from L. J. de V. Faure, civil servant, for condonation of a break in his service.

(for the Minister of Lands), Government Notice No. 458 of 1914 having reference to regulations framed under Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act No. 8 of 1912.

Return of special warants issued 1st February, 1914, to 31st March, 1914.

This return was referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Details of Vote No. 31, “Buildings, Furniture and Fittings,” of the estimates of expenditure from revenue funds for the year ending the 31st March, 1915.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the fact that a “free” Indian, employed as a labourer by the Mechanical Department of the South African Railways in Natal at a monthly wage of £1 7s. 6d., has had £1 stopped out of this wage in both the months of January and February last in respect of arrears of the annual £3 licence due from him; (2) did this Indian authorise these deductions, and, if not, on what authority were they made; and (3) is it the intention of the Government to make similar deductions from the wages of every “free” Indian employed by them who is in arrear in respect of payments of the annual £3 licence?

replied: (1) My attention has been drawn to this matter, and the facts are as stated, except that the Indian referred to received free rations and accommodation; also free firewood, coal and medical treatment. (2) He agreed to the deductions when he was engaged. He was then in arrear with licence payments to the extent of £15. (3) Some time prior to Union the Natal Government instructed that arrear licence fees must be recovered from the wages of Indians in railway employ, and this arrangement has not been disturbed.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What is the number of fatal accidents which occurred at railway level crossings throughout the Union during the year 1913; (2) what is the number for the year 1913 of (a) persons injured at the said level crossings, and (b) accidents to vehicles and stocks; and (3) what are the amounts paid by the Administration as compensation respectively under the above several heads?

replied: (1) Level crossing accidents involving fatalities to 14 persons occurred during the year 1913; (2) (a) 21 persons were injured at level crossings during the same period, (b) 39 vehicles were damaged and 348 animals killed or injured; (3) compensation paid, (a) in respect of persons killed £200 10s., (b) in respect of persons injured £10, (c) in respect of vehicles damaged £76 12s. 1d., (d) in respect of livestock killed or injured £1,912 19s. 2d., total £2,200 1s. 3d.

asked the Minister of Finance whether it is a fact that duty is charged on all goods (except Colonial products) entering Pondoland from Natal, in addition to such duties as have been paid to the Government on entering the Union; and whether the practice is the same with regard to goods sent from the Cape, and, if not, why is there a differentiation?

replied: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part therefore falls.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What is the nature of the alterations contemplated to the entrance of Durban Harbour; and (2) has the Administration taken advantage of local expert advice in formulating any scheme for such alterations; and, if so, what are the names of such advisers?

replied: (1) The sea-end of the South Breakwater at Durban has never been properly completed, with the result that, in its present unfinished condition, it is unable to withstand the heavy seas encountered there. The Administration’s expert advisers are strongly averse to the extension of this breakwater beyond what is absolutely essential to afford adequate cover and protection to the present breakwater head, which is gradually being undermined and weakened, and from which quite a number of concrete blocks have been dislodged by successive heavy storms. The existing breakwater head cannot be satisfactorily repaired, and the proposal submitted by the experts is to strengthen the structure from a point about 200 feet from the lighthouse, and to run the head of the pier slightly more to the east. The breakwater will be finished off with a round head, composed of 35-ton blocks, which will be so constructed as to embrace the present head. This will admit of displaced blocks being removed from the entrance alongside the breakwater, and will eventually give an extra width of approximately 100 feet of safe water for vessels of deep draught. This proposal has already been discussed, but, in view of the damage to this breakwater by the recent storm, the Harbour Advisory Engineer has been despatched to Durban, for the purpose of investigating the full extent of the damage and consulting the local port authorities as to whether any modification of the proposed scheme is likely to be necessitated thereby. The matter will thereafter be considered. (2) The answer to this question is in the negative.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what is the cause for the delay in erecting the Titan crane at Durban Harbour Works, and when it is expected that this crane will be ready for work?

replied: The erection of this crane has been delayed largely by the strike. It is anticipated the work will be completed early next month. The construction of the track for the crane has also been delayed, due to the late delivery of timbers from Australia. Part of the consignment has now arrived, and the remainder is expected daily. The work will be expedited, and will, under normal conditions, take approximately 2½ months to complete after arrival of material.

asked the Minister of Justice whether it is a fact that on the 19th inst. a body of 16 police and one inspector were granted to Sir Thomas Smartt, or were sent to the meetings to be addressed by him; and, if so, by whose authority were these police so used and who bore the costs?

replied: The suggestion that police were supplied for a public meeting on the 19th inst. at the instance of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is devoid of foundation. The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area in question informs me that he took the ordinary police precautions to prevent possible breaches of the peace. The number of police sent to the particular meeting indicated is also incorrectly given, the correct number being an inspector and ten constables. The policemen were sent by authority of the Deputy Commissioner, and consequently at the public cost.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Is it true that if a married policeman at Cape Town takes the month’s leave due to him he loses his house allowance of £2 5s.; (2) is it a fact that if such policeman is sick for a period of more than 14 days, each day over 14 is deducted from his leave; (3) why was it that the local police who went to Johannesburg during the July strike, and who were away six weeks, were not paid the local allowance; and (4) why is it that if a policeman should require six months’ leave, he must take no leave for six years?

replied: (1) Yes. (2) No. Members of the force may be granted sick leave on full pay for three months in each successive period of three years’ service, and on half nay for a further period of three months. In cases where the illness is caused by the officer’s own misconduct, the leave necessitated thereby is recorded against vacation leave due or accruing to him. (3) No extra local allowance was paid as all the policemen transferred to the Rand were lodged and fed at Government expense while there. (4) The purport of the question is not understood In terms of Police Regulation 86 (e) vacation leave on full pay is granted at the rate of one-twelfth of the period of service performed, and such leave may be accumulated for not longer than 120 days at any one time. All the matters referred to in the hon. member’s question are determined by the Police Regulations, which were duly submitted to Parliament.

asked the Minister of Defence: (1) Whether tenders were called for at Queen’s Town for the supply of meat to the Defence Force camp: (2) whether the same course was followed with regard to the Defence Force camps at Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, and Middelburg; (3) if so, who was the successful tenderer and what was the saving attained by accepting the tender as compared with the next lowest tender; and (4) if tenders were not called for, to what firms was the order given for the supply of meat, and why were tenders not called for ?

replied: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) William Dick; 6d. per 100 lbs. on mutton.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether on Tuesday, March 10, a political meeting was held on the station premises at Queen’s Town, when Mr. Arnold, a member of the Executive Committee of the Cape Province, addressed the railwaymen and others, and, if so, whether the same facilities are accorded to Labour candidates.

replied: I find that the facts are as stated. The meeting should not have been allowed to take place on railway premises, nor would it have been allowed had the intention to hold such a meeting been known to the Administration. Suitable notice will be taken of the matter.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether the recently introduced locomotives of class 4a are giving satisfaction as regards (a) coal consumption, (b) ability to keep time with heavy passenger trains, and (c) ability to reach high speed; (2) whether it is a fact that the 4a class has virtually superseded class 10c and class 5 on the Cape Town—Touws River section, for heavy passenger service; (3) if so, in what way have the 10c and 5 classes proved unsatisfactory for such service; and (4) have the superheaters fitted to class 4a locomotives resulted in a more efficient locomotive, as compared with class 4; if so, in what respect or respects?

replied: (1) The answers to the points raised in this question are in the affirmative. (2) No; but for exceptionally heavy trains class 4a engines are preferred, on account of their ability to take, single-headed, loads with which class 10c and class 5 engines would require assistance. (3) Class 10c and class 5 engines have not proved unsatisfactory. They are good passenger engines within the compass of their power. (4) Yes. The 4a engine is more powerful and consumes less coal.

asked the Minister of Finance whether there is any foundation for the complaint made officially by a branch of a political association in Ward Elands River, District Pretoria, that all demands for payment of farm and other taxes, made by the Receiver of Revenue, are issued in the English language only, notwithstanding that the vast majority of the persons concerned are Dutch-speaking; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that section 137 of the Act of Union be adhered to.

replied: I understand that in the office of the Receiver of Revenue, Pretoria, there was a quantity of demand forms printed in the English language only. This stock of English forms, which, on the ground of economy it was desired to exhaust before ordering bilingual forms, has now been used up, and in future all demand forms will be issued in both languages.

asked the Minister of Public Works: Whether it is a fact that electricians employed in the Public Works Department are not allowed leave with pay, despite the fact that all other artisans employed by the Department are allowed two weeks’ annual leave with full pay after one year’s service, and, if such is the case, will he rectify the omission of the electricians from participation in such benefit as soon as possible?

replied: Leave is granted only to those artisans employed before Union who are entitled under pre-Union Regulations to such privilege in terms of their agreement. Artisans of all trades engaged by the Department since Union are entitled to eleven Statutory Holidays on full pay.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) What was the quantity of spirits distilled since the 1st January, 1914, to date; (2) what was the quantity classified by the Excise Department as liable to a duty of five shillings and ten shillings per gallon respectively; (3) whether it is within the knowledge of the Excise Department that spirits paying the Excise duty of five shillings per gallon as wine brandy (cognac type) is being sold under other designations (which are liable to ten shillings duty) such as F.C. brandy, etc., and, if such is the case, whether the Excise Department can give the reasons and state whether it is considered that such action has a tendency to defeat the intention of the Wine, Spirits, and Vinegar Act, 1913, and the Excise and Customs Tariffs Amendment Act, 1913, and (4) whether spirit classified under the ten shillings per gallon duty was used for the making of brandy or for fortifying wines, and, if for the latter purpose, whether such spirits are not exempt from Excise duty ?

replied: The replies to the hon. member’s questions are as follows: (1) 102,103 proof gallons. (2) Classified by Classification Board, who are not controlled by Excise Department: Wine brandy (cognac type), at 5s. per proof gallon, 82,017 proof gallons; spirits liable to Excise Duty of 10s. per proof gallon, 19,922 proof gallons; dopspirits at 15s. per proof gallon, 164 proof gallons. (3) It is within the knowledge of the Excise Department that a very small quantity of spirits paying the Excise duty of 5s. per proof gallon as wine brandy (cognac type) has been sold under the designation of F.C. Brandy, etc. There is no provision in the Excise Act by which a higher duty than five shillings per proof gallon can be imposed on wine brandy (cognac type), should such brandy be reduced with water and coloured, sweetened and flavoured, nor is there any provision prohibiting such manipulation as long as neither the proper proportion of higher alcohols and secondary constituents nor the strength has been altered by re-distillation, or other means, so as to take the spirits out of the definition ruling the five shillings per proof gallon class. The addition of sweetening and colouring matter does no have that effect. Under the provisions of the Wine, Spirits, and Vinegar Act, 1913, wine brandy (cognac type), if flavoured, cannot be sold as such. The label on the vessel must bear some other designation or description. (4) Spirit distilled since the 1st January, 1914, classified under the ten shillings per proof gallon duty, has not, within the knowledge of the Excise Department, been used for making brandy, for sale as such. Over one-half of the quantity produced to date has been used for fortifying wines, free of duty. The balance is still held by the distillers and wholesale dealers.

asked the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the report of the Economic Commission upon the cost of living in various parts of the Union, it is the intention of the Government to make such readjustments of local allowances as will satisfactorily meet the cases of those public servants who are employed in places where the cost of living is as great as it is in districts where local allowances are already made?

replied: In consequence of representations by officials of the public service regarding the unequal effect of the tarifi of local allowances, the Government, so long ago as December, 1913, requested the Public Service Commission to investigate the matter, and to submit recommendations as to any modification in the tariff that the Commissioners might consider to be justifiable. The Commissioners’ report has not yet been received, and I understand that they do not anticipate being in a position to submit their report for some months to come. I am informed, further, that, in framing their recommendations, the Public Service Commissioners will not overlook the terms of the Economic Commission’s report.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he will lay upon the Table of this House a return showing the income and expenditure of the railway line between Bethlehem and Reitz, as also the profit made on that line since the opening, or the loss, if any?

replied: The line from Bethlehem to Reitz was opened for traffic on the 2nd December, 1911. The earnings from that date to the 31st October were £15,725. The expenditure was £21,116. The loss, after paying working expenses and providing for depreciation, was £5,391; and the loss after meeting interest charges was £16,555. I lay upon the Table a return embodying this information in greater detail.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether complaints have been received from residents and householders in the neighbourhood of the Dock Gates, Cape Town, of disorderly and immoral acts perpetrated in the streets in that neighbourhood; (2) whether reports from the police authorities have been received on the subject if so, whether they point to the insufficiency of the police force as being at the bottom of the matter; if so, will he cause inquiries to be instituted into the subject?

replied: (1) Yes. (2) Reports on this subject have been made to Government, and an increase of establishment provided for this area is on the Police Estimates now before Parliament.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1)

How many drills are now at work on Crown land in Bechuanaland; (2) whether it is proposed to augment this number of drills, and if so, by how many; (3) how many boreholes have been put down, and with what results?

asked that the question be allowed to stand over.

asked the Minister of Lands (1) Whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the instructions given to the surveyors entrusted with the survey and sub-division of Crown land in Bechuanaland with regard to the size of allotments; and. (2) when it is proposed to proceed with the allotment of farms already surveyed, or whether the allotment is to be defined until both blocks Nos. 2 and 5 have been surveyed?

asked that the question be allowed to stand over.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether he is aware of the opinion of the Magistrate of Cape Town, published in the 1912 report of the Department of Justice (page 113) as to the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court-house, to the effect that “he had no hesitation in saying that the health, if not the life, of some of his predecessors and colleagues had been affected by the insanitary buildings in which they had been required to perform their duties ”; (2) whether he is aware of the statement made by Sir John Graham, as reported in the “Cape Argus ” on March 26, to the effect “that when a body like the Licensing Board were summoned to the assistance of the law they should have much better hygienic accommodation than obtained in that abominable Court-room”; and (3) what steps the Government proposes to take to provide a proper magistrates’ court in Cape Town?

replied: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) An amount of £3,000, as portion of a larger sum to be determined during the recess, has been placed on the Loan Estimates with a view to making better provision for magistrates’ court purposes in Cape Town.

asked the Minister of Justice whether it is a fact that the magistrate at Babanango (Mr. Kinsman) is under notice of retirement; and, if so, what are the reasons for such notification ?

replied: The answer is in the affirmative. The assistant magistrate in question has reached the age of superannuation.

asked the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been directed to the strictures of Mr. Justice Ward in the Supreme Court at Johannesburg on September 11, 1913, on the “wickedness of the law ” which permits the exaction of excessive charges by the legal fraternity: and what steps, if any, the Government has taken, or proposes to take, to protect the poorer and more unfortunate part of the community from extortion practised by members of the Law Society, a Union recognised by the courts and by Government?

replied: I have not seen the remarks attributed to the honourable judge. The question of consolidating and harmonising the rules and tariffs of the various courts is under consideration.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs whether his attention has been directed to a report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs (Cape House of Assembly) of 1909, urging the introduction of legislation curtailing the judicial power of native chiefs in Bechuanaland in both civil and criminal cases, and whether he intends to introduce legislation to that effect during this or next session?

replied: Yes, my attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the Cape Select Committee referred to. Legislation on this and other subjects affecting native administration is undoubtedly required, but it is not the purpose of the Government to introduce legislation until Parliament has defined native areas throughout the Union upon the recommendation and report of the Statutory Commission now sitting.

moved that the House, on its rising on Thursday, April 9, adjourn until Wednesday, April 22.

moved, as an amendment, that the words “Thursday, April 9,” be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words “Tuesday, April 7.” He said it would facilitate hon. members who came from Natal reaching Natal if the House rose on Tuesday, as they would have an opportunity of catching the Mail Steamer. He hoped that the amendment would be agreed to, if the object of the motion was to allow hon. members to visit their homes. If the House adjourned on Thursday, hon. members would have to travel on Good Friday, and some might object to that. He also pointed out that hon. members would have an opportunity of attending certain celebrations on the Rand.

who seconded the amendment, said that there were persons who had conscientious objections to travelling on Good Friday. It was better to have no holiday at all than a holiday like that. It would only give benefit to hon. members who lived in the immediate neighbourhood.

said that some of them would prefer that the holiday should be much shorter, but he recognised that that was not the opinion of everyone. It was a case where the convenience of the majority should be considered. He pointed out that there was an important Bill on the paper for Wednesday, the Rand Water Board Bill.

in replying, said that he had no objection to accepting the amendment, but he wished to point out that the order for the second reading of the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill was set down for discussion on Wednesday, April 8. That was a Bill of the utmost importance. He would accept the amendment, provided the second reading of the Bill was set down for the Wednesday on which the House met again.

said that the Natal members would only get two days at home, and it would be like going in at the front door and coming out at the back. He moved as an amendment that the House adjourn from Thursday, the 9th, until Tuesday, the 14th.

pointed out that they had come down here to work, and he agreed with the amendment, which he seconded.

suggested that better work would be done if they took a little holiday, and he hoped that the House would adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria County.

put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

The amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street was agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was thereupon agreed to.

moved that Order No. 1, for the second reading of the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill, standing on the Order Paper for Wednesday, April 8, be discharged and set down as the first Order on the Paper for Wednesday, April 22.

This was agreed to.

moved that his motion set down for Tuesday, April 7, be moved to Tuesday, April 28.

This was agreed to.

I must point out to the hon. member that I cannot allow the words “and should be dissolved,” because that is the prerogative of the Crown. (Ministerial laughter.)

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the laws in force in the several Provinces of the Union relating to plural registration of voters and to plural voting and polling hours at elections of members of the House of Assembly and Provincial Councils.

seconded.

Leave was granted, the Bill read a first time and set down for second reading on Wednesday, April 29.

moved that the Government be requested to consider the desirability of investigating the working within the Union of the Stamp Duties and Fees Act, 1911, more particularly as to whether the provision requiring suretyships on promissory notes to be stamped is carried out on a uniform basis in the various parts of the Union. The mover said he had raised this matter on a previous occasion in the form of a question. The answer given had surprised him, and no one could have been more surprised than the Minister when he read the answer of his department. He hoped, however, the motion would now be accepted and carried out. He was prepared to excuse the Minister for his answer, seeing that at the time he had been extremely busy with other matters. In this House hon. members were continually talking of assisting the poor, but they had a peculiar way of doing so. They had a Land Bank, which, lent to the rich at 5 or 6 per cent., but left the poor to go to the ordinary banks and to pay there 8 or 9 per cent. The law of 1911, section 7, laid it down what stamps had to be affixed to promissory notes, but he could not understand why section 22, which contained something very different, should be read in conjunction. Clause 22 required a stamp for each surety. Thus for every promissory note double stamp duty had to be paid. That was excessively hard for the poor man. Let them look at the case of a poor man who borrowed £60 from a bank He knew of cases where four sureties were demanded. In addition to affixing a shilling stamp on the promissory note for himself, he had to put on a shilling stamp for each surety. If this promisory note was renewed after three months, the stamps had to be affixed again, with the result that for three renewals he had to pay 15s, or one and a half per cent. on the promissory note paid in the form of a tax. Including interest, the poor man was thus obliged to pay 9½ per cent, for his money, whilst the wealthy man got it from the Land Bank for 5 per cent. That had never been the intention of the law. Two years ago the speaker had pointed out these things and done all he could to get the mater put right. Was it not astonishing, he asked, that the Minister was able to say that the Department had received no complaints? Surely the House had never intended that to be the case. If anyone endorsed a promissory note he was just as responsible as the co-principal debtor, but he had not to pay for a stamp. But if a man signed as surety, the stamps had to be paid. It was possible in the towns to evade the law by endorsing, but because the farmer could not always be in town at the date of renewal, they had introduced the system of sureties, for signature in the left corner. On those taxes had to be paid. The law did not operate every where equally. Magistrates had received instructions to watch the stamp duties, but it was not everywhere complied with, and there was thus a lapse of uniformity.

seconded the motion, and regretted that so little was done for the poor, but honest, man. If this man could not get help in the usual way, he was forced to go to the ordinary money-lender, whom he had to pay anything up to 60 per cent. interest. He trusted the Minister would give this matter his most serious consideration and would see that the difficulties were removed. The man of average means could be easily helped, but not the poor man. The disproportion between the treatment which the two classes received should be diminished.

said complaints had been made that so little was being done for the development of the agricultural industry. In his district the African Farms were doing a great deal for the development of the resources of the country and of the cattle industry. He (the speaker) recently received a letter from the Chairman of the company, Mr. J. Jeppe, of Johannesburg, complaining of the heavy licence fees which the company had to pay. He trusted that during the recess the Government would see what could be done to give relief to such companies. He thought the scope of the motion should be extended, and he moved to delete all the words after “1911” and to insert the words “and of the laws regulating the imposition of quitrent on land.”

The position in regard to quitrent was most unsatisfactory in the manner in which it varied in the four Provinces. The present position was causing the greatest dissatisfaction, and all farmers were urging that the matter should be looked into and rectified. The Cape produced £70,000. the Transvaal £20,000, the Free State £16,000, and Natal £12,000. The highest quitrents had to be paid in the poorest districts, those demanded in the north-west being particularly heavy. The policy of the Government in this regard was ridiculous, because it must be clear that the more the poor people were taxed, the less money they had to develop the ground. The whole trouble was due to the fact that members were not acquainted with the position of the farmers. He could assure hon. members on the cross-benches that the people whose cause they were continually pleading lived like kings compared with the way in which the poor farmers in the north-west had to live and had to economise. The country was suffering severely from drought, and farmers had to wander all about the place with their cattle. When were they going to help those people? He wished to see a commission of practical farmers appointed, with a magistrate as chairman, to look into this matter. So far their commissions had always been composed of officials, who, excellent though they might be, were not practically versed in matters of this kind. If they had a commission composed of practical Transvaal farmers, something would then be done. In his (the speaker’s) district the position in regard to quitrent was somewhat different, and he wished to take the House back to the days of Stellaland and Goshen. In 1884 the land belonging to the natives was taken over by the Imperial Government. A Land Court was appointed to go into all claims in regard to property. In those days a large number of Europeans lived there who had been granted land by independent native chiefs. Well, most of the claims were granted by the Land Court, but subsequently a high quitrent was imposed. It would have been possible to appeal to the Privy Council in England, but the high costs connected with such an appeal were prohibitive. The quitrent amounted to £15 per year on a farm of 3,000 morgen, and protests had no effect. A great injustice had been done, and an injustice remained an injustice until eternity. So long as he was a member of this Parliament he would lodge his protest so as to get this injustice put right. He knew the Minister of Finance took a great interest in the development of the country, and he hoped that during the recess he would look into the appointment of the commission he had suggested

seconded, and said that, although he had not intended speaking, he felt that he must say a few words on this most important matter. The Minister of Finance knew what it meant to a poor man to have to pay £15 per year. The Government should take steps to treat these people fairly and equitably, and more in proportion. There were farmers who paid more than £15 in quitrent, and the sooner the present injustice was put right, the better. These old pioneers had had to go through great difficulties, and it was not right that they should have been treated in this manner. Some of the people had paid quitrents sufficient to buy their farms two or three times over, and an inquiry was very necessary. The previous commissions which had been appointed had done very little, and he considered the best course to take would be to appoint a commission which consisted of practical farmers with a magistrate as chairman. The people were being taxed too heavily.

said that there was one matter which he would like to raise, in reference to the hiring and letting of seaside houses. He would like to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible, merely by Treasury order, or, if necessary, an amendment of the Act, to put the matter right. Under schedule 2 of the Stamp Duties and Fees Act, 1911, if a house were let on lease for a year, certain stamps had to be paid. A seaside house might be let at £25 a month to one tenant for a year, and the stamp duty payable would be 15s., but if during the course of the year the tenancy were changed, a stamp duty of 15s. had to be paid in respect of each fresh tenant. In other words, suppose the house were let to four different tenants in the course of a year, a sum of £3 would have to be paid in the way of stamp duty. He did not think the Government should insist upon levying stamp duty more than once in the course of the year, so long as the rental remained the same, even though the tenancy changed. The rental was exactly the same, and he contended that the stamp duty should be the same. The matter, of course, was not a hardship on the landlord alone, because the duty, no doubt, was added to the rent. He trusted that the Minister would take the matter into consideration, because it was a result of the Stamp Duties Act that, he was sure, nobody contemplated when the Act passed through Parliament.

supported the amendment, and said the quitrent was too high. In 1912 an investigation had been made by a Government Commissioner, but this Commissioner had done more harm than good. He (the speaker) urged that a qualified commission should be appointed which, he said, would give the utmost satisfaction if it included practical farmers. It was too bad to make a man in Griqualand West pay £30 a year. The taxes were too high and they were not in proportion. (The speaker was partly inaudible.)

regarded the amendment as a most essential one. The matter dealt with should be carefully gone into, because uniformity was required in all directions. Last year a return had been laid on the Table showing the various licences paid in the Provinces. A chemist in the Cape paid £7, in the Free State £5, and in the Transvaal nothing. The question of licences ought to be gone into thoroughly, as there was very great diversity of practice. For bottle stores and foreign agencies at the Cape high licence fees had to be paid. The agents in the Cape paid £50, in the Transvaal and Natal £10, and in the Free State £5. The result was that a firm who sent a traveller to the Free State had to pay a £50 licence. The Appeal Court had decided that a trading firm at the Paarl was “foreign.” Travellers in the Free State had to take out a licence costing £20 per quarter. It was very necessary that the Government should order an inquiry to be made into these different systems of licences. He moved an amendment to the amendment, to the effect that the working of the various Acts throughout the Union in connection with the paying of licences should be investigated, with a view to securing uniformity throughout the Union. Unless uniformity was brought about, he held that the true Union would never be achieved.

seconded the amendment to the second proposed amendment moved by the hon. member for Bechuanaland, and said that in the Eastern Province one often found that two different quitrents were paid on farms in the same province. On one of his farms he paid £5 per thousand morgen, and on the adjoining farm he paid £10 per thousand morgen. On some farms the quitrent was as high as £20. He trusted the matter would be carefully gone into. He did not so much ask for a reduction as for an equalisation. The last time a Commission was appointed the members attended at a time of the year when the people were away. A new commission ought to do better than either of the two previous ones.

said that he was glad that that motion had been tabled, and he was rather surprised at the little interest which had been taken in that motion by hon. members on the cross-benches. (Laughter.) He saw one hon. member representing that party on the cross-benches, and he supposed that that hon. member would start the ball rolling, and that the others would follow him. He could not quite understand their making an exception to that debate and not rising to the occasion, and he did not expect that that debate would pass without their taking part in it. (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to say that the question dealt with by that motion really deserved the close attention of every hon. member in that House. They were all interested in taxation, but he did not think the Minister of Finance would welcome the motion on the ground that it had a tendency to reduce taxation. He did not see why one section of the people should have to pay more than another section as had been pointed out. As the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. De Jager) had pointed out, there was great irregularity in regard to the licences in the different Provinces. The Union Parliament had been in existence for four years, but they had not gone far in bringing all the different licences into uniformity, a matter which could easily be done. In conclusion, the hon. member pointed out that it was not only members on the cross-benches who represented the poorer people, but that there were other hon. members who also had the best interests of the poorer sections of the population at heart.

said he did not think it necessary to say much on this motion. It was quite true that the hon. member for Ficksburg had often brought this matter to the notice of the department. But he hoped the question would not trouble him much longer, as he trusted that at an early date he would be able to deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner. The point touched on by the hon. member for Bechuanaland, however, was an extremely difficult one, as it was joined to the question of revenue, and many commissions had gone into it in the past. He did not think, however, that satisfaction would be given by any further commissions. The matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, could also be gone into, but he could not hold out any prospect that any alteration would be brought about. The Government would accept the original motion, but not the amendment relating to quitrents.

in reply, said he was pleased to have heard the reply of the Minister. Dealing with the matters raised by Mr. Wessels and Mr. Kuhn, he wished to point out that he had touched on the stamp duties, and now an altogether different question had been raised. If the matter raised were one of life and death, why then had it not been brought up sooner. He held the amendment displayed a good deal of racialism, and he regretted the manner in which it had been brought up. As to the remarks of the hon. member for Paarl, the hon. member had pointed to a good many instances where the Cape paid more than the Free State. But what about the instances where the Free State paid more than the Cape?

Where ?

Well, he could quote one instance, and that was the one in regard to barristers’ licences in the Free State. The amendments had nothing whatever to do with the original motion.

The first part of the amendment proposed by Mr. D. H. W. Wessels, to omit certain words, was agreed to.

then put the substitution of the words proposed to be inserted by Mr. D. H. W. Wessels in lieu thereof.

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

Ayes—63.

Andrews, William Henry

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederic Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johanne s

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Grobier, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson. Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannas Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—14.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Crewe, Charles Preston

Jagger, John William

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn; John William

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Walton, Edgar Harris

Whitaker, George

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

Morris Alexander and J. Hewat, tellers.

The amendment was accordingly agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Dr. De Jager was then agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to, viz.: That the Government be requested to consider the desirability of investigating the working within the Union of the Stamp Duties and Fees Act 1911, and of the laws regulating the imposition of quitrent on land, and the working of the various Acts throughout the Union in connection with the paying of licensing fees, with the view of securing uniformity throughout the Union.

moved: That in the opinion of this House the Government should without delay take into consideration the advisability of instituting an inquiry into the condition of the impoverished burghers in the Union with the view to assisting them with cattle, on the same terms as was done in the Transvaal by the late Transvaal Government. The mover said that there was no hidden object in his proposal. Very few constituencies such as his would be found anywhere in the country. A large number of poor people coming from all parts would be found in the neighbourhood of the goldfields, and found themselves disappointed in their hopes of obtaining work; as they were strange to the surrounding conditions. Large leper and lunatic asylums were also found in his constituency. Many of the people left the asylums as cured and settled on the land, the means of livelihood being very limited. He quoted from the letter of a man named Boshoff, who after living many years in the leper asylum had been discharged as cured, but was now in extremely straitened circumstances. The motion aimed at doing something for people of this kind, and he trusted the Government would give the matter its serious consideration It was not brought forward with any intention to embarrass the Government. He knew the question was an extremely difficult one, which could not be solved by a stroke of the pen, but he urged that a start should be made. The motion asked for a great deal, but the need was greatest in the Transvaal, where the people wanted to get on, and were unable to do so. Before Union the Botha Government had made a good deal of progress in this matter, but since then nothing had been done, and after the progress of the past there had again been a serious retrogression. At every congress this subject was discussed, and resolutions were continually being passed asking the Government to do something. He did not ask for the spending of a lot of money.

There was an old saying, “If there is no beginning there can be no end.” therefore let there be a beginning. The Opposition wanted to import more white people, but it was a much better thing to teach independence to their own people and help them get on their legs. It was said to be a hopeless job to attempt that, but he personally knew many people who could do good work. Among the people in his constituency there were men, old farmers, who, despite their efforts, could not make £1 per month. Proceeding, Mr. Van der Walt said he knew of people who, after the war, had been given one or two head of cattle by the Government, and who to-day had 30 head. The Government had bought ground at £2 per morgen, and settled poor people on it, and now that it was in cultivation it was worth £7 per morgen. But there were still many people walking the streets of Pretoria, and they ought to be brought back to the land, and he hoped the Government would make a further attempt in the same direction. Let the Government make an attempt to settle these people, who had drifted to the towns, on the land. He knew that the Minister of Finance had a warm heart for the poor classes, and he trusted he would use that great intellect of which he was possessed towards the solution of this question—a question which was threatening the country with the direst disaster. Mr. Van der Walt proceeded to quote at some length from the report of the Select Committee on European employment, and expressed the hope that the Government would deal with the matter without delay. The hon. member for Namaqualand had 4,000 morgen in the district of Pretoria, occupied by 40 hardworking people. That enabled the hon. member to live like a king in the Cape, as the tenants paid a high rent. They ought to bring the landowners into contact with the poor burghers who wanted to get back to the land. They should send circulars round to the magistrates, clergy, etc., hold meetings, register the names of applicants and their qualifications, and so on. Many of them thoroughly understood farming. They should give those people 70 morgen of ground, and then they would make a good living out of it. They could also be helped with cattle, as was done in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal they did not help everybody who came along, but only those who were worthy of help. The bringing about of Union made an end of the system, which ought to be resumed. It was not light that in a rich country like the Transvaal they should have people suffering from want. They should go thoroughly into the question and see what could be done.

in seconding, said the object of the motion was an excellent one. After the Transvaal had been granted self-government, steps had been taken by the Government to assist certain people. A Land Board had been appointed and some 15,000 applications had been dealt with. The applicants were usually impoverished farmers who went after the war to live in the towns. Some 75 per cent of these people were not Transvaalers, and about 4,000 were helped by cattle being granted to them. Quite a number of these people, as a result, were to-day independent men, which proved that the system had been a good one, He remembered that the then Minister of Lands, now Administrator of the Transvaal, had told him that he would be satisfied if 50 per cent. of the people thus helped proved a success. Well, a good many more had proved a success. Eleven thousand out of the 15,000 applicants had not been helped, however, and he feared that since these days the number of poor and needy had largely increased. Naturally a certain percentage of those who had been assisted had proved black sheep, but they should not, on account of these few, fail to do something for the others. The Government ought to accept the motion.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria District, South (Mr. V. D. Walt) had raised a very important matter in his motion. That matter of the poor whites had been discussed by the House last session, and had also formed the subject of a report by a commission. He was very strongly opposed to the suggestion that the poor whites should be assisted in the same form in which they had been assisted by the late Transvaal Government That assistance had done no good at all, and they were wasting money, and as far as his reading went, it had demoralised and pauperised these people. It was also grossly unjust when they took the taxpayers’ money and assisted a few people, a few select individuals. Unfortunately, they had poor whites all over South Africa, and not only just confined to the Transvaal. There were, it appeared, 20,000 poor whites in the Transvaal—heads of families and unmarried men —and how was it possible to assist 20,000 heads of families in the way the late Transvaal Government had done? It was impossible under these circumstances to assist these people in the same manner as the late Transvaal Government had done. The late Transvaal Republican Government had assisted them by means of donkey and mealie loans. Having referred to page 176 of the Commission’s report, the hon. member said let them look at the results, and that was the most important point of the whole of that discussion and the whole of that proposal. The effect of these methods of relief could be best shown by a few quotations from the evidence of witnesses. The Municipality of Zeerust had stated that in their opinion the assistance given to these people by the late Transvaal Government had done more harm than good. Another witness had stated that that assistance had induced the recipient to become lazy. A minister of religion who had charge of these people also spoke against these doles being given by the Government, while a Commandant was of opinion that the efforts of the Government had only tended to pauperise the class in question, and to make them look to State-aid as a right. The Commission commented upon the system that it was even worse than giving direct doles, and had a more pauperising effect. Mr. J. J. Hartley, of Potchefstroom, stated that after the war the poor man had been taught to look to the Government for assistance, and the, R.M. of Wakkerstroom had stated that repatriation had pauperised the country terribly.

Continuing, the hon. member quoted the case of a Klerksdorp Benevolent Society, which stated that, so far from improving these people, the system of doles had resulted in their deterioration.

rose to a point of order, and said that his motion had nothing to do with repatriations.

said that the hon. member was quite in order.

said that he wanted to show his hon. friend that this really amounted to the same thing. Notwithstanding this experience, the Transvaal Government, in 1907-8, went on with the similar scheme. The Government advanced cattle and farming utensils. Loans bore interest at the rate of 4 per cent., but no repayment, was to be made until five years had expired. There were 15,500 applications in the Transvaal alone, and 4,500 were approved of. The hon. member went on to quote evidence to show the difficulty magistrates had in getting the cattle and other goods to the people concerned, for they were scattered throughout the length and breadth of the Transvaal. The sum of £255,000 was advanced in 1908, irrespective of the purchase of certain lands. Only last year, in the Public Accounts Committee, the matter was mentioned, and it was then said that it was almost impossible to keep a check over this money. Up to September 30, 1912, 1,422 of the recipients of these grants were in arrears with interest, and the total amount in arrear was £4,700. It was only fair to say that there had been a certain amount of repayment, and up to the 31st March, 1912, £24,300 had been repaid, leaving an amount of £209,360 outstanding at that date. It was, of course, too early to judge what the actual loss would be, but he thought hon. members would see the class of man who had got the assistance, the way they were scattered, and, from what he could gather, there Would be a big loss on the transaction. About the same time the Government entered into an agreement with a Commission of the Dutch Reformed Church with regard to the settlement of white indigents. A farm was purchased for £7,000, and a further advance of £8,000 was made, on which interest at the rate of 4 per cent. was to be paid. What was the position now? The Government had had to write off over £6,000 on the capital and £1,029 in interest. In fact, no interest was paid up to December 30, 1912, and no interest, even on the reduced amount, was being paid at the present time. Under those circumstances, how could they be expected to go on advancing money? It was not even a good business proposition, and it was not good for the people themselves. It was clearly shown in the evidence that it had the effect of demoralising these people, and was a waste of the taxpayers’ money. The utter hopelessness of the methods was quite apparent. He agreed that this was an important and a very serious question, and that the sooner the Government tackled it the better. He could not make any suggestion, but his object had been to demonstrate as far as he could that the methods suggested by the hon. member for Pretoria were not the right methods. Government would have to take action, but in some other direction.

said that, while he agreed very largely with what had been said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he did not think that that gentleman had been quite fair, or, perhaps, the reason was that he had not sufficient information. No system of doles would permanently settle this question. But the hon. member forgot to mention one instance where partial success had been attained. The settlement of Delmas, in spite of the utmost drawbacks, drought, a start made at a bad time, was doing fairly well, and the settlers were beginning to forge ahead. This case showed that, if they only gave proper opportunities to the right men, success could be achieved. The hon. member had referred to a number of failures, but were not those failures due to the parsimonious way in which the Government started these schemes? The hon. member quoted large sums, but he did not go into detail, and tell them the number of settlers and the general circumstances of each case, so that they were not able to form a clear idea of the cases. He would point out that the Delmas settlers were dealt with very harshly from the very start. The whole of the circumstances were entirely against these men, and in spite of that they were making good, and it should encourage the Government to go on with schemes which would enable men to work out their own destinies as independent men. While he had sympathy with the motion, he also agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that the methods proposed were not correct methods, and he would move an amendment. He proposed that the word “burghers” should be deleted for the word “citizens,” and that all the words after “Union” to the end of the motion should be deleted. Personally, he had no objection to the use of the word “burghers,” but in that country it had a peculiar significance and referred to one section of the population. There were other people in an impoverished condition, and they as well as the burghers should have the right of attention from the Government. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, asked how they were going to deal With these 20,000 in the Transvaal alone, and he (Mr. Madeley) pointed out that this was a large proportion of the citizens of the Union and should give them pause. So far as the burghers were concerned, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, knew very well how they could be dealt with. The Government should embark on a broad land policy and introduce taxation of unimproved land values. (Ministerial laughter and Labour cheers. )

With regard to this question of the taxation of land values, they would not be buying a pig in a poke in giving it a trial, because this form of taxation had been tried in other countries, where it is found to lead to a general settlement on the land. If this were done, a period would be put to this question of what to do with the poor white, which was always cropping up. And if the Government did not tackle this question soon they would find themselves in the same position as the older countries of the world, where special taxation had to be imposed for the relief of pauperism. They had to remember that the 20,000 burghers mentioned by the mover of the motion only formed a section of the community, and it was somewhat alarming to find that this number was almost the same in proportion to the paupers in the United Kingdom. That was a most serious state of affairs, and one which should receive the serious attention of that House. They could not allow these men, women and children to starve. They had got to live and they had a right to live. The children of these parents were placed in the position of being compelled to gain their living by dubious methods, and the House ought to face the position at once. To-day, in Johannesburg, the Golden City of South Africa, the Chief Magistrate had to tell those assembled at a banquet that he himself knew for a fact the women had to pick pieces of meat out of dustbins in order to find food for themselves and children. Amidst all the wealth of that city there was something wrong that permitted such a state of affairs to exist. In his own constituency, at Brakpan, he knew of a case where there were eight families—all Dutch people—who were engaged in agriculture. This particular land on which they lived was owned by a company who, not wanting these people on the land, told them to get out. Four of the heads of these families were men and four were women, and the question was where were they to go? He brought the case to the notice of the Minister of Lands, and the reply he got was that the Prime Minister was quite unable to do anything at all, as there were no Crown Lands available for occupation by these people, and if there was it would have to be disposed of according to Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Madeley) did not blame the Government, because they were powerless. The fact was the land was locked up. He moved, as an amendment, in line 3, to omit “burghers”, and to substitute “citizens”; and in the same line, after “Union”, to omit all the words to the end of the motion. His amendment merely asked the Government to inquire as closely as possible into the conditions of the poor of this country, and he hoped it would receive the support of the House

said they were very grateful to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, for the facts that he had laid before the House, but he (General Hertzog) did not think the facts brought forward by him quite served the purpose of the motion. Proceeding, he said that the poor farming class of South Africa were really the most hopeless class they could possibly come across the moment they were landed in towns. As far as he understood the motion, it was to see how far that particular class, which he was sure had the sympathy of them all in that House, because the late war had told upon that class more than any other, could be assisted. Unless that class had something to start with a start in life for them was an absolute impossibility. The hon. member for Springs was wrong when he tried to extend the motion to all classes of inhabitants. They must try to deal with each of those classes separately, and he understood that that motion intended to deal with that matter from that point of view, although he fully agreed with the hon. member for Springs that it was the duty of the House to see that everybody, so far as his talents would allow, should be enabled to become independent. A large number of members in that House, the Prime Minister above all, were strongly in favour of immigration. They were all anxious to have immigrants come to the country, but what had their experience told them in this country?

Not to give doles.

Quite right. Each immigrant had cost something like £1,400. That was the cost of each immigrant that was tried to be settled in the Free State after the war. Each one cost the Government from £1,200 to £1,400, and in the Transvaal there was something like the same effect. Economists had said that the value of an immigrant to a country was £300. So that this country had overpaid. What were they to do? There were 20,000 whites weltering in poverty in the Transvaal who were going to the dogs from day to day. He said two years ago that State-aided immigration for South Africa was a crime unless they first saw that those poor men were dealt with. Those strong advocates of immigration instead of trying to do something for those 20,000 in the Transvaal had allowed these men to decay and rot. If they were in earnest in what they said, that population was of such vast importance to a country, surely they could not need a mouldy, rotting population. They wanted men who had some morality and some independence of spirit left in them. (Hear, hear.) They could not get that with all those men lying rotting in Johannesburg and elsewhere. Consequently they ought to do something. The experiment had been tried of assisting those people in the Transvaal by giving them cattle. In a matter of so great importance he would ask the Prime Minister if no steps had been taken to ascertain what the result of the spending of that £240,000 had been? If the Government did not know it was their duty to have inquired and told the House whether it was a success or not. The question was how far were they eventually going to win. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Grobler) had stated—he might be wrong, he did not know where the hon. member had got his information from—that in hundreds of instances in the Transvaal the system had been a complete success. Even if it had been a failure so far, he asked had the Government gone into the reasons why in the other instances it had been a failure. The Government must not simply come and tell them that it had been a failure. The hon. member went on to point out that since that time Rhodesian tick fever had played havoc among the cattle, and that another big source of loss to the men in the Transvaal had been gall-sickness. It had been responsible for the death of more animals, he thought, than tick fever. Dr. Theiler had discovered an excellent remedy, and besides, dipping was another remedy. If they saw a man who was hopeless they could not do anything for him, but the Government had come into power, above all, on a programme of what they were going to do for the poor man in the Transvaal. Until and unless they did in earnest do something to help these men they deserved to be laughed and sneered at by any and every man in South Africa if again they came and asked for support on that score, because they could not be sincere. He (General Hertzog) was going to support the motion, and he did think that an investigation should be held which had not yet been held, and they should be supplied with all the facts with regard to the giving of these moneys and with regard to how far the outstandings were recoverable or were likely to be recovered. They ought to be supplied with all the other details, and whether it was likely or not going to be a failure. In the Transvaal there was hardly a better way than that referred to in the motion of assisting these men to get back to the land, because it was a cattle country. The best way of helping these people was to give them £80 in cash or eight or ten head of cattle, but no ground was needed. They could help people better in that way in the Transvaal than anywhere else in the country. They would always be able to get enough mealies to supply their families. He submitted Government ought to tell them that afternoon what its reforms were with regard to the past and the prospects of the future. He supported the motion.

who on rising was received with Ministerial cheers, said one was not accustomed to see the hon. member for Smithfield in the House very often lately, but when he did attend a debate one generally expected him to make some attack on the Government such as he had done this afternoon. It was rather extraordinary, however, that the hon. member should avail himself of an occasion like this, when a motion was introduced aiming at doing something to improve the lot of the poor people. But the hon. member now wished to make himself out to be a great advocate of the cause of these poor people. There was a time when General Hertzog had had the same responsibilities as he (the speaker), namely, when General Hertzog was Attorney-General of the Free State, and when his attitude was a very different one. In those days when in the Transvaal, he (General Botha) was doing his utmost to get money for the poor people, a motion of the kind such as they had before the House was introduced in the Free State Parliament, and what did the hon. member say—that he could not help one section only. But now the hon. member sat with his arms round the necks of the hon. members on the cross-benches. (Ministerial cheers.) If in those days of the past the member had co-operated a little more with him (the Premier) in the interests of the poor people there would be a good deal loss poverty to-day. His Government had always done its utmost to help the poor, not by words, but by practical deeds and in a manly way, and had done far more to help the poor whites than the hon. member had ever done. As to the hon. member’s remarks in regard to immigration, referring to the speaker as “the great and strong immigration man,” he wished to say a few words. The attitude taken up by General Hertzog could not be called a manly or ah honest one.

General Hertzog had been a member of his Cabinet for 2½ years, and he had helped in laying down his programme in regard to immigration, for which he was just as responsible as he (General Botha). During 2½ the years that General Hertzog was in the Cabinet he had neither in public nor in that House ever made any remarks about the matter. At a public meeting in Pretoria, when all the members of, the Cabinet were present, he (the Prime Minister) had, with the full consent of all the Ministers, made a full statement when he had said that the following was what they meant by immigration: “We were in favour of State-aided immigration, but not until all these tens of thousands of people in South Africa had been assisted.” That was the clear statement, on which he and his party had been returned, and that was the statement on which they went to the electorate. (Hear, hear.) And that policy, he contended, had been carried out by his Government, until this very day. The position in the Transvaal to-day was not the making of the Government and it was not the ease that all the poor there were so because of the system of gifts and doles. The development of the gold and other industries had attracted the poor people from every part of South Africa, Johannesburg was the meeting place of the poor from every part of the country, Dutch as well as English. People came there who knew no trade, and being unable to work in the mines they drifted into the streets, many subsequently going to Pretoria. And so every year they got a new stream of poor whites. And now the hon. member for Smithfield wished to tell the country that all these poor people who were found in the country were the outcome of the Government’s immigration policy—one could hardly call it an honest attitude to take up to try and make the people believe that that was the case. What was meant by it? What did the hon. member wish to be understood to mean? It was misleading and unfair, and it was not honourable. The hon. member for Cape Town. Central (Mr. J. W. Jagger) had referred to the evidence given before the Indigency Commission. Well, he (the Prime Minister) wished to say that he agreed with a great deal of the evidence given before that Commission, but, on the other hand, there was also a great deal he did not agree with.

The Commission had had to bring out their report on the evidence of many people, some of whom really were not entitled to give any evidence at all, as they were not sufficiently well acquainted with the prevailing conditions. (Hear, hear.) They said amongst other things, that the poverty was due to a system of doles and gifts. He (the speaker) was second to none in his love and respect of the deserving poor. The difficulties and tribulations of these people were many and great, but if there was one thing which was accountable for the impoverishment of so many people in the Transvaal and Free State it was the war. (Hear, hear.) That was a factor which one could not get away from. In the days of the past they had bywoners and farmers in these two Provinces who had some thousands of sheep and some two or throe hundred head of cattle. What had to be done with those people now that they had lost what they had owing to the war, and become quite poor? These people were a burden on the State, and it was the duty of the State to do for them as much as possible so as to help them up again. (Ministerial cheers.) What must become of South Africa if nothing was done for these people? The stream of poor people to Johannesburg and Pretoria year after year must be stopped and something must be done to rescue them. Even if they lost a certain amount of money, was it not their duty to try and rescue at least a certain proportion of these people? As to the granting of cattle to the poor people by the Transvaal Government, he was pleased to say that the efforts of the Transvaal in that direction had been a great success. There were poor mothers with children in these days who had no food or means of livelihood. The action of the Government had undoubtedly dope much to improve conditions among those people, and he was personally aware of the cases of many people who had progressed most satisfactorily since they were thus assisted. He knew, of course, that there had been failures, but if they helped large numbers of people, they could not expect everyone to be a success. (Ministerial cheers.) If the hon. member for Capo Town, Central, saw that as the speaker saw it, he would rejoice at what the Transvaal Government had been able to do. From the information which they received it was clear that the system had in most cases been a success, and it was not correct to say that the cattle had died of East Coast fever. In the East Coast fever districts the Land Board had distributed donkeys, though the speaker did not agree with that.

As to the contentions of the hon. member for Smithfield, it appeared to him that the hon. member did not even take the trouble to read his Blue-books. If he had done so he would have noticed in the report of the Department of Lands that it had been decided that the members of the Land Board were to make a personal inspection of the cattle of the people who had been helped in the past. As soon as the report of the Land Board was completed, the position of the indigents of these days of the past would be known. The Government could not be accused of indifference in this matter, he contended. Some £235,000 had been spent by the Government in these days, and when the report was issued the position as it was to-day would he clear. (Hear, hear.) What they would want in any future scheme would be the best possible supervision, as it was found that the field-cornets were too busy to do the work properly, and if that could be achieved then there was a great deal to be said for the assistance of these people. The lot of these poor people was a matter of more care to him than anything else. It was the duty of the House to do something for this class of people—there could be no doubt of that. As to the mealies and donkey fund mentioned by the hon. member for Smithfield, it appeared to him that the hon. member was not too well aware what had been done in regard to that. However, that was a matter which had been practically completed before Union, and he did not think it would serve any useful purpose to go into the matter at length again, although it was contended that there was much to be said for the manner in which people had been assisted under these funds. They had no doubt worked much evil, also, though they were established with the best intentions in a time when rinderpest prevailed. The greater part of the fund had been written off prior to Union.

At six o’clock General Botha moved the adjournment of the debate, which was agreed to.

The debate was adjourned until April 29.