditure by economies such as were mentioned in this report.

said he thought the report was a very valuable and important one, but no definite proposal was brought before the House. It was evident that the House could not allow Civil Servants to be paid upon a higher scale in the Provinces than they were paid in the Union service. To simply say, without any evidence before them, that they were going to control the total expenditure, was out of the question. It did not follow because money was wasted, that there was no need for increased expenditure. It did not seem to him a business like proposition, and an efficient proposition, to simply say they would try and stop the total, without exercising any sort of control over the details. The Minister of Finance had stated that the services were equal in the different Provinces. Where had he got that information from? All along the line there were grave discrepancies between the whole scale of expenditure in the Transvaal and the scale of expenditure in the Cape. He did not say at all it was all to the advantage of the Transvaal, but for his hon. friend to say that the services were now equal, and that the normal increase of expenditure was not going to be what it had been, was really asking them to exercise a faith of which they were not capable. In regard to the expenditure on education, he was satisfied that they were not getting full value for money, but there were certain lines along which expenditure was essential. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had spoken about the increase of educational expenditure in the Cape, but every year, during his term of office as Treasurer, there was an increase expenditure, exceeding the 7⅟₂ per cent. to which they were now proposing to impose a limit. They found in the last three years an increase of 32.8 per cent., 18.9, and 16.6. An enormous stretch of faith was required when the Minister demanded that they should get down from 16.6 per cent to 7⅟₂. The Minister, to his mind, did not provide for the normal increase of expenditure. Moreover they had a system of education in the country districts which they could not possibly allow to go on. If they placed this limit of. 7⅟₂ per cent. On educational expenditure, he was afraid they were going to strike a great blow at educational advance. What were they going to do to carry out the language settlement? They were beginning to carry this arrangement into effect, and now the Minister of Finance said it was not to be carried out. He could not understand the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter. He certainly thought the house ought not to pause for one moment in taking out this proviso. If the Government had thought out a careful system of control he for one would welcome it. Unfortunately, they had nothing of the kind, and he believed the system recommended by the hon. member for Yeoville and adopted by the Select Committee was one that would be regretted and that would put a stop to educational expansion.

said that the hon. member said they must not take the account on bloc, but must go into detail. How could the Minister check the expenditure of the Provincial Council in detail? If that expenditure had to go before the Minister where was the separate government going to come in? In the Cape they never dreamt for one minute of the pound per pound principle. They expected that the Provinces would have to find their own money. That principle had been departed from. The hon. member said he agreed there had been extravagance in some directions in educational expenditure. If they fixed the Provinces to a certain amount, and they wanted to spend more, he would say they would look around to see where they could save. The hon. members for the Free State talked as if there was going to be a stoppage put on educational expansion. There was going to be nothing of the kind. The Free State could spend as much as they liked on education; but if they spent beyond a certain amount they must tax themselves. There was only one real way of controlling Provincial expenditure, and that was by making the Provinces find their own money.

said he would appeal to the Minister whether he would not consent to report progress. They had been at this clause a great deal, and he thought they ought to think it over. There were some important sections to the clause, to one of which he wanted to move an amendment, which he would like to put on the paper. It was in regard to section A—a subsidy being given £ per £ for money raised by a Divisional Council or local body. It was perfectly right, but his amendment would take the form of ensuring that at any rate one half of the subsidy so given should be spent in the locality that provided the original sum. (Hear, hear.)

He thought the Minister of Finance undervalued the power of this Parliament altogether. He seemed to be in the position of the man who had thrown up the reins in regard to this matter of expenditure. He had the power of control, because he had the control of the purse. He would like the House to evolve some scheme by which they could have some control over those bodies. They could not spend three millions of money without having some control over it. He did not know whether the Minister had been diligent in studying the figures in a very interesting blue book (Report of the Select Committee on Financial Relations Bill). He did not think he had noticed that on page 5 the expenditure for the years 1912-13 in the Cape he would see that this House sanctioned an expenditure of £676,000 for education, and a certain sum for other purposes. The Provincial authorities had spent £100,000 more. Well, that in itself was an extraordinary thing, because the Minister of Finance would consider he owed an explanation to this House if he exceeded a vote by that percentage. Not so the airy Administrator. (Laughter and cheers.) He would like to read what he said, because it was instructive as an airy way of dealing with things. He said they had exceeded the vote by £100,000 and that would be met by balances saved on Public Works. That was the Result of utter lack of control.

Proceeding, he said he was sorry the hon. member for Standerton had got tired of the discussion, and had left the House after making his savage onslaught, for he wanted to point out to the hon. member the delusion under which he was labouring when he said the people in the Transvaal were earnest for education, and that they were trying to stop that. Well, they were earnest for education in the Cape, and they paid for their opinions. His hon. friend laboured under a great delusion, and he wanted to quote to him the words of a gentleman whom even the Minister of Finance would respect upon that matter of education, because the words applied to this country. It was a matter he had tried to enforce before. This system cost this country an extravagant amount of money, and unfortunately, it did not give them what they thought it did. They were going to increase expenditure from year to year under the idea that they were improving the education of the people, but they were not doing that. This gentleman, Sir H. Plunkett, who had certainly studied the subject very well, stated, with reference to Ireland in his book “ Ireland in the XX Century ”: “ No careful reader of the evidence given before the (Irish) Commission can fail to see that under our educational system the schools were practically bribed to fall in with a stereotyped course of studies which left scant room for elasticity and adaptation to local needs; that the teacher was to all intents and purposes deprived of healthy initiative, and that the Irish parents must as a body have been in the dark on the bearing of the children’s studies on their probable careers in life. A deep and wholesome impression was made in Ireland by the exposure of a system calculated in my opinion to turn youths into a generation of second-class clerks, with a distaste for any industrial or productive occupation in which such qualities as initiation, self-reliance, or judgment were called for.” Proceeding, the speaker said he did not think that anything more condensed could be written about the state of education in this country, where a tremendous amount of money was spent on education, and they got no better return that they were getting in Ireland. The students were moulded up to these wretched examinations all over the country. The object was to get a pen behind their ears and do nothing to develop the country. That, he thought, was a deplorable state of affairs. When he heard people talking in favour of this money being poured out he was afraid they were only encouraging the system of teaching lads that it was not right that they should have their hands hard, but they should keep them soft and they should have a “billet.” That was the great object in this country. Mr. Bryce said on that question in America: “ In education, improvement in quality does not always keep place with increase in quantity, and often follows with sadly lagging steps.” He (Mr. Merriman) was afraid that it followed with sadly lagging footsteps in this country. “Let them not go into that matter in a Provincial way, they had heard nothing except what this Province wanted and what that Province did. It was a great pity if they were going to stereotype the wretched system upon the whole of the Union. It would positively do an injustice and harm to the children. There ought to be some control, and where control was to come from except through that House he failed to see. He hoped he could get the Minister to let them think over the matter until the next sitting of the committee. It was an important clause, and it would be well to reconsider it.

said he did not want to resist the appeal, and he moved to report progress.

The motion was agreed to, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow (Friday).

in moving the second reading of the above Bill, said that under the law of 1911 owners of farms could be compelled to build dipping tanks, and could also get money to build such tanks. The difficulty was, however, that owners could not be compelled to build tanks on the land if they did not personally occupy them. The legal advisers of the Government had determined that point. Tenants or occupiers could be compelled to build tanks, but could not be helped by the Land Bank in regard to money. It was rather hard while on such ground to compel them to construct dipping tanks, as they would have to pay the costs out of their own pockets. This new Bill proposed to provide for the difficulty. The intention was that the owner should be responsible for the building of the tank, whether or not he lived on a farm. After all, a dipping tank was a permanent improvement. The owner could then make the tenant pay six per cent per annum on the expenses of construction. Nowadays the trouble was that owners could refuse to build dipping tanks on farms which they might have leased to others. These farms were often overrun with East Coast fever or other disease, without the department being able to do anything. This new Bill aimed at making the administration of the law much easier.

agreed to the necessity of the Bill. He wished to know, however, whether under the new Bill a number of owners could have one dipping tank constructed for their joint lands so long as these lands did not exceed 2,000 morgen. He thought that should be permitted.

replied that this Bill was simply an addition to the old law.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for Committee stage on Wednesday.

said that this Bill was not made to consolidate all the transfer duty, but to bring certain of the higher duties into line. Other provisions were left alone, because, as he stated, this was not a consolidating Bill. One provision was dealt with, however. That was the clause dealing with the Free State Ordinance regarding transfer duties, which were paid for six months. This was not found in the other Provinces, and hon. members would see that an attempt was made to make them the same.

said, under the Free State law, transfer duties in regard to ground in mining towns and villages were one per cent.

No alteration is made in that.

said that, while he approved of the principle of the Bill, he thought that when this country awoke to the necessity of facilitating the transfer of land from one person to another it would do away with transfer duties altogether.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.