presented a petition from G. J. Malherbe, a teacher in the Public School at Warrenton, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

Return of Special Warrants issued 26th March, 24th April, 1913.

This Return was referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration.

Further papers relating to Agreement between the Portuguese Government and the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, namely: Copy of Ministers’ Minute of 16th April, 1913, to the Governor-General; copy of letter dated 18th April, 1913, addressed by His Excellency to the Governor General ad interim of the Province of Mozambique.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for consideration.

Copies of the contracts entered into by the Government with the Roberts Victor, Blauwbosch and Elands Diamond Companies, respectively, with regard to the payment of the share in proceeds, with correspondence.

said that there was no provision in that Bill for more local self government than today existed, and he wished to make provision that when Natal or the Transvaal Province instituted District or Rural Councils, or something of that sort, it should get credit in the subsidy paid for the amount raised locally.

said that it was quite clear from his hon. friend’s explanation that it would increase expenditure.

accordingly ruled the amendment out of order.

asked if there was a limitation?

replied that there was no limitation in the Cape Province.

said that if the Transvaal instituted County Councils or something different from the Divisional Councils it would not be covered by the Bill.

said that the position was perfectly clear. If other Provinces chose to follow the example of the Cape Province and instituted Divisional Councils or School Boards or Native Councils on the present basis, it was covered by the clause as it stood, but the hon. member desired to go further and contemplated the institution of different local bodies in these Provinces, and it was quite impossible to contemplate such an extension.

speaking on his amendment, said that its object was to secure that a Divisional Council which rated itself very heavily, as some Divisional Councils did in that country, should derive some advantage from it. The Transkei General Council was a body composed of natives, and rated themselves for roads, education, and so on. When a subsidy accrued to the Provincial Council in respect of such rates half that should be spent in the locality that had raised these rates.

said that he thought it would be dangerous to accept that amendment-(hear, hear) because, according to it, they were not confining themselves to subsidising the Provinces, but were going to lay down to the Provincial Councils how their money was to be spent in the various parts of the Provinces, which was entirely a question for the Provincial Councils themselves. (Hear, hear.) If they came to the actual operation of that amendment, it seemed even more dangerous and unnecessary. Taxation in the Transkei General Council was about £80,000 per annum, and half the grant from the Central Treasury was £40,000, and the half which his hon. friend referred to was £20,000. So far as it applied to the Transkei, £20,000 at least of the Government grant should be spent in the Transkei according to the amendment, besides the £80,000 locally raised there. The Administrator of the Cape stated that what was actually spent was £65,900 on education; £36,858 on roads; and £1,575 on hospitals, making a total of £104,000, exclusive of capital expenditure. What was the sense of saying that £20,000 should be spent there, when actually £104,000 was spent there? It was dangerous to say that £20,000 should be spent there, because the day might come when the Provincial Council would take them at their word. According to his right hon. friend, a quarter would be spent on education in that locality, and now they spent £ for £ and met the deficit. Proceeding, the Minister said that for the last year the deficit in the Cape Province was £147,000, which had to be met. From the point of local taxation, raised by the Provincial Council for roads, the amount was about £150,000 per annum, therefore the fourth which would have to be spent would be £37,500. The Administrator had pointed out that the expenditure in the Cape Province on roads was regulated by Act of Parliament, and that expenditure was far in excess of the amount which would be allocated to the Provinces under the amendment.

said he did not think his hon. friend was quite acquainted with the Cape system. There were many districts where not a penny of Government money was spent the majority did not get anything at all. There was the case of the district of Victoria West, which did not get anything at all. The Government did spend something in Bechuanaland, but that was no reason why the Divisional Council should not be aided in the sum they raised in rates. He asked the hon. member where he got his 10s. in the £? He gathered the Government was going to get £ for £?

Of the expenditure.

Half the expenditure is not made up by rates. Half is out of school fees. I don’t think hon. members who had to do with this measure have a clear idea themselves of what is intended.

said he thought the proposition would rather lead to increased expenditure, the bulk of the money would go to the large centres. The Cape Peninsula contributed £18,000 to the Rural Council, and half that amount would be spent by the Provincial Council in the Cape Peninsula. They would be swimming in money in the big centres, but the small centres would be just as badly off as ever.

asked how it was expected that the Provincial Councils would have fair scope to do their work if stumbling blocks were continually being laid in their way. The right hon. member for Victoria West had now put another stumbling block in their road in his proposal to lay down how the Provincial Councils were to spend the money which they received from the Union. In that way the Provincial Councils would never get a fair chance to show what they could do.

said he objected to the principle of rural taxation, and added that it was being perpetuated in this measure. He would support the amendment.

supported the amendment, and said that last year the rates collected by Divisional Councils in the Cape amounted to £107,000, and £58,000 would, according to the measure, accrue to the Provincial Councils. There was nothing in that Bill instructing the Provincial Councils how to spend that money. His idea was that all this money that would be repaid ought to be spent on road construction, and he said there were large tracts of country in his part of the country where the Divisional Councils found it impossible to keep the main road in order, let alone deal with any other. Some members were afraid that the Provincial Council would not do away with the eighth for the school rate, but he thought it was wrong to argue in that way. Under this proposal they would still be able to do away with the eighth.

pointed out that the Municipality paid the Divisional Council rate. The City of Cape Town paid a large percentage, but did not get anything back to be spent on the town; that had to be done out of town rates. It was the same in Port Elizabeth. What was going to happen if the resolution was carried? They, in the municipalities, could call on the Provincial Council to spend half this sum in the municipalities, so that they would have to hand over a very considerable sum out of Divisional Council rates to spend in the municipalities, instead of it being spent in the outside districts where more was required.

said he was very sorry that he could not support his right hon. friend, because he had not the slightest hesitation in believing that the amendment would lead to greater extravagance.

said it seemed to him at first that the amendment was somewhat attractive, but the expenditure, he thought, must be very much in excess to the amount raised locally.

The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West was negatived.

said he wanted to move the deletion of the clause altogether.

The Bill departed altogether from the Financial Relations Commission. They proposed no recommendations of this sort at all. Now it was proposed not to allow Natal, the Orange Free State, or the Transvaal to raise money by local taxation at all. The situation was complicated. The expenditure in the two inland Provinces had grown enormously. Proceeding, the hon. member pointed out the disadvantageous position of the Cape Province, which had to pay over £500,000 to the Divisional Councils for the upkeep of roads and bridges in its own territory and at the same time had to contribute to the upkeep of the roads and bridges in other Provinces. Was it likely that the people of this Province were going to continue to pay rates on their property when at the same time they knew that rates were not being paid in the other Provinces, and also knew that they had got to contribute out of their taxes to relieve the other Provinces of their rates? It would undoubtedly lead to an agitation to do away with local government in this country. He moved the deletion of sub-section (b).

said that the hon. member was unreasonable, and had only placed his side of the question before them. He referred to the great increase of expenditure which had occurred in the Free State. Before Union they were very far behind, especially in education, roads and buildings, and it had been asked that the special subsidy should be given for educational expenditure. That, he claimed, was not an unreasonable expenditure. They had about 15,000 children out of school, and it was, he urged, right to vote money for school buildings. He wished to remind the House how much greater the loan responsibilities of the Free State had become through Union. It had been decided to meet the Free State in the matter of subsidy to the amount of £50,000 and he hoped no member would be found opposing the grant. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, seemed to think it was too high. The speaker would point out that the debt of the Free State had been increased owing to Union, from £8,000,000 to £15,000,000. He hoped that justice would be done to the Free State.

said it was amusing to those of them who came from Natal to hear the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, describing the great loss that the Cape had incurred through the Provincial Council system since Union. Natal people had been encouraged to enter the Union to save their fellow Colonists in the Cape from bankruptcy. One of the first results of Union, as far as Natal was concerned, was that a Cape Minister took upon himself to do away with the system of native labour that they had formerly in connection with their public works and roads. He never came to Parliament for authority. The consequence of this was that the native labour used on their roads in Natal had been doubled in price. They were making a large profit when they came into Union on their railways, and the Union Government continued to make a large profit on their railways. For the year ending the 31st December, 1911, the profit made on their railways in Natal was £464,000, while the Cape had a total loss of £164,500. Since then they had had further reductions on their railway rates, yet they were told that they were getting everything out of the Cape. The roads that had been built since Union in Natal had all been of a reproductive nature. It seemed that all the Provinces except the Cape had reached the zenith of their expenditure. He found in the Estimates for the current year a reduction in the case of Natal of £29,000; the Transvaal, £234,000; and the Free State, £59,000; and a net increase in the Cape of £33,000. If the Cape had an extravagant Provincial Council it was no fault of the members of that House.

said he was sorry they should have had another second reading debate on this clause, hut it seemed to be inevitable. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had attacked Natal and the Free State as he had done before. He called these subsidies “doles.” He (Mr. Orr) repudiated that assertion. Natal, the Free State, and the Transvaal were perfectly solvent without Union. Natal was perfectly prepared to pay its way, and would pay its way without Union, and it seemed rather late in the day for the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, to bring up these arguments about “ doles ” from one State to another. The fact was that they had all gained by Union and they had all lost by Union. The Cape might have lost by coming into Union he did not know what it had lost but it had certainly gained. It had regained its solvency. In this very Bill it was proposed to give an additional dole to the Cape on account of their school loans.

said he thought there was one thing upon which they were all agreed, and that was that the Parliament sitting in Cape Town had gained by the presence of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North. He did not want to enter into this battle between the giants of the different Provinces, but it struck him as rather humorous that the hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, in pleading for the retention of these subsidies, took up quite different stand points.

Why did Natal come into Union?

That is what we want to know? (Laughter.)

said the Free State had received substantial benefits, and without Union it could not have put all its children to school. If Natal admitted its position it would be more likely to receive help than if it rode a hobby horse, for it was likely to receive a very bad fall indeed.

regretted that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had introduced the apple of Provincialism into this question, and he wished to point out that smaller Provinces were not asking for alms. The hon. member gave the impression that the larger Provinces were ready to administer the coup de grace to the smaller Provinces. The Financial Relations Commission had recommended that they should receive subsidies.

said he was not surprised at this conversation, because the Bill was going to provoke a bitter Provincial feeling. (Hear, hear.) The Cape occupied a position totally different from that of any other Province. It had burdened itself to the tune of something like £500,000 for the purpose of education and roads, but the other Provinces much richer, and always boasting of their riches got off scot free. As for lucky little Natal, the hon. member for Weenen had said that it had spent all its money to bring people into Natal. How many people he (Mr. Merriman) would like to know. If he mistook not the census figures showed a decline of the white population in Natal, but still they went on pouring money into Natal. People always forgot that the Union was paying a subsidy to Natal on account of its sugar to the extent of £500,000, while the Cape had to pay an excise on its brandy. There was another subsidy which Natal had that was that two Natal people were equal to three Cape people in votes. Natal had been given an enormous advantage in representation over the rest of the Union, and that come in very handy indeed on occasions like this more than handy. However, he had risen to warn the Minister that the terms of this Bill were going to increase Provincialism to the utmost degree, and were going to raise an agitation for the destruction of local Government and the only form of local government we had the Cape Divisional Councils. He wished to know whether the £90,000 was to be included in the expenditure of the Provinces, and was it to be a compound or a simple subsidy, only given year by year? If it were not they were going to add £100,000 to the expenditure, and next year they would give a percentage, and so the thing would go on to an enormous extent.

said that one would imagine that when the Cape entered Union it had its coffers full of money. He could understand the Transvaal members saying that they were pouring money into the Union, but for the late Prime Minister of the Cape to say so seemed to him to be the height of impudence. At the time of Union the Cape had to look somewhere for relief (laughter) and it was the only Province that did not enter the Union solvent. (Cries of “No.”) The right hon. gentleman was one of the makers of the Constitution. He first of all tried to ruin the Provinces, and now he wanted to ruin another portion of the Act of Union that regarding representation. If they were going to attack the Act of Union he (Mr. Botha) would like to bring forward many things in which the Free Staters would desire to have an alteration. The children in the Free State were educated with money raised by the taxpayers. In the Cape there was local taxation, it was true, but this prevailed before the Cape entered Union, and the Cape must abide by that condition of affairs. For an old Parliamentarian like the right hon. member for Victoria West to get up and condemn his own work was only on a par with what they had often heard him say when he stated that for forty years he had been trying to do certain things but had made a failure of them.

asked whether it would strengthen the spirit of Union to have to pay increased taxation in the two Provincial Administrations where, before Union, they did not have to pay such taxation, namely in Natal and the Free State. Before the war they paid their own way, and for the sake of the stability of the Union, it was desirable not unnecessarily to hasten the day for the imposition of Provincial taxation. He did not think that the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) was in the best spirit of Union. He regretted to see such a display of Provincialism. If provincialism became more general it would be the fault of the right hon. member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said that he had before stated that the Cape had benefited as a result of Union, but he took the greatest exception to the statement made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North (Mr. Orr), that when the Cape entered Union it was in a state of insolvency. A gentleman in the position of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, should consider very well before he made such a rash and unfounded statement in the House. The Cape had met all its liabilities, and paid interest on its debt. It was quite true that the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), who had been Treasurer at the time had economised in the greatest possible degree, and some of his economies had been very distasteful; but to economise was not an act of bankruptcy. It was true that they had to suspend the Sinking Fund, but if that was an act of bankruptcy, they would not have a solvent kingdom or Empire in the world. England had suspended its Sinking Fund over and over again. (Hear, hear.)

said that he was glad to hear the speech of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Grobler), because he had taken the debate out of the provincial rut. Was the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), prepared to ask the Provinces of the Orange Free State and Natal to levy taxation to meet their expenditure?

Yes, you recommended it yourself in the report.

said that if the hon. member made that proposition, he should go further, and say what revenue these Provinces could be expected to raise to provide funds to that extent. In the memorandum written by Sir Perceval Laurence, he recommended that, in the case of the two smaller Provinces, there should be a sliding scale, and that the strict principle of £ for £ should not be brought into operation at once, and that the Union should pay at once 75 per cent., and work down to the £-for-£ principle in ten years. He thought that there was a great deal to be said for a proposal of that kind. He would not propose such a scheme, because he thought that it was much better that the Commission should lay down the principle of the £-for-£ system; but he had never expected that the smaller Provinces should levy further taxation to the extent of half their expenditure. When the Union had come into operation, it had taken over the whole of the revenue of the Provinces. If that revenue had been raised by taxation, which could be conveniently handed over to the Provinces, that would have been done; but that could not be done. He would like to hear how the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), proposed to do it? In the Transvaal it happened that there was a tax, which had been fastened upon, the proceeds of which had been handed over to the Province, so that there was no need to have further taxation he referred to the pass fees. In the smaller two Provinces there were no such taxes, and no taxes which could conveniently be handed over. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) might have considered the difficulties in the way of his proposal. Here the Bill proposed to last only four years, and during that period they were to tell the Orange Free State and Natal that they must meet half their expenditure by means of taxation!

said that he must say he was astounded at his hon. friend. He had only quoted from his own recommendations in the report. The very fact that they would have to raise the rate would be an incentive for economy in the case of the Provinces. He had been accused of provincialism, and if it was provincialism to plead for justice for your own particular Province, he pleaded guilty straight away. What taxation did the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Grobler) pay on his land? Nothing at all. He could very well afford to talk in the large and dignified way he had talked. (Laughter.) The extra taxation in the Transvaal was made up by the Rand. In the Orange Free State there was an increase of £81,000 for an increase of 2,000 pupils. That was where the money went. The Cape had been accused of bankruptcy, but when they came into Union and the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) would bear him out they were paying their way. He was going to quote what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North (Mr. Orr), had reported on the Natal finances when he was Auditor-General there that was when his hon. friend was not a politician. There was a deficit of £695,000 for June 30, 1909, in Natal, and on the 30th May, when they came into Union, there was a surplus of £670,000, and how had it been arrived at? The report stated that it must be borne in mind that that included stores and repayments into revenue from loan funds. In other words, it was borrowing money and paying it into revenue. No; the Cape had paid their way. Natal had a deficit of something like £230,000 in the one year, and £695,000 in the year before. Then with regard to the railway position at that particular time, in Natal they had made money by imported goods being conveyed from Durban to the Rand, but that was steadily falling off, as the figures showed. In’ 1903 the proportion was 43 per cent.; in 1904 it was 39 per cent.; in 1905 it was 36 percent then it was 32 per cent., 30 per cent., 23 per cent., until in 1909 it was 21.9 per cent. The reason why that line was so prosperous at present was that on account of Union the share of Natal had been raised to 30 per cent., but in the Cape it had been kept to 15 per cent. Had Union not been brought about, Natal would probably have lost all that trade. (Mr. Orr dissented.) Then the hon. member (Mr. Orr) had spoken with regard to schools. Prior to Union the Cape had built schools on money borrowed from the Government, on which they paid interest. In the other Provinces no interest had been charged at all.

said the debate had become of too provincial a character, and it looked very much as if the pot wanted to blame the kettle for being being black. It was not necessary in dealing with that Bill to drag in all sorts of provincial matters. The Bill was drawn up to cover a period of four years, and in the meantime a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the whole system of local self-government. They must not force taxation on the Provinces now. At present they must meet the two smaller Provinces, and if they did not, they would cause a feeling of dissatisfaction, which they in that House would regret very much. They were practically at the beginning of Union, and let them not be too harsh as far as the smaller Provinces were concerned. There were increases, such as in regard to education, but these increases were necessary and in the interests of the people. Let them leave provincialism alone, and see what they could do to meet the Provinces in the interim.

said he hoped that his hon. friend would not press his amendment. Listening to the discussion, he could not help comparing the Union with what was happening in the Balkan Peninsula. Four Balkan States united to achieve an object. Having partly achieved that object, there was a danger of them turning their guns upon one another. The four Provinces of the Union had achieved Union, and now there was a danger of their guns being turned on each other. (Laughter.) Nobody might be satisfied with the Bill as it stood, but under the circumstances, as the other Provinces had no machinery for instituting local taxation, it was impossible for them to do so. Until that Commission was appointed and had reported, it would be necessary for the House to do something by giving an extra grant to the two smaller Provinces. As the House had intended that the Bill should only apply for four years, surely the principle advocated by his hon. friend should not prevent him entering into this compact. When Union was entered into they recognised the position of the two small Provinces, and they had to give them necessary representation. His hon. friend took exception to it. He did not take exception to it, because he recognised that it was a compromise in order to get harmonious cooperation among the Provinces. He knew that the Cape taxpayers were bearing more than their burden, but when they realised that it was a temporary agreement and that it was necessary until the other Provinces had local self-government, some compromise would have to be arrived at.

said that he hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would not press the amendment, and he thought it only fair that the House should pass the clause as it stood. He pointed out that when the Common wealth was brought into being, Western Australia, because it was a small State, was allowed £250,000 a year for five years. Really this Bill would only last two years more, and, therefore, the case was somewhat similar. He pointed out that £10,000 a year it was a rapidly growing revenue was being transferred from Natal to the Union Government exchequer. This amount was derived from the Indian Immigration Office. It was only right to capitalise that £10,000, as it was a loss to the revenue of Natal. That meant £200,000. Then the Union gave £200,000 on the £ for £ principle, making altogether a sum of £400,000.

Is this £100,000 to be added to the expenditure each year? Are we then going to pay £ for £ on that £100,000, and the subsidy as well?

said that it was not really so. There was a misunderstanding. Let him take the actual figures for the Free State. The Free State expenditure for 1915-14 was £480,000, and of that the Union contributed £240,000.

That is 10s. in the £.

said that the other £240,000 was made up from local taxation, and from other sources. The local taxation contributed £130,000, and there was the special subsidy of £100,000, making altogether £470,000, leaving a deficit of £10,000. They were not compounding this £100,000 in any way.

You next year pay them £480,000, because you pay it £ for £ on expenditure. You don’t pay £ for £ on the revenue. You then give them a subsidy of £100,000, and they would get £200,000 by subsidy.

No, no.

Oh, but it is so. You will pay them £580,000 next year.

Oh, no.

Well, make it perfectly clear in the Bill. Show me a clause that prevents it.

said that, as to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had said, as to Johannesburg paying all the taxation of the Transvaal, he would ask what about the losses on the harbours and the railways of the Cape Province, who paid that? Then with regard to the pass fees, did the natives in the Cape Province pay them? If they spoke about the equalisation of taxation throughout the Union, they must not lose sight of the fact that taxes were paid in the Transvaal which were not paid in the Cape. The farmers in the interior paid taxation in the form of railway rates. It was very undesirable to set one Province against another, just as undesirable as it was to set one member of a family against another.

said this was a highly important point. Suppose they spent £480,000, next year the expenditure would be calculated upon that. Then in addition, they would get £100,000. So that next year they would get two subsidies, and the year after three subsidies. That was never the intention.

said they should make the point clear, because he did not think it was clear from the Bill. They were going to give £100,000, plus £50,000, in the third year they would get £150,000.

said that the point was quite clear, they would get these additional subsidies on the £ for £ principle.

said he could not agree with his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger). Supposing normal expenditure in a Province was £480,000, then the State would contribute £240,000, and besides that they gave a subsidy of £100,000. This Province would spend up to its revenue, therefore its expenditure would be actually £580,000. What was the good of a subsidy if the Province was not going to spend it? Therefore the normal expenditure would be £580,000. Half of this the Union would contribute, plus £100,000.

said the Orange Free State’s expenditure amounted to £482,000. Of that they got a grant of £241,000. This £100,000 was a fixed grant.

said accounts had to be framed showing what was the normal expenditure, so if the law was interpreted as it stood at present they would be entitled to show exactly what they could claim.

The amendment to delete section (b) was negatived.

said that under the Act as it stood now the Civil Service Commission might object to the scale of salaries as paid by the Province. Notwithstanding this objection, the Provincial Executive might insist upon the payment of these salaries, and the Government had no power to insist upon the salaries as recommended by the Civil Service Commission being paid. They had got to a stage when the Provincial Council salaries were being paid upon a different scale to those in the Union, so that in the same town they might find a junior man getting a higher salary than a senior man.

said the effect of the amendment would be to make very serious inroads in the position of the Provincial Councils. This was never anticipated under the constitution. He thought the object would be achieved if they sent these cases to the Provincial Council so as to put a check upon their Executive Committee.

said that the Provincial Councils received a large amount of money which was not raised by provincial rates. Let them take the case of two officers of equal standing: one seconded for provincial work and the other for Union Government work. One might be paid a great deal more than another, and if that were not going to lead to dissatisfaction, he did not know what was. He was glad to hear from the Minister that this matter was going to be discussed with the provincial authorities, but he would like to see some machinery whereby two officers belonging to the same State and doing similar work the provincial authority would have no power to give one of those officers a far larger scale of pay than an officer of the Union Government would get placed in the same town and doing a similar class of work. He did not think that that could be said in any way to be interfering with the legitimate powers of the Provincial Councils.

said that the explanation of the Minister was no explanation at all. He was going to set up two different services, and pay them in an entirely different way. Sir Edgar quoted from the special report of the Civil Service Commission and pointed out that there was being built up in the Free State and to some extent in the Cape, an entirely different service and that they were paying this money from the Union Treasury year by year to pay salaries over which they had not got a word to say. These people said they were going to pay their officers on a higher scale and the Minister was powerless to interfere.

said he would ask the Minister to consider the matter from the point of view of the Civil Servant, who was allocated for the time being to the Provincial Council Service. One of the main objects of the Public Service Bill was to make one service, and he was afraid there was some risk, in view of what was said in the special report of the Commission of our having one service for the Union and four other services for the Provinces. From the point of view of the Civil Servant himself and the provincial authority, he would appeal to the Minister, even if he could not accept the amendment, to give the matter his consideration.

said that the difficulty of the position appeared to him to lie in the Act of Union itself. The Union Government, at the time of Union, appointed certain officers for the Provinces, and under the Act of Union these officers should certainly continue to carry salaries not less than they were carrying before. But, supposing the Executive Committees wished to appoint new officers, he did not see how, under any Act passed by that House, any power was given to the Government of the Union to interfere with the Executive Committees, should they desire to appoint any other officer or assign to him any salary they pleased. Until they passed some law in the Union governing the conditions under which such officers were appointed, the Government was powerless.

said that if his hon. friend put that interpretation upon the clause, and was in sympathy with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, that was a reason why he should support something of a legislative character being done. He felt that it would be a very serious blow to this country if they were going to create two classes of Civil Servants.

said he was in agreement with the last speaker and was of opinion that the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, needed some alteration, as it would not meet requirements. He would move, therefore, as a new proviso (c) “provided further that the salaries paid to any officials in the service of the Provincial administrations shall be those recommended by the Civil Service Commission unless the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council shall have been obtained for any departure from such recommendations.” If the Public Service Commission was going to lay down salaries there should be some safeguard that the recommendations should not be departed from unless there was some check. He thought the Governor-General-in-Council should be responsible for any departure.

said he would like to refer the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, to the Public Service Act of last year. He said it was made clear that there should be one service under the Public Service Act, and that nobody should be promoted so as to receive more than a certain salary unless they passed a special examination. But what would happen supposing the Provincial Administration entirely ignored the Public Service Commission? They could ignore the whole provision with regard to the salary barrier. If they did not put in some clause there dealing with the matter there would be trouble in the future, because a man in the Union Service might be put under a great disadvantage, or a man in the Provincial Service might similarly be put under a great disadvantage. Supposing under the Provincial Service a man was drawing £400 a year; they could not transfer him to any appointment drawing less than £400 a year unless he committed some grave breach of the regulations. That might lead to great inconvenience. He did hope that if the hon. Minister of Finance could not see his way clear to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, he would see that section 13 of the Public Service Act was given effect to not only in the interests of the Treasury but also in the interests of the public servants themselves, and particularly the public servants in the Provincial administration. There promotion was very slow, and unless the staff was given an opportunity of being promoted to the Union Service there was very little chance of promotion at all.

said that the Public Service Commission made recommendations with regard to appointments, but these recommendations need not be carried out either by the Central Government or by the Provincial Administrations. It should be clearly understood that they were recommendations only, and if a servant was appointed contrary to the recommendations of the Public Service Commission the report could be laid on the Table of the House and the case be gone into. The appointment need not be in accordance with the Public Service Commission; it might be on different lines altogether. In such a case the matter could be raised in Parliament on the report which was brought before them. The Government would also see that the report was sent forward to the Provincial Council. He did not think they should start on the assumption that the Provincial Councils were not going to do their duty. In cases where the Provincial Executive disagreed with the recommendations of the Public Service Commission the Provincial Councils were just as frugal-minded and jealous for the public welfare as Parliament and he did not see why they should try and shackle them in any way that was not intended under the South Africa Act or under the Public Service Commission. If the recommendations were systematically disregarded there might be cause for Parliament to step in and take action. He did not think they were justified at that stage in assuming that the recommendations would be disregarded and there was no need to make drastic alterations. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppe, he thought there would be a sufficient check when the matter came before the Provincial Councils.

quoted the report, which stated that the decision of the Provincial executive committees should be subject to confirmation by the Governor-General-in-Council. The opportunity to legislate, he added, was in that Parliament. There was no other opportunity. He would withdraw his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Jeppe.

The new sub-section proposed by Mr. Creswell was negatived.

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

moved that “ £1,000 ” be substituted for “£500,” and “£3,000 ” be substituted for “ £1,500 ” in the following proviso: “ (a) If the expenditure upon any such building or extension thereof does not exceed five hundred pounds; or (b) if the expenditure upon any bridge, pont, or other such work or undertaking, does not exceed fifteen hundred pounds, such expenditure shall be deemed to be normal or recurrent expenditure.” The mover said his idea was that if they kept the figures too low it would be an encouragement to Provincial Councils to spend money.

That is what Government wants.

said he did not want to be unreasonable, but he did wish to put in safeguards, so that it would not be easy for the Provincial Councils to spend money which they had not provided themselves. The present arrangement might be almost an encouragement to Provincial Councils to spend beyond the limits in the clause in order that the funds should come out of loan money. The amendment would prevent Provincial Councils throwing the burden of expenditure on the shoulders of posterity.

moved that “£250 ” be substituted for “£500.”

ruled the amendment out of order, as it would increase Union expenditure.

said he thought they should encourage education instead of starving it in outlying places. He thought it dangerous to raise the amounts.

said he could not accept the amendment. It was going too far. He could not consider the amendment for one moment.

The amendment was negatived.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 7, Payment of subsidies,

pointed out that the certificate in the clause would not disclose details.

pointed out the certificate was not final. It simply had to do with an estimate.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 8, Circumstances in which subsidy or additional subsidy may be reduced.

In reply to Mr. C. F. W. STRUBEN (Newlands).

said that re-transfer meant legislative power.

said that the Minister had not provided for the time when he could not meet the needs of the Provincial Council. The Act seemed to be on a trust in Providence basis. What would the Minister do if he was unable to meet the demands of the Provinces. He reserved no power to control expenditure. He moved a further proviso to the effect that in the event of a deficit occurring, the Government might call on the Provinces to reduce their estimates.

pointed out the debate on this very point occupied a whole day. He would like to allude to two circumstances. The estimates could not be increased without fresh taxation and further he thought that the Minister would do much more by moral suasion than if he took legislative power.

moved the deletion of the following words after “ Union ”: “ together with the power to legislate in respect thereof.”

The second amendment was agreed to.

said he did not expect that the Provinces would ask for increased amounts. He pointed out that while the Minister had the power to curtail expenditure in Union departments, he had not the same power with regard to the Provinces. The Treasurer could not say to the Provincial Administration that they must reduce their plans because he had not the money to pay for them.

The proviso moved by Sir E. Walton was negatived.

said that with regard to the salaries of the Civil Service in the Cape they had an unfortunate experience of having to deal with these salaries. Under this Act it was possible that the Central Government might be in much the same position but unless it was made clear in the Bill they would have no power to reduce the salaries of the Provincial Administrations.

said surely his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, Central, must see if they were ever in the unfortunate position of having to pass such a measure they could make it clear in the Bill that they intended to reduce the salaries of the Provincial Administrations as well.

said the Provincial Administration had enormous powers in this Bill, but he was not quite sure if the Union Parliament could touch the salaries of the Provincial Administration.

Clause 8 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 9, Advances to Provinces upon loan for capital or non-recurrent expenditure,

said they could not get a loan at 4 per cent. It worked out at 98₃⁄₄ percent. Why did his hon. friend not raise the rate to 4⅟₂per cent?

moved an amendment to the effect that the percentage should not exceed 5 per cent.

Yes, I will accept that.

said he was not sure whether it would not cost them more than 5 per cent. He thought they ought to delete the rate and leave it for the Minister to decide.

amendment was agreed to.

moved that the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section (3), viz.: (4) “ For the purposes of this sub-section the Council of the South African College and the Council of the Stellenbosch Undenominational College and Public Schools shall in respect of loans from public funds for buildings for the public schools managed by either of such councils be regarded as a school board.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 10, Payment for stores,

moved an amendment to the effect that the Managing Councils in connection with the Victoria College School, Stellenbosch and the S.A. College School, Cape Town, be considered as School Boards, in the matter of raising loans for building and other school purposes.

What amount is involved by the suspension of the sinking fund.

The total sinking fund in regard to this loan amounts to £17,000.

said it appeared to him that they were going to make the Cape Province a present of £35,000.

said it seemed to him that the clause was very vague. He pointed out the other day that the Public Works Department of the Union did a great deal of work for the Provincial Councils and he thought the words “ for services rendered ” should be clearly defined, because he thought it was no good leaving the clause as it stood. He hoped the Minister of Finance would be very firm about this matter and make the Provinces pay for everything. At present they were taking money out of the Treasury with both hands. He thought they would have to watch this expenditure very closely indeed, unless they set forth quite plainly that the Provinces were to pay for all services rendered by the Union just as they said in the previous sub-section that they should pay for all stores.

said they would have to be very careful how they tackled this question. Whenever they got a sign of sanity let them cherish it with all power. There was just a slight element of sanity here.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 11, Transfer of certain revenue to Provinces with power of legislation in respect thereof,

said that, on a point of order, he would like to ask whether, if they passed this clause as it stood, they were passing the schedule as it stood. He wished to raise a point on the inclusion of the fifth item in the Schedule.

The Schedule stands quite apart from the clause.

said he thought the best course would be that the clause should stand over.

moved that the further consideration of the clause should stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 12, Additional matters may be entrusted to a Province,

said that a similar point arose with regard to this clause and he would therefore move that its further consideration should stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 13, Assignment of certain revenue to Provinces,

said that he had an amendment, of which he had given notice, in reference to licences. He would move that the further consideration of this clause stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 15, Certain revenues to be retained by the Union Government, together with the power of legislation in respect thereof,

said that he would move the following new sub-section (m): “ In respect of moneys derived from working the totalizator or any scheme, process or game whereby money is derived from gambling, betting, or horse racing.” This, he added, ought certainly to be in the hands of the Union Parliament.

Why?

Because this is a matter touching public morals. Some people hold the opinion that the totalisator is a most demoralising thing and if you ask anybody connected with the police they will tell you that that is the case. It produces juvenile gambling and things of that kind.

said that, before this amendment was dealt with, he wished to move in subsection (a), after traveller,” to insert:“or agent of any business undertaking situated within the Union.” In this clause there were two classes of persons exempted from coming under the Provincial Council. The first was commercial travellers and the other was agents representing in the Union any business undertaking situated outside the Union. The second definition was wider than the first and he thought that they should be placed on an equality.

said he thought there were a lot of objections to this amendment. If a foreign business undertaking wished to send a representative to the Union, he should not be troubled by provincial laws, but would have one licence, which would operate all over the country. There would be no difficulty in the case of a commercial traveller who was able to go all over the Union, but in the case of a firm—not a foreign one—wanting to send agents to other Provinces, such agents should be subjected to that Province’s laws, otherwise it would operate unfairly and trouble would be caused.

thought the hon. Minister could not be really serious, for, according to his contention, they were to have protection. He was laying down the principle that there was not to be free trade in the Union and no equality of opportunity to do business. The Provinces were to be encouraged to set up protection against people doing business in other Provinces. They were led to understand, when Union came about, that the whole length and breadth of the country would be free to merchants to do the best they could and there would be fair opportunity for everybody to compete for the trade of the Union on their merits. Now the hon. Minister came along and said they were to put Union out of their minds; that those matters were provincial and if a firm at the coast wanted to do business with people in the interior, that Province was to have the power to prevent their doing so. They could do it by licences. Power was going to be put in the hands of the various Provinces to use a weapon against traders in the other Provinces—a more anti-Union principle was never promulgated.

said the interpretation of the hon. Minister was not the interpretation of Union—a commercial traveller was free to go free throughout the Union.

said he was not referring to commercial travellers, but to agents.

argued that Colonial firms should be on the same footing as foreign firms. Why should not a Colonial firm be in a position to compete with an outside firm?

asked why should the agents of a big firm of importers or merchants at Cape Town or Port Elizabeth be allowed to cover the interior towns with agents to compete on unfair terms with firms in the interior who had to pay licences. In order to prevent that, the clause was introduced. He was speaking of agents of business firms and not commercial travellers.

said there were no agents of that kind, as a matter of fact. The agents referred to by the hon. Minister, supposing they were selling for wholesale firms, would go under the designation of commercial travellers. It was not a very important matter, but it was not the way to conduct business.

asked how the hon. Minister distinguished between agents and commercial travellers.

said the hon. Minister was greatly concerned about competition between the coastal parts and the inland, but he did not seem concerned about competition between coastal firms and foreign agents. The same arguments which applied with regard to competition between coastal towns and inland places applied also to firms domiciled here and foreign agents. They were allowing foreign agents to compete in the coastal ports and to go all over the Union and the man who was domiciled at the coast had to compete but could not do it.

said it did seem to act both ways. If a man was an agent of a firm of Russians or Prussians, he had no right to come under the Central Government, but if he represented a firm in Cape Town, say-

He would be a commercial traveller.

There is a difference. He was sure it was not the object of the hon. Minister to encourage the Russian or Prussian as against the local man.

said, as a matter of fact, the agent was generally a commercial traveller, but as they found the words “commercial traveller ” in the second part, they might possibly have a wider meaning. However, he would withdraw the amendment, but would move another one, to insert before the words “commercial traveller ” the word “importer.” He did not think it was quite right that importers’ licences should come under the Provincial Councils. The only way the Government could check the importer in the Cape was through the Customs Department. If they kept importers under the Provincial Administration there were no means by which they could check what their licences should be. He thought, therefore it would be better to bring the importers under the Union Government.

Mr. Jagger’s first amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

thought they should not interfere with the arrangement unless a strong case were made out for the argument that licences was a matter appertaining to the Union Government. The hon. member evidently had some real son of his own for moving the amendment. It meant also that revenue would be taken from the Provinces to the Union and although that might help him as Minister of Finance, he did not want the money. He thought the importers licences should remain with the Provinces.

said he was sorry the hon. Minister was not prepared to accept the amendment. The importers throughout the Union ought to be on the same basis; why should they be further harassed than they were? Next session the hon. Minister might find it necessary to introduce extra taxation. There would be an excellent opportunity of revising various taxes and licences should be an important item to come under consideration. They should have uniformity in a matter of that kind and he thought that importers licences was a matter which should be considered by the Union parliament.

referring to the Minister’s question as to the reason importers licences should be treated on a different footing from general dealers licences, said that licences fell under two heads.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing, said there was a difference between importers licences and general dealers licences fell under two categories. One included general dealers, bakers, butchers, auctioneers, etc. These were primarily licensed for the purpose of exercising control for health and municipal reasons and these licences only applied to the particular districts in which they were granted. The second category enabled the licensed persons, such as dentists, attorneys and advocates, to carry on their occupation throughout the Union. Importers licences fell under the latter category, but under the present circumstances a merchant living in Bloemfontein could import goods, say from Port Elizabeth, without having an importer’s licence, while a Port Elizabeth merchant who desired to import goods would have to take out an importer’s licence. Where was the rhyme or reason in that? It was totally against the spirit of Union that a merchant, because he happened to be located in one particular Province, should have to pay a licence for what a similar merchant in another Province could do without payment. Unless this was altered, the Union spirit would never be inculcated. He believed the Minister of Finance was a sincere Unionist in his desire to break down the Provincial spirit, but if he did not take the opportunity presented in that Bill to remove the licences from the control of the Provincial Councils and place them under the control of the Union Parliament, he would never do away with the spirit of Provincialism. (Hear, hear.) The Provincial Councils would never resign this source of revenue, for it was an easy one to collect. The Minister of Finance would neglect a great opportunity if he did not avail himself of the present one.

said the question was a burning one and appeals to have the matter put right were coming in from all parts of the Union. There were many hardships in connection with the matter. To show the iniquity and inequality of the present arrangement, Mr. Griffin read a letter from a wholesale wine merchant of Natal, who stated that no wine merchant could send a representative to the Free State unless he took out a licence costing £100, but a Free State wholesale wine merchant could send his traveller through Natal without paying a penny. Mr. Griffin also read a letter from a Natal outfitter, who stated that if he desired to send a traveller to the Cape he would have to take out licences costing altogether £100, whereas a Cape outfitter could send his traveller into Natal and pay only £10. In conclusion, Mr. Griffin said they had no objection to the Minister of Finance handing over the licence money to the Provincial Councils after they had been collected. (Hear, hear.) He trusted the Minister would retain these licences under his own control.

moved as an amendment, that medical practitioners, dentists and apothecaries be excluded, in so far as licences were concerned, from the control of Provincial Councils.

It was important, he said, that professional licences should be done away with altogether or greatly reduced, but if they were handed over to the Provincial Councils, Parliament would be practically rendering it impossible for the present anomalous condition of affairs to be altered. In the case of medical practitioners, for instance, in the Cape and the Transvaal, they paid no licences, but in Natal they had to take out a licence costing £5 and in the Free State a licence costing £15. (Cries of “ Shame.”)

Continuing, he said that it must be in the best interests of the people for medical men to settle down wherever they could earn an honest living. In the Free State medical men were penalised and not subsidised as district surgeons were in other parts of the country. It was against the interests of the people and medical men should be encouraged to settle, more especially in the smaller places. It was a curious thing that a Kimberley doctor could not go over the border into the Free State without a licence, although he was in the Union. It might be said that the Kimberley doctors could take out licences. Well, there were 15 doctors in Kimberley, but the return for visiting cases in the Free State would not pay the licence fees. The case for dentists might not be so strong, but personally he was of opinion that dentists should be encouraged. Finally, he would plead on behalf of the apothecaries; in the Cape they had to pay a licence of £7 10s. a year. Was that in the interests of the people? They would be keeping up a system that was mischievous and injurious and one that should be dealt with as promptly as possible. If they handed these licences over to the Provincial Council they would simply be confirming them.

protested against the importer’s licence of £100 when some opposition people only paid £10. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendment.

said he thought his eloquent friend the member for Barkly should have included other professions. He knew it was difficult to deal with the profession with which he was himself concerned, but he had no personal motive in appealing to the Minister on the point. Surely the Minister must realise that it created bad feeling when the licence had to be paid in the smaller Provinces and not in the larger Provinces. The principle was a big one. He hoped the Minister would include licences for barristers, attorneys and notaries behind some letters which he did not know.

P, q, r. (Laughter.)

said he could not understand the hilarity of the Minister, because it was a big and serious question. There would be no practical difficulty in abolishing these licences, because such a small amount of revenue was derived from them. He appealed to the common sense of the Minister that by adding these small clauses (p), (q) and (r) a gross injustice would be rectified and he moved accordingly.

supported the hon. member for Bloemfontein’s amendment and said that the profession referred to had always felt the objectionable part of these licences. They realised that once these licences were handed over to the Provincial authorities it would be impossible to have them reduced. It should be remembered that in addition to these licence moneys, any man before being able to practice had to pay £40 or £50 in other fees. He supported both of the last two amendments and held that the taxes should be reduced before they were handed over to the Provincial authorities.

pointed out that the railway rates were the same throughout the Union, that in the Cape Colony an importer had to pay £100 licence. They in Natal did not pay anything at all. These matters should all be put on an equal footing. Why didn’t the Minister put the banks or the insurance companies in this clause, because their business extended all over the Union, as also the importers.

said he was sorry he could not accept this amendment for the simple reason that it meant a loss of revenue to the provincial authorities. Hon. members must know that it would be a very difficult matter to find sufficient revenue for the Provincial Councils. The amount of revenue derived from advocates and attorneys licences in the Orange Free State was £3,000 a year.

said that the amendment only left the matter in the hands of the Union. The thing would go on just as usual.

said his right hon. friend made a mistake. There were three ways of dealing with the matter. They might transfer the revenue to the Province or they might assign it to the Province under Schedule 3. There was a third way under which the Province got no revenue at all.

said he was surprised to hear the hon. Minister say that he could not accept the amendment, because this revenue was essential to the Province. The Minister started his Bill with a subsidy of £70,000. He increased it to £80,000 and then they found it now at £100,000. Surely he could find some other way of making up the subsidy. The attitude he was taking up was indefensible. He said that he could not accept an amendment because it was taking away revenue, but he started with £70,000, now it was £100,000 and surely he could easily make it £105,000.

said he understood the Minister to say that there would be a loss of revenue, but it was only a loss of revenue for the Province, it was not a loss of revenue to the Central Government. All that they proposed was that the Government should control these licences instead of the Provincial Council. If a man had any business in South Africa, by this Bill he was penalised. If he came from Germany or America or Great Britain then he came in on special terms and here they were penalising their own South African people. What they asked the Minister to do was to keep control of these licences instead of placing them in the hands of the Provincial Council. Who moved therefore to omit the words “situate outside the Union.” What they were doing was this, they were making barriers between the Provinces.

said that, speaking as a commercial man, their commercial laws throughout the Union were anomalous and they ought to take the opportunity of consolidating the laws. What he was pleading for was equalising the licences throughout the Union. He had no objections to the importers licences being extended to all the Provinces of the Union, but why should they have to pay up to £100 in Cape Colony and not elsewhere. If he did not move it now he would move it later on to assign the revenue and make it equal throughout the country.

Fauresmith) raised the question of general dealers licences and pointed out that the Free State suffered a disadvantage compared with Cape Province in that direction. He thought it was only fair, when they dealt with importers licences, that they should also take into consideration the other matter—that of general dealers licences.

said the Minister had tried to confuse the issue. The question was not to abolish, but to equalise these taxes, which were at present pressing unduly heavily on certain parts. It was essential to equalise all licence moneys such as those of doctors, chemists, advocates, attorneys and notaries as much as possible. If there was a deficit in one of the Provinces through this equalisation, this deficit should be made up out of Union funds. He urged the necessity of the principle of free trade throughout the Union and in urging the acceptance of this amendment, said they had logic and justice on their side. Once the licences were handed over to the Provinces they would never be reduced.

said they should not close the door for the possibility of securing equality of licences and taxation. They had wanted Union mainly for the sake of achieving uniformity in those respects. As it was at present, they paid £25 for a licence in one Province and nothing at all in another. He felt bound to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said if there was any profession which required to be treated on the same basis in this country, he thought it was that of the law and he would like the hon. Minister to take that matter into consideration. The Appeal Court sat at Bloemfontein; advocates went there from every town and as far as he could see, they were breaking the law every time they appeared in the Free State. The licences of advocates and attorneys, etc., should be the same throughout the Union. The matter should be taken from the Provincial Councils, in order to establish uniformity, so that advocates could be treated with perfect equality. It was a matter which was felt, not only in the Free State, but in the profession throughout the whole Union. If the matter was left to the Provincial Councils, they would be able to establish their own licences in different parts of the country.

added a few words to the argument, but his remarks were partly inaudible in the Press Gallery. He was understood to argue that the agitation for the equalisation of taxation ought to have taken place at the second reading of the Bill and that it was unfair to attack the Government on that point. Everybody knew perfectly well that the taxes were uneven.

rose to correct a strange mistake, into which he said the hon. member for Kimberley had fallen. He said he did not care how much the licences were, as long as they were all the same amount. He (Mr. Fawcus) would like to put forward another point of view that of the consumer. Those who paid these licences took good care to put them on to the consumer and it was the country who finally paid. He opposed the view taken by the hon. member for Kimberley and he thought they should keep the licences as small as possible, so that prices would be kept down for the consumer.

said that he must protest against that clause. The whole Bill and that clause in particular, was simply stereotyping provincialism. In his humble opinion, before the Government introduced a measure of that sort, it should attempt to make some uniformity throughout the Union with regard to the system of general licences, in which he included licences for medical practitioners. His hon. friend behind him said that the Government would put it right some time, but by the time the Government had put it right his hon. friend’s name would have been forgotten. (Laughter.) The action of the Government was like putting another stone on the wall which was dividing the Provinces of the Union and what should be done was to pull the wall down altogether. The actions of the Union Government were hindered by these absurd provincial restrictions. He would support the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins).

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was negatived.

Sir E. H. Walton’s amendment was negatived.

said that, in view of what the Minister of Finance had said, he would now withdraw his amendment and he would move an amendment dealing with that question at the consideration of amendments.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

Dr. Watkin’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. C. L. Botha’s amendment was negatived.

Clause 16 was agreed to.

On clause 19, Short title and date of commencement and duration of Act,

On the motion of Mr. Meyler,

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee: In line 48, to insert “and shall cease to be in force on the first day of April, 1917.”

moved as an amendment, to omit the amendment moved in Select Committee and to substitute the words “Shall continue for a period of four years and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides.” The hon. member said that his idea was that there might be trouble of some sort just before those four years elapsed and it might be difficult to bring in a new order of things. Under that system, if that House decided that they wanted to do away with the arrangement made in that Bill, it was very easy at the last of those four years to introduce a small Bill to say that that Act should cease and that brought it into line with the arrangement made under the Act of Union.

said that he thought there was something in the proposal of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler). It might be that that Bill was about to expire and there was a general election. The Bill might then fall to the ground and place the country in a very awkward condition indeed.

regretted that he could not accept the amendment.

asked the Minister what was going to happen when a time came when it might be found difficult to pass legislation. It might be in the fourth year, when they had passed that Act, that the country was not in a position to go in for constructive legislation. At the end of the fourth year they were cut off under that arrangement and the whole thing fell like a pack of cards. He was not asking for any more than they already had in another form. If Parliament was going to be in a position in four years time to pass a new Bill it would be able to pass a short Bill annulling the measure now before it.

said if the understanding arrived at an earlier stage was not going to be accepted by the hon. members for Weenen and Berea he would move that they delete “1917” and substitute “1914.” After all, whatever might be said of the compromise the Minister of Finance would be the first to admit that it was a very serious financial departure we were embarking on to bind this Parliament for the rest of its term and the Parliament that would follow it to carry out a contract of this sort. (Hear, hear.) He did not believe there was a measure of this nature on the Statute Book of any of the old Colonies. It was an entirely new departure and one which he regretted. (Hear, hear.) It was one thing for Parliament to enter into a commercial contract which it could break and pay compensation as damages, but it was a totally different thing to tie the hands of a future Parliament. If the amendment were pressed he would certainly press his. (Hear, hear.) It would be better to limit the operation of the Bill to one year, and then in each subsequent year to bring in a short measure to extend its operations if thought necessary. That was done in England. The House was making a very dangerous departure, but if the Minister took up the position that there was a solemn understanding Parliament was, of course, bound by it.

said he would appeal to his friends from Natal to have, he would not say a sense of decency but some mercy. The House had agreed to give Natal what had been asked, because the Bill was to last for four years only, but their friend from Natal would not lose by not asking for more. (Hear, hear.) They had everything they could possibly ask for, but now they desired an extended period, trusting that at the end of that time there would be a Government in power which would not wish to disturb the existing state of affairs.

said if it had been understood in Natal that the Provincial Councils were to last only four years the referendum which was taken there on the question of Natal entering the Union would have had a different result. (Hear, hear.) A new departure had been spoken of and it was a new departure, that an effort should be made to break the Act of Union, without giving the Provincial Councils an opportunity of proving their usefulness. Speaking on the Budget debate, the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said the House was now a sort of Convention for deciding on alterations in the form of the Constitution under which we were governed. The new departure, proceeded Mr. Boydell, was or the part of those men who at this early period were doing their very best to strangle the Provincial Councils before they had been properly tried. If there were an understanding he would abide by it, but if not he would support the hon. member for Weenen.

said he could not agree that they had been asking for too much at all. He would withdraw his amendment.

Both amendments were withdrawn.

The Select Committee’s amendment was agreed to.

The clause was agreed to.

On the first schedule,

said that he would move to omit item 5, with the object of raising the important question as to whether licences should be transferred or assigned to the Provinces. He understood the Minister to raise the objection that the revenue from these licences would go to the Union. He was proposing the deletion of item 5 with the object of making licences not a transferred source of revenue, but an assigned source of revenue that the amount derived from these licences should accrue to the Provinces, but that the jurisdiction and power of legislation should remain with the Union. He did so because he thought that this was the Minister’s last chance of preserving the possibility of the equalisation of licences throughout the Union. If it once went into the Act as it stood that day, transferred instead of assigned, never in this world would they see the equalisation of licences until the Provinces were abolished and let him tell his hon. friend that those who opposed the Provinces at the present time would use this question as the means of attack in the future. If they allowed this to pass they would perpetuate that system whereby one Province paid one fee and another Province another. The Minister had already taken action with regard to transfer duties. Originally this was a transferred source of revenue and yielding to pressure from both sides, the Minister had taken transfer duties out of one category and placed them in another. Although the revenue would still go to the Provinces, the jurisdiction so far as legislation was concerned still remained with the State. He wanted the Minister to treat licences in a similar fashion. He did not say that they would be able to equalise licence fees immediately, no more than they could do so with regard to transfer duties. They might postpone the matter until the financial circumstances of the various Provinces made it reasonable. But if they took it out of transferred sources of revenue and put it into assigned sources of revenue, they would reserve the possibility of equalisation at some future time. This was the Minister’s last chance of doing away with this anomaly. He was not asking that the revenue derived from this source should be taken away from the Provinces, but he wanted the possibility of equalisation preserved and left in the hands of the Union Parliament. Let them take the question of professional licences. In certain Provinces this took the form of an annual licence, particularly in Natal and the Orange Free State. The revenue derived from these professional men in these Provinces under that Bill would go to the Provinces concerned. In other Provinces there was no annual fee, but admission fees, which, in some instances, were pretty heavy. But the revenue derived from the latter was not going to the Provinces, but into the coffers of the State. There was, therefore, the further anomaly that while in some Provinces they took annual fees that went to the Provinces, in other Provinces they took admission fees which went into the coffers of the State. Could such an anomaly be justified? In the interests of Union and the breaking down of these Provincial boundaries, he said that system should not be perpetuated.

On the motion of Mr. Kuhn,

put the new sub-section (2), proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: (2) “ The duty payable under any law upon the takings of any instrument, machine or contrivance (commonly known as a totalisator) by the licence thereof.”

suggested the deletion of sub-section (2) and said in the old Cape House they had always objected to gambling being allowed by the State. It seemed that they were now proposing to make legal that which so far had been an offence under the law. This was a Christian people and therefore, he objected to the provision of the clause. Coolies and Indians were most strongly forbidden to take part in gambling devices and it would never do to make it legal for them or anybody else. It could be said with all truth that gambling went on, but at any rate it was not permitted by the law. He would like to see the whole clause deleted.

said he wanted to explain the position about this section 2 of the schedule. His hon. friend the member for Victoria West wanted to move an amendment in the clause, but he (the Minister of Finance) then pointed out that was not the proper place for the amendment. It could be dealt with either in two ways. It could either be inserted in schedule 1 as transferred revenue and the Provinces would have the right to pass whatever laws they liked about the totalisator. The alternative course was to delete section 2 and to insert it in clause 13. Then the power to pass laws about the totalizator would continue with the Union Parliament, but the proceeds of any such law would go to the Provinces and that was, he understood, an amendment that his hon. friend desired. It was agreed the proceeds in any case should go to the Provinces or to those particular. Provinces that already had such legislation.

said he did not want to speak upon the question of the totalizator, but the point was whether it was better that the whole question with regard to gambling on horse racing should be left in the hands of the Union Parliament or in the hands of the Provincial Council. Of course, they knew that the Cape Parliament rejected the totalizator. They had this thing in Natal and in the Transvaal and the law would remain the same there until it was repealed. The question with regard to this totalizator was whether it should be put in the hands of the Union Parliament or the Provincial Councils. On looking at clause 11 of the Bill, sub-section 2, he found that in these matters the Provincial Council was competent to make Ordinances. This was a matter which should be legislated upon by the Union Parliament, not by the Provincial Council, because it concerned a great moral question and a question that affected the Union. They had no business to relegate questions like this to the Provincial Councils. By way of emphasising his argument that the totalizator was a matter which concerned the people of the country and that it was a great moral question and should not be relegated to the Provincial Councils, the hon. member quoted from the Majority Report of a Commission appointed in New South Wales in 1911, which had gone into the question. The report stated that the totalizator provided a fair system of betting, but did not suppress the worst form of street and shop betting and had an unsettling effect upon the community. They were convinced that the introduction of the machine would not cure but add to the evils that existed. The hon. member also quoted from the debates which had taken place in the House of Assembly of New South Wales. He argued it was a matter which should be dealt with by the Union Government and the revenue should not be allowed out of the hands of the Government. He suggested, therefore, that item No. 2 should be left out so that power should not afterwards be given to the Provincial Councils to snake those Ordinances

put a question concerning “ smous ” licences.

replying to Mr. Bezuidenhout, said that in future hawkers and general dealers licences would be left to the Provinces. He did not think it necessary for him to deal further with the question of licences. The committee knew it was the policy of the Bill to transfer licences. With regard to the totalizator, if the committee did not want the Provinces to have the power to pass legislation with regard to betting and racing, then he would propose to deal with it under section 13, so that it became an assigned revenue. But in any case the revenue would go to the Provinces. If the committee did not agree to the clause remaining he would move it, and make it an assigned revenue.

said he was very sorry that the hon. Minister should take up that attitude with regard to the revenue from licences; if there was one thing more than another which was going to raise irritation, it was that matter of licences. Why one man should pay a higher licence in one part of the country than another man in another part of the country he did not understand. They were going to close down any chance that they ever have of equalising that matter; but under the Central Government there was a chance that they would get equalisation As to the collection of the tax, the hon. member said that it would be much cheaper for the Union Government to collect than for the Provincial authorities to do it. The temptation now before the Cape Provincial Council to pass a totalizator Bill was vastly increased, because if the proceeds were £20,000 in the Cape, the temptation would be held out to them that they would get £20,000 revenue and therefore another £20,000 grant from the Union or £40,000 in all. He was rather inclined, on the whole, to think that it was safer to leave that matter in the hands of the Union Parliament.

said that he thought it would be better to deal with that question of the totalizator alone, than to mix it up with the question of licences. In all the Provinces of the Union, except the Cape, the totalizator was a legal institution. (The MINISTER OF FINANCE: “No, not in the Free State.”) Now, in the Cape the totalisator was an illegal thing and the proposal was that the Cape Provincial Council, which was the body most concerned with the moral condition of the Cape Province, should have the right to decide whether they wanted the totalizator or not. He thought that they should leave that right to decide to the Provinces themselves. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) had said that it was a great moral question and he agreed with that. He fully agreed that the vice of betting did a good deal of harm in the world, but that was a different proposition to telling him, or anybody who knew that question, that the adoption of a totalisator on the racecourses, under proper conditions, would increase the vice of betting. He had opposed the totalizator being the sole betting system on the racecourse when he had spoken on the matter in the old Cape House and he was still against it; but when they had got the two forms, the totalizator and the bookmaker, the one acted as a corrective to the other.

said that he was sorry that the Minister of Finance took up such an unsatisfactory position: that if the committee decided to put that matter in the schedule, then it would be in the schedule, and if the committee decided to put it in clause 13, then it would be there. Surely the Government must have considered this matter. If the legalisation of the totalizator were brought in in a straightforward manner and not smuggled in in a few lines in that Bill, it would arouse very considerable discussion. If the totalizator were to be legalised, it should be by means of a separate Bill. There should not be a monopoly in betting, although whether the State should legalise betting at all was another matter. If the clause were passed, Parliament would be committed to the principle, and thus it would have to give the whole control of gambling and betting to the Provincial Councils. (Hear, hear.) Surely it was a most demoralising thing for young people to know that what might be a moral act in the Transvaal was considered immoral in the Cape. (Hear, hear.) It would be very much better for the Minister of Finance to give the House a lead in this matter and to say what the Government policy was.

said that the matter of the totalizator had cropped up year after year in the old Cape House. The totalizator was a safeguard against people overstepping the mark in the way of betting. That is why he supported it. Bookmakers took bets “ on the nod ” that was on credit—and thus a man might be led into financial difficulties by betting beyond his means, and consequently his family would suffer. He had often asked the hon. member for Prieska to come to the races and learn for himself before he spoke as he did, but he would not. (Laughter.)

You want my money. (Laughter.)

pointed out that the totalizator’s stake was limited to £1, and the man must have the sovereign in his pocket before he could bet. He was not what was understood a betting man, and could see no harm in putting a sovereign on his fancy in a race, nor in anyone doing so if he could afford it. The other Provinces were allowed to run the machine. Racing and betting would not be allowed if it was not for the purpose of breeding and improving stock. (Cries of “ Oh! ”) That was the first idea of allowing horse racing. In the case of the bookmaker, he took the profits and lived well, and horse breeding did not gain a penny advantage. Part of totalizator profits were used for the purpose of increasing the stakes, and the higher the stakes the better the class of horse. The hon. member for Barberton said he would bring in a Bill last session, but he did not, and the Minister of Finance had been approached by the Cape racing authorities, but he said he was not prepared to take it as a Union measure, and that each Province would have to look after itself. He thought it only fair that the Cape Province should consider the matter for itself. If all the Provinces decided to have the tote, then at some future time it could be embodied in a general law, dealing with the subject as a Union matter.

said they should leave the question to Provincial Councils. They were opposed in the House to gambling on the part of natives, but they allowed their own people to do so. This was morally wrong, and should not be legalised. At the moment their duty was to leave the matter open, if they could reach final decision on the question at some later date. He had seen the evil effects of gambling, and did not wish to see it legalised. They were trying now to import the totalizator into the Cape through a side door. Personally he never went to the races, because of the gambling that went on there. It was just as much gambling to bet with the totalizator as with a bookmaker.

said he agreed with the hon. member who said that if the totalizator should be kept out of the Cape Province, it would be better for the Cape Provincial Council to decide that point. Those who were members of the Provincial Councils, just like the members of the Union Parliament, had the interests of the people at heart. To his mind, it would be a disaster to South Africa if they just let things get on, or did not control them. He objected to the Government taking a share in the profits of the totalizator, but admitted that the Government had acted wisely in the Transvaal in its action with regard to racing. Both racing and betting ought to be resisted as much as possible.

Bechuanaland) said that those of them who knew the hon. member for Prieska in the old Cape Parliament knew very well that when he was discussing anything of that kind, he was fond of getting on a high pedestal morality, and from there delighted to lecture people, laying down invariably the most stern code of morality. The hon. member had not the remotest idea of what the totalizator meant. He did not know how it worked, yet he came to the House and aired his views about it. He ought to go to the racecourse and see what took place With the totalizator they had a much cleaner and better form of betting than with the bookmakers. As the hon. member for Woodstock said, there was no credit with the totalizator. Under that system, if a man had no money, he could do no betting. The hon. member went on to say that betting was part of human nature; he supposed that human nature must have some form of vice, and that required an outlet. He knew that in the Transvaal, since betting had been controlled by the totalizator, they had a cleaner form of betting than before, when the bookies were deafening the ears of everybody on the course. Surely a matter of that kind they could trust to the Provincial Councils, and he hoped that hon. members would take a sane view of it.

reiterated his arguments, in favour of the amendment. The hon. member quoted statistics to show that in New Zealand betting had increased as a result of the totalizator. The totalizator increased the number of race days out of all proportion to what they had previously been. Mr. Schreiner then quoted authorities to show that the totalizator had been a great social evil in Australia and New Zealand. Hundreds and thousands of young people had been ruined because of the totalizator. In Cane Town a man who had filled a high position came to grief and became a convict, his fall being caused in the first instance by his winning a big prize in a Rand sweepstake. It had been argued that races improved the breed of horses. But what did they do to improve the breed of cattle? (Laughter.) We imported pedigree stock but we did not have bull races. (Renewed laughter.) Racing was unnecessary to improve the breed of horses. For another thing we needed horses of a stronger build than racehorses. In conclusion, Mr. Schreiner said that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to take such an important matter such as that of betting and gambling into its own cognisance and not to delegate its powers in this respect to the Provincial Councils. They were giving one thing after another to the Provincial Councils, thus doing away with the possibility of having uniform legislation throughout the Union. The question of the totalizator was of too great importance to delegate to the Provincial Councils.

What about local veto?

The sub-section was put and declared carried.

called for a division,

which was taken with the following result:

put the amendment in sub-section (5) proposed by the Select Committee.

The amendment was negatived.

put the question: That sub-section (5) proposed to be omitted stand part of the schedule.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Baxter), was declared negatived.

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

moved to omit the words “ the ” and “of sugar, tea, and vines,” in sub-section (2), experimental cultivation.

said he could not accept the amendment.

also spoke, but his remarks were inaudible in the Press gallery.

said that why that particular thing had been suggested by the committee was that these particular products were not grown over the whole of the Union.

moved that the word “cotton” also be inserted.

Coffee? (Laughter.)

said that he thought this was a very important matter, and different parts of the country had got entirely different characteristics. Why should they not allow a Province everything they possibly could to develop its resources?

Mr. Baxter’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Schreiner’s amendment was also negatived.

On sub-section (3), The provision of grants in respect of agricultural shows and kindred societies, other than societies registered under any law.

moved the deletion of sub-section (3), which he feared would be to the detriment of agricultural societies. The allowances to agricultural societies were yearly increasing.

thought the sub-section should stand, and held that there were various local or provincial matters which might be properly dealt with in this way.

reiterated that it would be difficult for the Provinces to supply the funds required by agricultural societies. If they really wanted to encourage the agricultural societies, then it would have to be done by the Union Government.

said seeing that agriculture fell under the Union Government, the question of subsidies to agricultural societies should fall under the Union Government.

explained that under section 12 these questions could only be referred to the Provinces with the consent of the Provinces.

withdrew his amendment.

On sub-section (4), The administration of libraries, museums, art galleries, herbaria and botanic gardens, except the South African Library, Museum, and Art Gallery, Cape Town, and the Government Library and Transvaal Museum, Pretoria,

protested against the splitting up of museums, and drew attention to the case of Graham’s Town.

said that considerable pressure had been exercised in regard to the libraries and museums at the capital, and that was why there was a difference of administration.

said that he objected to the Graham’s Town Museum being under a different administration.

said that that would not act disadvantageously.

said it appeared to him that in certain parts of the country sub-section 12 was not in accord with section 147 of the South Africa Act, inasmuch as the control and administration of native affairs was therein placed in the hands of the Governor-General-in-Council. He feared that the provisions of sub-section(1) (a) would cause a great deal of confusion in the native reserves and areas administered by the Minister of Native Affairs of the Union. He would like to know whether the Governor-General meant the Governor-General-in-Council.

The second schedule was agreed to.

On the third schedule,

moved: After the item “Natal, Act No. 23 of 1907,” to insert: Act No. 31 of 1909.—To impose a cession fee upon cessions of unregistered Crown leases.

Agreed to.

The third schedule, as amended, was agreed to.

The clauses held over were then agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, and consideration of same was set down for Friday.

moved for leave to give evidence in another place.

Leave was granted.