from cattle farmers and others in the district of Prieska, for the imposition in the Transvaal and Orange Free State of an import duty on meat and South African products.

annual report Natal Museum, 1913; Regulations under the Natal Adulteration of Food Act, No. 45 of 1901.

moved that the Select Committee on the Industrial Disputes and Trade Unions Bill consist of ten members.

moved that the committee should consist of eleven members, for the purpose of enabling him to nominate the hon. member for Liesbeek as a member of the committee. He said he knew that on the number of members on the cross-benches they were not entitled to a larger number of members than had been proposed for the committee, but he wished to point out that this was a Bill which dealt with Trade Unions. He thought the Minister and the House would agree to this statement of facts, that, with the exception of himself (Mr. Creswell) and the hon. member for Roodepoort, hon. members on those benches knew infinitely more about Trade Union practice and Trade Union work than the rest of the House put together. (Dissent.) He asked what members were there in the House outside his hon. friends who were active members or had been active members of Trade Unions? He thought, in order to get on the committee men who did know at first hand something about Trade Unions, the Minister would be well advised if he accepted the amendment. He thought, in the circumstances, that two members from these benches on that committee would not be unreasonable.

said it was by no means an easy matter, he found, to constitute these Select Committees. A great number of considerations was always coming in. If they selected the men who they thought knew most about the subject, and submitted the names to different sections or parties in the House, they usually found criticism. He had consulted the different sections in the House in this matter, and he did not think any man could say that this was not an absolutely impartial committee. The hon. member for Commissioner-street and the hon. member for Jeppe had suggested to him that he should place a second man on this committee from the cross-benches. He had submitted that proposal to other people who were interested in the matter, and, as a matter of fact, they came to more and more difficulties, with the result that he decided to stick to the original proposal, and to have ten members—(hear, hear)—four from the Opposition, five from the Government side, and one from the cross-benches. He did not think it would be a wise thing, when they were selecting members to serve on Select Committees, to consider what party or what constituency those members represented. He hoped that the House would not accept the amendment. (Hear, hear.) From the tone of the criticism that originally came from the cross-benches, he was not particularly desirous to ask any of the hon. members there to sit on this committee; but it was because he recognised that these hon. members represented a certain point of view that he had gone out of his way to consult them, and put on a member whom they might regard as having great experience and knowledge in these matters on this committee.

said he could not quite follow the Minister when he told the House that members of Select Committees were chosen, not as representing any particular interest, or even any particular constituency. Why was it that they always found the Government extremely careful to have a majority of the members on the committee, and that a certain proportion of members from the other side of the House were also appointed? He thought there was a distinct understanding in most members’ minds that the committees were constituted proportionately to the strength of the various parties in this House. He would remind the Minister that a Select Committee sitting on a measure of this kind had only two points of view—the employer’s point of view and the workman’s point of view. The hon. members taken from the Opposition side of the House just as clearly represented the point of view of the employer as hon. members on the Government side. The workman’s point of view would be represented by one man, and the rest of the committee would represent the employer’s point of view. He agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) that, on a matter of such vital moment to the workers of this country and incidentally to the employers themselves, they should at least have two members from the Labour benches on this committee.

put the question that the word “ten,” proposed to be omitted, should remain, and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—74.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Bekker, Stephanus

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston,

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobier, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Amoldus Slabbert

Leuohars, George

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Reynolds, Frank Umhlali

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Slerfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Johannes Hendrious Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. Mentz and G. A. Louw, tellers.

Noes—15.

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Maginess, Thomas

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. W. Sampson and Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell, dropped.

then moved, that the Committee consist of Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs. Henderson, Geldenhuys, Griffin, Krige, Dr. MacNeillie, Messrs. H. W. Sampson,

J. H. B. Wessels, Wyndham, and the mover.

said he had the impression that the Minister of Mines and Industries objected to the increase of the total number of members of the committee but did not object to there being an additional Labour member. He did not think the Minister would have any objection to another member from those benches being placed on the committee if the total number were not increased. He wished to move, therefore, that one of the names that had been submitted to the House should be deleted for the purpose of substituting that of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Maginess). They did not make any personal attack on any individual. In choosing the name which should be deleted they had taken into consideration representations made by representatives of one of the hon. member’s constituencies. He moved, therefore, that the name of Mr. Geldenhuys be deleted for the purpose of substituting that of Mr. Maginess. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Geldenhuys) had been proved to be out of touch with his constituency, which had declared to the world that it had no confidence in him from an industrial point of view, and therefore he would not be in a position to bring the necessary advice to the committee

He (Mr. Madeley) wished to make it clear that the hon. members on the Labour benches, especially the gentleman whose name he had suggested, knew thoroughly the position from the Trade Union point of view. He could not realise that that House did not want the Trade Unions’ view to be placed before the Committee. The measure was a highly contentious one, and he hoped the House would agree to the substitution of the name as he had suggested.

seconded. He said the Minister had told him that the appointment of a Select Committee was not a party affair. The Minister knew very well that that Committee was going to sit and discuss matters affecting the industrial community. The Labour members ought really to have half of the seats on the Committee. (Laughter.) The Minister knew very well that only two points of view would be laid before the Committee—one representing capital and the employers, and the other representing labour and the employees’ point of view. Such being the case, the Labour members claimed that they ought to have more than two representatives on the Committee. One Labour member on the Committee would have no one to second his amendments— he would have the whole weight of the other nine members against him. It was a vital question affecting the freedom of the employees in the industrial world. For that reason he heartily supported the motion for the deletion of the name of Mr. Geldenhuys and the substitution of the name of the hon. member for Liesbeek.

said it was quite true that the members of Select Committees represented the opinions which were held in different parts of the country. As far as the Oppositon was concerned, they did not object to the Labour Party having an additional representative. What they did object to was a Labour member being balanced by an extra member of the Government Party. He thought the Minister had given the impression that the Opposition were objecting to an extra Labour member. What they had said was that it was out of proportion and they abided by that.

The amendment was negatived and the motion agreed to.

said that the Senate had returned the first report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, and had not concurred in resolutions 25 and 34.

The message was set down for consideration on Monday.

moved a new paragraph (f) in sub-section (1) to the following effect: “Determining the manner in which owners of land on both banks of tributaries flowing into the barrage or dam may make free and un disturbed use of all rights to which they are entitled.” He pointed out that owners of land along the tributary streams should be enabled to use their rights if water was pressed into the tributary streams by the barrage. There was the case of the Taaibosch spruit, for instance. If an owner lived on one side of the Taaibosch spruit and had his grazing lands across the spruit, he should be enabled to use that grazing land even when the water was pressed into the stream by the barrage. The Special Water Court should have the right to provide for such cases.

said he was sorry that notice had not been given of this amendment, because it was difficult to arrive at the legal effect in a moment. So far as he saw he thought the amendment was unnecessary, because the Court would be appointed temporarily for a special purpose and, therefore, would not be able to make use of the powers which were proposed. He hoped the hon. member would withdraw it.

supported the amendment and held that insufficient provision was made for the protection of landowners who might, as the result of the barrage, be prevented by the water from getting to every part of their lands.

said the amendment would not answer its purpose, because if the Water Court had only the power to say in “what way” an owner could use his rights, there would be an end of the matter. What the hon. member wanted was to give the Court the right to compel the Board to build a bridge or take some steps like that.

urged that the report stage should be deferred for a few days in order to allow time for the drafting of an amendment to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks). Otherwise he feared that a serious injustice might be done. He did not think the amendment went far enough, and owners might get into all sorts of difficulties if their farms were cut into sections

suggested that the matter should be dealt with at a later stage, as he considered that the amendment was not moved in the right clause, and the phraseology ought to be changed.

said it was a pity the amendment was not put on the paper, and it did not carry out the object its mover intended. He proposed the following new paragraph (f) “If owing to the provisions of this Act any riparian owner of land is prevented from having reasonable access to all parts of the said land, the Water Court may, failing an agreement between such owner and the Water Board, on application by such owner adjudge by what means such owner shall have the same access as here to fore, and the said Board shall be bound to provide such means at its cost. ”

said he was prepare to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, if the “riparian owners” referred to riparian owners on the tributaries of the Vaal River as well as on the Vaal River itself.

said the amendment would cover any riparian owner who, owing to works under the Bill, was prevented from obtaining reasonable access to his land.

then withdrew his amendment.

said it was exceedingly difficult for a layman in these matters to judge accurately the effects of such an amendment as that which had been proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. So far as it related to the main river, he (Mr. Chaplin) understood that satisfactory arrangements had been made. He would suggest that the amendment should not be pressed, but the promoters would go carefully into the matter, and if the Director of Irrigation thought that what was proposed was a reasonable requirement the amendment could be moved in another place. If the amendment had been put on the paper they could have come to a settlement on the matter at once.

said he had already discussed the matter with the Director of Irrigation, but to enable the promoters to consider the matter he would withdraw the amendment.

urged that the suggestion of the hon. member for Germiston should be agreed to. The point which had been raised was a very important one and should be provided for in the Bill, but they should see to it that it was dealt with under the right clause. He would give the assurance that if the suggestion of the hon. member for Germiston was agreed to that the matter would be dealt with in another place.

On clause 2, Interpretation of terms,

moved in sub-section (8), page 6, to add at the end of the sub-section: “and these plans shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been so modified that the height of the barrage or dam and of the water level shown on these plans, is increased to such an extent that 288,000,000 cubic feet of water in excess of that mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3, may be impounded and stored behind the barrage or dam. ”

The amendment was agreed to.

New clause 41,

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 40: 41. In all contracts entered into by the Board for the execution of works, clauses shall be inserted requiring the contractor: (1) In the case of his employees generally, whether engaged upon work under such contracts or any other work for the Board, to pay wages at rates not less than the current local standard rates, to observe the hours and other conditions of labour which are recognised as proper in the district; and to employ only skilled tradesmen in the performance of skilled tradesmen’s work; and (2) not to sub let or assign the contract or any part thereof, or any interest therein except with the written consent of the Board and on such conditions as it may approve. The hon. member said he thought the House would not need any information as to the idea of a fair wage clause as it was set out in the amendment. If hon. members had taken the trouble to read the amendment that he originally placed on the paper they would see that he had modified it somewhat with a view of making it more easily acceptable to members of the House. The first amendment also referred to any other contract or any other person, but the present amendment only referred to the Board and the Board’s contractor. Many years ago the London County Council introduced a fair wages clause into their contracts, and it had been found to work so well that almost every other Municipality had adopted it. The War Office had also adopted it. He thought he might fairly say that the most progressive Municipalities in South Africa had adopted the fair wage clause. This clause, with the omission he had made, was the one under which the Johannesburg Municipality had been working since 1906. This clause had a beneficial effect very often so far as the employer himself was concerned, because the contractor who was willing to pay fair wages and observe reasonable conditions of labour, hours, etc., was able to contract on an equality with his competitor. Without a clause such as this, it might very often happen that the unfair employer, by reason of the fact that he was unfair, could tender at a lower price than the man who was willing to pay his men reasonable wages. He did not anticipate that there could be any serious objection to this clause.

said that, with the principle of the clause, he thought there was very little fault to be found, more especially since the hon. member had changed the wording of it. He understood, however, that on the part of the Water Board there was some objection to having the clause inserted in the Bill, as they said they could quite well follow the example of the Johannesburg Municipality and other bodies that had regulations of this kind. Therefore, they thought, on the whole, that it should not go into a Bill of this kind. So far as his personal view was concerned, he had stated that, with the general principle, he thought there was no fault to find.

said he hoped that the House would overrule the objection that had been raised. It had been stated that there was no objection to the fair-wage clause. Then why not put it in the Bill? It was the custom of the Johannesburg Municipality, which was half of this Board.

said he thought it was a great misfortune that this matter was not discussed in committee, where they could have put a question to these people and have got a reply. What was a standard wage? Who was going to fix it? This clause was put in, he did not say with the intention, but it would have the effect of giving rise to endless disputes, and it would increase the cost of the work very much indeed. That cost already was high, and somebody had got to pay for it. He wanted to know why they proposed to put in this clause at the present stage ? What was a standard wage for the black man? (Hear, hear.) Was the object to keep the black man out? What was meant by that reference to keeping skilled men for skilled work? He supposed they would pay these skilled men at the rate of £1 per day to do work which could be as well done by a coloured man at 4s. a day. He was totally opposed to this clause, and hoped that it would be thrown out of the House. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought it was the duty of the House to accept this clause. Did the right hon. gentleman know that the Government had practically accepted it? A fair-wage clause already existed in Government contracts in three of the Provinces, and the Government had given an undertaking that, so far as they were concerned, they would extend it to the four Provinces. It must not be forgotten that a great deal of the money for this work was coming out of the pockets of the ratepayers of Johannesburg, and the ratepayers of Johannesburg, through their representatives, had already insisted that, in regard to municipal contracts, a fair wage should be paid. There might be difficulties in determining what was a fair wage, but those difficulties were not insurmountable. He hoped the amendment would be insisted upon, although he did not suppose, if it were not put in the Bill, but that the Rand Water Board would see that fair conditions of labour prevailed. It was, however, the duty of the House to safeguard the workmen in all circumstances.

said he sincerely hoped the House would not accept the amendment. It was unprecedented. He supposed this clause was introduced with a view of encouraging the principle advocated by the hon. member for Jeppe some years ago, when he was so strongly in favour of the elimination of coloured labour. The object was, no doubt, to insist upon wages being paid as laid down by the unions, and naturally the Labour Party concluded that, the pay being equal for coloured and white, the white men would be given a preference. They knew, of course, that since the time he had mentioned the hon. member for Jeppe, with a view of attracting coloured voters to his party had somewhat modified the stand he had taken in regard to white labour. (Hear, hear. )

said that there was a principle at stake in this matter. Where were they going to draw the line at this interference in legislation between master and man? If they did not make a stand against this proposal, they would have the thin end of the wedge driven home. If they were going to make sea lawyers of masters and sea lawyers of men, if they were to be on the constant look-out as to regulations being broken by the one side or the other, they were going to do harm to the industrial future of this country. To start with, South Africa was not an industrial country, and the more legislation they introduced of this kind the less likely was it to become an industrial Country He thought the hon. member who had moved the amendment was doing harm to the cause he advocated. He thought that legislative interference between master and man was going to end in disaster for the industrial prospects of South Africa.

said it was proposed that only skilled workmen should do skilled work. There were hundreds of men in this country who could do such work but who had not gone through an apprenticeship. The effect of the amendment would be that the Rand Water Board would only have to employ men who had served a certain apprenticeship. Were they going to restrict the employment of men of that kind? He hoped the House would not accept the amendment.

said it was perfectly easy for the supporters of the Government to throw the amendment out simply by voting against it, but they were not much concerned in the matter. But other people who represented urban constituencies knew that it was not such an easy matter to throw a thing of that sort out. The amendment was in such a form that the Labour members could go out of the House and say, “Look at what we have done for the workingmen,” but they had not told the House what was the standard rate. A certain section said that the standard rate should be a rate fixed for white men, and therefore they went on to say that no work must be given to people who did not get the standard rate. That meant that no work should be given to other than white men. He was not going to be a party to preventing coloured people from getting work for which they were fitted. It seemed to him that the clause was devised in order by a side wind to prevent coloured people getting work. They had seen the same thing in the Mines and Works Regulations. Then again, they had no definition of what was a skilled tradesman. He could take some hon. members of that House to coloured people in Cape Town who were quite as capable of doing skilled work as any white man in the country. The white man could only keep his place by efficiency and energy, and not by regulations of that description. The Labour Party said they were doing all they could for the coloured men, and that was the most awful hypocrisy he had ever heard. Until he was clearly informed as to what was meant by the phrases he had referred to he intended to vote against the amendment.

said there was no reason why the House should be alarmed at the amendment. The same thing had been done in Durban, where the Town Council had been persuaded to include in all its contracts a fair wage clause, and there was no objection to it whatever. A fair wage was the ruling wage in the town, and it was only right for skilled workmen to have a fair wage. He would vote for the amendment.

said that in all those places where there was a fair wage clause—in Durban, in Johannesburg and London, and in governing bodies all over the world there had been no difficulty in laying down what the standard rate of pay was for skilled work. They had had during that debate the dragging in of the coloured man. It was quite evident from the amendment that there was no mention of the coloured man at all. The point was this—the hon. member for Victoria West had no desire to see the coloured man have his conditions of work improved. They could not get away from that position. If they objected to the clause they would be condemning the coloured man always to remain as he was, and would be preventing him from rising to the white man’s standard. It was said that if the clause was passed the coloured man would be prevented from obtaining work. The coloured men had their own Trade Unions and they all had a say in the fixing of their own particular standard. It was an accepted principle that where public money was being used for certain work that money should be so used that those who were employed by it should receive a living wage. In many parts of the world it was admitted that the public bodies should give a lead to the private employers. Why should the Water Board object to the inclusion of such a clause in the Bill? The Water Board was not subscribing half the money which had to be subscribed to carry on the work. The public were subscribing 533/4 per cent of it. He hoped hon. members in the House would support the amendment and give the coloured man a chance.

moved to delete the words “and to employ only skilled tradesmen in the performance of skilled tradesmen’s work.” He said he was strongly in favour of a fair wage clause, but did not see how they were going to define “skilled tradesmen.” He did not think there would be any fear of the Water Board not paying good wages, but they had to remember that some of the work might be done by sub-contractors. It had been said that they would be interfering with capital and the workman, and that was so to a great extent. But had they not the right to interfere on behalf of the weak so that they could live just as well as the strong? If they had had a fair wage clause 60 years ago the “Song of the Shirt ” would never have been written. He thought that his amendment would meet the case, and the fair wage clause was the standard rate of wage paid in the district.

said these words had given rise to a misunderstanding as to what was intended. It had given rise to the statement that the clause was aimed at one set of workmen. He did not see how these words could be applied in practice if they were allowed to stay in the clause. He hoped the House would not be scared by the criticism of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, to whom anything in the nature of a Trade Union was a thing which the evil one had visited upon them. He seconded the amendment.

said he could not vote either for the amendments or the original motion. Who was going to decide what was the standard rate of wages? Was it to be decided by the Transvaal Miners Association?

said he hoped the amendment would be withdrawn. This clause had given no trouble in practice in connection with the Johannesburg Municipality. They had such a thing as indentured labour, and the complaint was that these natives under indenture were employed on skilled work. Indentured labour could not demand more pay.

They will have to pay the standard wage.

They get out of it in so many ways. Continuing, he asked the right hon. gentleman whether he always wanted to see the coloured man working at a lower wage than the white man? The fact was that they did not care about the coloured man at all—the coloured man could go into the gutter the next day for all they cared. Their business was to bring down the white man’s standard to such a low level, so that they could get their work done cheaply.

said it was rather refreshing, after having sat so close to the Labour benches, to hear for the first time that their policy with regard to labour in this country was that the coloured labourer should be treated exactly the same as a European. They did not mean it. They always would put in, like a trained lawyer with a brief, some modifying words, such as “provided both are equally skilled,” or some other qualification. One had listened so many years to the doctrine that it would be impossible for the white to maintain his position if he were not treated on a different footing, that what was said that afternoon was rather astonishing. He did not refer at the moment to the hon. member for George Town, who, he would candidly say, did stick to his guns, and they were pretty clear, to blow everything away, but to hear the hon. member for Greyville that afternoon telling them in the Cape Peninsula that they wanted to keep the coloured man down was certainly a very refreshing doctrine. The coloured man in the Cape Peninsula knew how to take that with a very large lump of salt. He (Sir Henry) wanted the workman to have a fair wage, but at the same time he was not going to be a party to any policy which would “down” any particular class of labour. Therefore, knowing perfectly well that the hon. members for Port Elizabeth and Fordsburg were men who took a great interest in the welfare of the working-men, and that they were acquainted with the operation of this clause, he was quite prepared to vote for a fair-wage clause, with the amendment with regard to skilled labour.

said he was a little surprised at the opposition of some of the hon. members on that side of the House. He always thought there was a strong desire on their part to encourage the youth of the country. But what encouragement would there be to boys to take up skilled trades if non-skilled labour could be employed? Then these trades would be left in the hands of people from oversea. In 1908 a Select Committee of the Cape House of Assembly considered the question of the inclusion of a fair wage clause in Government contracts, and by nine votes to two reported that the time had arrived for the insertion of a fair wage clause. The time was fast coming when Government would be compelled to interfere between employers and employees. What would be the condition of the factory workers in England if factory legislation had never been introduced? There was a great outcry at the present time with regard to the coloured man, but the latter did not want a separate wage because he was coloured. (Labour cheers.) There was a growing desire on the coloured man’s part for equal pay for equal work; the coloured man was going to fight for that principle and they on the cross-benches were going to help him. Even the Cape Town Council had passed a fair wage clause for municipal contracts, but when the clause came before Parliament, Parliament did not think it wise to deal with that portion of the Bill. The fair wage clause was recognised throughout the length and breadth of the land

said he hoped that the new clause would not be accepted, because if it were the effect would only be to make the position more difficult than it was. (Hear, hear.) Why should they have a clause of this kind in this Bill? If he rightly understood the amendment, it meant giving a sort of monopoly to skilled workmen. (Hear, hear.) If the amendment were accepted it would have the effect that they would be prevented from giving employment to these thousands of poor walking the streets of Johannesburg. How could he vote for such an amendment? He wished to warn hon. members not to accept the proposal. As to the other part of the amendment, he only wished to ask “what is a standard wage— how much is it?”

said he would not have much difficulty in supporting a clause like that if the work was to be done in the Cape, but as it was to be done on the Vaal River, between the Free State and the Transvaal, and while the coloured regulations in the Transvaal remained in their present unfair condition, he did not feel inclined to support the proposal, as it aimed at keeping up the monopoly with regard to white labour which obtain in the Transvaal. The standard wage would be that paid to the white people, and by that means coloured people who deserved the title of skilled workmen just as much as white men did would be shut out. He was in favour of absolute freedom of labour, and a fair wage for everyone, but under the present circumstances he did not think it was right to insert such a clause in the Bill. He would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers, but if that were not carried he would have to vote against the motion.

said he wished to say a word in reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg who had made an unwarranted attack upon him He (Mr. Merriman) was not always opposed to Trade Unions, but what he was opposed to was the Trade Union tyranny in this country (Cheers.) We had seen the effects of that and he was anxious to see that we had no more of the Trade Union tyranny. As far as he understood Trade Unions, even in England, they had quarrelled with free labour and with the Parliamentary Labour Party. He did not think the majority of the workers in any trade belonged to the Trade Unions, with the exception of the cotton workers, whose union worked admirably with the masters, and also with the exception of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Some of the English Trade Unions had led to a great deal of trouble and difficulty. In this country Trade Union tyranny was being pushed to an extreme. It was diametrically opposed to free labour—to the right of a man to sell his labour in any market he chose, without being called a “scab” or any other opprobrious word. That was why he disliked Trade Unions as represented in this country. He was sorry the hon. member for Durban was not in the House, for he wanted to tell him a little story. At Durban on one occasion the town authorities wanted to paint the standards carrying the electric cable, and naturally enough they went to the cheapest market and got Zulus at 1s. 6d. a day. Then in stepped the Trade Union and said, “This is white man’s work.” Then they had a compromise, and the Zulus were allowed to paint the top of the poles, where there was considerable danger, at 1s. 6d. a day, while the honest Trade Unionists painted the bottom of the poles at 12s. 6d. a day. (Laughter.) He had not the slightest doubt that, if this clause were agreed to, they would see something of the same kind carried on at this dam. In the water they would find natives working up to the neck at the standard wage there, 2s. 6d. a day, while they found the gentlemen of the Trade Unions at the top of the dam, well out of the water, getting £1 a day. He only rose for the purpose of expressing the pain with which he listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Fordsburg. He would just mention that, curiously enough, he had a letter from a correspondent of his in Natal, who said that he had just heard from a workingman, who said to him, “I hope some day or other you will get into power, and then bring in a law making it penal for any man to work between meals.” (Laughter.)

said that his hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin) was unable to answer the statement made by the hon. member for Greyville, who had been trying to suggest, at any rate, that the Rand Water Board was unfair in dealing with its employees. The fact was that the Board not only paid fair wages, but it also granted ten days’ leave on full pay, and had lately established a pension fund on the £ for £ principle for the benefit of its officers and workmen, and had also made a contribution in respect of past services of £10,000. He now wished to say a word in regard to the Prime Minister’s statement. He was amazed at the Prime Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister opposed the principle of the fair wages’ clause, and denounced it in unmeasured terms, while, if they took up a return which had recently been laid on the Table, they would find that, in dealing with the demands which had been made upon the Government by the representatives of the strikers, the Prime Minister pointed out that the fair-wage clause was now inserted in all Government contracts in three out of the four Provinces, and the Government were prepared to extend this practice to the whole Union. (Labour cheers.)

A fair wage, not a standard wage.

This is a fair wage. No, my right hon. friend must not attempt to escape on those terms. This is a fair-wage clause, if ever there was one. It is the idea of a fair-wage clause, of course, that you should pay what is known as the standard wage. The object is not to fix lower standards, but to accept the standard as it exists. Proceeding, he said he thought there had been some difficulty in the discussion of this clause, owing to the fact that some of them were not at all satisfied that the coloured man would receive fair treatment if the clause were put into force; but he did think that, with the omission of certain words, as proposed by the hon. member for Three Rivers, it could be got over. Personally, he had no objection to a fair-wage clause, and he should vote for a fair-wage clause in any Bill that came into this House. A fair wage clause is a protection to a good employer, it is only the bad employer who need have any fear of its operations. He should vote for the clause, with the omission of the words as moved by the hon. member for Three Rivers.

said he hoped the House would not accept the new clause, because it simply aimed at giving the skilled labourer all the work. Hon. members on the cross-benches pretended to look after the poor worker, but in reality they only looked after the skilled worker. Experience confirmed this opinion. He felt that the poor workers who were without employment should be taken on by the Rand Water Board. If hon. members on the cross-benches had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers, they would have given proof of their genuineness Many farmers had suffered greatly from the recent drought, and would be keen to get work from the Water Board; but, of course, hon. members on the cross-benches did not desire to provide for them. He hoped, however, that they would not be excluded.

said he hoped that the amendment of the hon. member for George Town would not be accepted. If they were going to accept that amendment, they would have to put it into every Act empowering the Government to carry out irrigation schemes— (hear, hear)—and, if they did that, they might just as well drop their irrigation schemes. The Government had been criticised in regard to their attitude towards closer settlement. They all knew that closer settlement was dependent on irrigation schemes, and the dearer those schemes were going to be, the harder it would be for the taxpayer and the more difficult for the Government to carry out schemes for closer settlement.

said he hoped that the hon. member for George Town would accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Three Rivers. There were many hon. members in that House who were quite in sympathy with the fair-wage clause. As to the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Three Rivers, to delete the words, “to employ only skilled tradesmen in the performance of skilled tradesmen’s work,” he did not see what useful purpose their presence in the clause was going to serve. So long as the principle of the fair wage was laid down, he thought that was sufficient. It would always be necessary to pay a standard rate of wages. He thought the employer who was giving employment to the men concerned would see that only skilled men were employed to do that work. He thought the worst argument advanced against this clause had been that of the Minister of Lands, who had stated that, if they embraced this clause in the present Bill, they must embrace it in every Bill that came before the House for irrigation purposes. He (Dr. Mac-Neillie) did not see any reason at all why that should not be done.

said he thought the hon. member who had just sat down was one of the very few who did not agree with this amendment simply because he did not understand it. When it had been explained to the hon. member, he thought he would be prepared to support it. If hon. members would read the amendment as drafted by his hon. friend (Mr. Andrews), and then the emasculated amendment, they would find that the latter did not bring about a state of affairs which secured skilled tradesmen’s work to skilled tradesmen, and that it did not bring about what the hon. member for Boksburg honestly desired to see, viz., that skilled tradesmen, like skilled doctors, should be employed upon their particular skilled work. With the omission of these words, there was nothing to prevent the hon. member for Boksburg from engaging thousands of natives at 1s. 6d. per day to do this work. The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Three Rivers simply meant that they should lay down that the current rate of wages should be paid, but it would not definitely define skilled work. Continuing, he said there would be some masonry work to be done, turning work, and a lot of other skilled work. Granted that the Board would employ the most highly skilled men, there was a lot of work in between which might be done in a slapdash fashion, and numbers of natives might be used to do it.

Who decides what is a standard wage?

That is a matter for arrangement between the Trade Unions and the employers. He would like to ask the legal luminaries who it was decided who should take a brief into court? It had to be a member of the Trade Union of Barristers. The hon. member for Victoria West had mentioned with some degree of praise the society to which he (Mr. Madeley) had the honour to belong—the Amalgamated Society of Engineers of England, and he had said that they always fixed things up. Did the hon. member know that over that very matter there was a great deal of fighting between the Amalgamated Society and the employers in England? The matter in dispute had been in connection with a great deal of repetition work—it was called the roughing out. The Amalgamated Society had fought that question. He would like the hon. member for Boksburg to study the clause again. Unless that particular portion of the clause dealing with skilled trades was included the clause would be ineffective. There was every necessity for it. The hon. member for Boksburg, coming as he did from the Rand, should know how much more skilled work was now being done than hitherto by unskilled men. The Prime Minister was evidently prepared to have a fair wage clause without the skilled tradesmen being entrenched The Prime Minister had shown that his idea of a fair wage clause was when he had suggested a salary of £15 a month for a man to go on a farm and take charge of machinery and everything else when the standard rate of pay for his work was £1 a day. The clause applied equally to the coloured men. There were coloured members of the Typographical Union of Cape Town, who were among the best paid workmen. Why, then, did the Labour Party not object to that if they were opposed to the coloured men? What they were opposed to was the degradation of all working-men whether coloured or white. They wanted equal pay for equal work, but they wanted the present white standard of living, and when they had got that they would have gone a long way towards uplifting the coloured men. Why were not hon. members so careful over the interest of the white unskilled men? How was it they never heard members of that House raise their voices on their behalf? The Trade Unions did not allow unskilled men to join their Unions because the result would be that masters would be able to employ them perhaps at a lower rate of pay.

They were jealous of the standard they had set and they hoped to improve that standard, and they would resist every attempt to reduce it. He said it frankly and openly—that if the employing classes could employ baboons to-morrow they would do it if they could get them cheaper. If they were so fond of the coloured man why did they not admit him to the Ministry, which might be cheaper from the taxpayer’s point of view?

said it was a great pity that the question of colour had been brought into the discussion. The new clause which had been proposed was a clause which would affect practically only white people, and it was a pity the House had allowed the debate to drift in the way it had—to a much more difficult question and a much more debateable one. He did hope the House would discuss the merits of the proposal quite apart from whether it was the intention of the Labour members to exclude coloured men or not. He thought the House could disregard the question of colour altogether. He did not propose to go into the merits of the clause, because he could hardly credit it that it was necessary to urge the absolute necessity for a fair wage clause. He did think the House would do well to remember that the clause was not only conceived in the interest of the men but also in the interests of contractors and sub-contractors. He was rather surprised that the hon. members for Fordsburg and Port Elizabeth had been in favour of the exclusion of the most important portion of the whole clause, and that was that sub-contractors should all be placed on one basis for the purpose of tendering. It was desirable that where a contractor put in a tender to do work his tender should be on the basis of employing skilled men and that he should be prevented from getting an undue advantage by employing unskilled men to do skilled work. A standard rate of pay was a thing that fluctuated from week to week in many parts of this country. In the absence of Wages Boards, the mere fact that a man had to be paid a standard wage was not in itself a sufficient safeguard. He was prepared to give his absolute support to the new clause.

said he quite agreed with the remarks of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, many people were walking about the streets, having never learnt a trade, although they might be able carpenters or masons. All these people would be excluded if the amendment was agreed to. Hon. members on the cross-benches had concocted a “slim plan” to place all the work in the hands of a certain class of workmen, and he for one could not agree to that. It had been said that the Trade Unions would say who were and who were not skilled labourers—that was another proof of his contention. As to the coloured labour argument, he held that hon. members on the cross-benches were only trying to catch the coloured vote at the Cape and the sooner their real intentions were disclosed the better. (Hear, hear.)

said the Prime Minister had said that Colonial men would be excluded if the clause were passed and that the work would remain in certain hands only. Why were those people not skilled? They were taught to undercut each other, and taught to do the work in the cheapest manner, and the result was that the Government had men doing work for 3s. 4d. a day to keep themselves alive. It was a similar state of things to that of the old days in the Transvaal when if they kept the people poor they would always have men to fall back upon in case of a war. There was no encouragement for those people to become skilled, but he did not agree with the Prime Minister that those people who lived in the country places were unskilled in matters of that sort. He knew men who in work like building dams or in packing stone walls were unequalled by anyone. He was certain that the local people would be the most skilled of all in certain classes of labour. Continuing, he said that the hon. member for Tembuland had shown greater loyalty to the mining industry than to the coloured and the native people. They had made a beginning in the breaking down of the colour bar such as would never have been dreamt of years ago. They found the white workman seeing no objection in working alongside a coloured man so long as the latter did not attempt to pull down wages. He supported the new amendment because he thought it was essential they should use the word “skilled.” Seeing that the Rand Water Board had carried out this policy in the past, he did not see why they could not accept it now.

said that the right hon. gentleman had given them an illustration of how things were worked and the Prime Minister followed on the same lines. He would give another illustration. In Natal nearly half a million was spent on the Town Hall when the fair wage clause was not recognised. The contractor brought his men from oversea, paid them low wages, and the local ratepayers had to starve. He used to respect the remarks of the right hon. the member for Victoria West at one time, but his respect had vanished.

Quite mutual, I assure you. (Laughter.)

said that if the right hon. gentleman had read the history of Trade Unions properly he would not have made himself so ridiculous. The standard wage was a wage agreed upon by those parties most capable of deciding in the district. He pointed out that Master Builders’ Federation of South Africa were the strongest champions of the standard wage. The hon. member for Gape Town, Harbour, had suggested that this was the first time that such principles had been supported on the cross-benches. In 1905 a manifesto was issued in Natal and sent throughout the country saying that they could not distinguish between race or colour and that the only principle was equal pay for equal work.

said he would like to assure the House that while he could not agree to the amendment there was no intention on his part to exclude the coloured man from working, and he wanted to emphasise that point. Regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Worcester, who wanted to know what a skilled workman was, and what was the standard wages, the hon. member for Roodepoort had explained that, but if he (Mr. Andrews) had put the clause in to his liking he would have gone further, and asked for a Trade Union wage. In a well-organised community that standard would be reached before long, but he had taken a modified form which had been adopted by the Johannesburg Town Council and which had been working during the past eight years. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour had said they wanted to be treated differently from the coloured or native, that was exactly what they did not want. As had been pointed out time after time by those on the cross-benches they entirely disagreed with the policy which had been carried out in this country and all parts of the Union from the beginning to differentiate between the coloured and the white man in all legislation. They did not believe in excluding the coloured man from the various laws. They would much prefer to meet the coloured and black man on a level, and he for his part was quite convinced that the white race would be able to hold its own. With regard to the poor whites, he did not think the Minister was frank to the House when he expressed his solicitude for them. Who was it who exploited the poor whites from year to year, if it were not hon. members on the Government side of the House and their friends? The Minister of Lands was most amusing. He talked about the taxpayer. The Minister and his friends were not so solicitous about the taxpayer when certain land was for sale and they happened to have it for sale. The taxpayer took second place then, and they squeezed the last possible farthing out of the department or Government administering the taxpayers’ money. It was only when wages were under consideration that anything was heard about the taxpayer, not when land was for sale or anything else in the possession of the Government class in this country. He was sorry he could not gratify the hon. member for Three Rivers, and it appeared that the hon. member for Fordsburg had departed from many of the views he held formerly. He hoped the House, in spite of the discussion which had taken place and the attempt which had been made to drag in the coloured man, would see that it was designed to injure no man or to prevent his getting a living. No matter of whatever race or colour, he should receive at least the standard rate of wages customary in the district in which he was working.

put the question that all the words after “district ” proposed to be omitted by the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers stand part of the clause, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—68.

Andrews, William Henry

Bekker, Stephanus

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wescel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arroldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johanes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murrav

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Reynolds, Frank Umhlali

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Sampson, Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Yan der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Johannes Hendrious Brand

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and G. A. Louw, tellers.

Noes—36.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston,

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Merriman, John Xavier

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Thecphilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and J, Hewat, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Brown negatived.

then put the new clause and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—28.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederick Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Orr, Thomas

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Morris Alexander and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

Noes—75.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Bekker, Stephanus

Berry, William Bisset

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel.

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer. Jacobus Michael

Reynolds, Frank Umhlali

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannss Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermever, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Consequently the clause was negatived. The remaining amendments made in Committee were agreed to.

who said he presumed that his hon. friend thought it would be a good preparation for the Budget debate for the House to chase a hare. (Hear, hear.) He was afraid, however, that it might have a disturbing effect, and he was particularly anxious that the House should this year devote itself thoroughly to an examination of the expenditure—(Opposition cheers)— especially in view of a statement by the Minister of Finance that the expenditure had not increased since Union, and that Union had resulted in a good deal of economy. The Minister of Finance had laid down the principle that economy should precede taxation. (Opposition cheers.) They all agreed that, whatever else was required for the good of the country, sound finance and prudent expenditure were essential. (Hear, hear.) Parliament was responsible in this matter. Government might introduce expenditure, but it was authorised only by Parliament. It was impossible for hon. members opposite to avoid responsibility for the growth of expenditure. (Hear, hear.) He would press that responsibility; now that the Minister was proposing taxation, it would be necessary for members of Parliament to go to their constituents and justify the fact that they had approved of that additional taxation. (Hear, hear.) He hoped they would investigate the figures, with a view to justifying the position. Last year he laid some figures before the House, in which he tried to show what the growth of the expenditure had been during the last few years. The Minister accepted these figures to a great extent, but he proceeded to explain that they were due to certain unavoidable causes, and he told them in his Budget speech the other day that he had made what he considered a strong and effective reply. He (Sir Edgar) did not know what the Minister called an effective reply, but he had not disposed of the facts he (Sir Edgar) laid before Parliament, and they had not been disposed of since. The first point to which he would call attention was that the expenditure was still increasing. (Hear, hear.) For the year just concluded the expenditure was £16,481,000.

We have five now.

said they had four Parliaments instead of one, and that cost them £106,000, whereas before it was £131,000. Now they had added to that Provincial Councils, costing £34,000, so that their legislature cost them now £9,000 more than before Union. He wanted to ask the House what they were getting for that increased expenditure? What was the country getting? What was the taxpayer getting? What was the man who paid getting?

A bigger Labour Party. (Laughter.)

said that in the Governor-General’s Department they had saved £22,000. The Prime Minister’s Department had cost them £8,000 before, and it was now £8,000. What he wished to point out was, that the Prime Minister’s Office cost them as much as four Prime Minister’s Offices had done before and that was a matter that he thought had to be explained.

Before Union, the Prime Ministers’ salaries were not included.

The Minister points out that the amounts for the Prime Ministers before Union were not included in the figure. (Hear, hear.) The four Treasuries before Union had cost them £245,000, while one Treasury now cost them £219,000. He did not think that was a bad figure—the department had been in very good hands. The High Commissioner’s Office had been £34,000, and the cost was now £30,000—and they had one department now, whereas they had had four before Union. They were therefore, only saving £4,000. Printing before Union had cost them £158,000, and now they were spending £237,000, an increase of £79,000. What did anybody get for that?

Dutch Blue books.

said the Minister in his speech had instanced the language business, but in the Cape, in the pre-Union days, they had had no trouble in connection with the languages, although their printing was done in both.

Whose fault is it?

The cause is the changes which took place with Union. Continuing, he said they had made a saving on commissions. Before Union they had spent £47,000 on commissions, and last year they had only spent £17,000. In general expenses this year they had spent £67,000, and there was an increase under “general government” of £159,000. The figures for the police showed a decrease, and that was because they had transferred the police expenditure to the defence expenditure. Prisons also showed a decrease, and he supposed that that was for a similar reason. The cost of defence had gone up to £1,445,000, an increase of practically a million a year. The Minister had said that although the cost of defence was very heavy, it was the cheapest system in the world. He (the speaker) was not prepared to argue on that statement, but the question was whether for that particular kind of Defence Force they were not paying too much, and whether they could not get an effective force, suited to South Africa, at a lesser cost? At the time of Union education had cost them £1,344,000, and it was now £2,273,000, or an increase of £929,000. He would like to ask whether they were getting value for that? (Hear, hear.) He had tried in vain to get at the real facts with regard to the Education Department and to arrive at the actual result. The Secretary for Education had given him some figures. The number of European children who were in primary and secondary schools in 1910 was 168,000; in 1911, 182,000; in 1912, 192,000; and in 1913, 206,000; so that there was an increase of 38,000. Hon. members would find that that was an increase of 22 per cent. He had not got the expenditure figures for the beginning of the Union, but there was an increase of expenditure of 69 per cent. Those were the two comparisons. He was not prepared to say whether there was some explanation which would explain the increase. If they assumed that the whole of the increased cost could be charged to those 38,000 pupils they would find that each new pupil had cost two and a half times as much as the old ones. That could not be taken, of course, as representing the position, nevertheless they were figures which ought to be explained. Museums and libraries had also increased, and answering the Minister of Education, the hon. member said that some museums had had very liberal treatment, and some had been very badly treated. Again, the Public Health Estimates had increased, this time by £12,000, and he would like to know why they had increased; they had one head office instead of four. Lepers were costing £4,000, and lunatics £51,000; 50 per cent. more. Whether that was due to the growth of lunacy he did not know, but there had been an increase of £51,000, which ought to be explained. Hospital expenditure had increased by £93,000 a year, which he thought was an enormous figure, and poor relief was the same, £52,000. The administration in respect of lands and agriculture had increased £21,000; the farmers could say best whether they were getting value for that increased expenditure or not.

They are getting it now.

said that agriculture and forests had increased £186,000, and irrigation and boring £54,000. He would have been glad to see that expenditure very much more increased, and some of the others very much decreased. The total for that department was £261,000 increase. On the administration of the Public Works Department they were spending £40,000 a year more, and that ought to be explained. There was an increase of £78,000 in rents. They had spent a £1,000,000 on Union buildings, and were yet spending £78,000 more in rents than they did five years ago. Works and buildings had increased £791,000, maintenance £75,000, roads and bridges £335,000, and the total increase in that Department being £1,319,000. Posts and Telegraphs had increased from £1,337,000 to £1,622,000, namely, £285,000. The expenditure in connection with native affairs had gone up £82,000, which equalled 30 per cent. The native population had not increased by 30 per cent.; there had been no special difficulty, and it was difficult to account for the increase. Miscellaneous expenses had gone up by £12,000, and the Public Debt by £453,000.

continuing his speech, said that when the House adjourned he was endeavouring to put the question as to how the Minister of Finance proposed to face the financial position into which he had brought the country. The Minister had told them that he had spent more money than he had received, he told them that he had scraped into every corner and every drawer, that he had used up all balances, all savings, and every resource in order to pay his way, and had ultimately arrived at the point when he had to face the position. And he had faced the position not by reducing expenditure, but asking the House and the country to provide more money. There was one exception, however, which they must acknowledge and that was the reduction in the salaries of Ministers. For many years in their modest way they had brought the attention of the House to the high salaries that were being drawn by Ministers. They had asked Ministers to consider the position and the country, and year after year Ministers had refused. It was an act of grace and an act of financial sanity to find them during the recess coming to the conclusion that their own salaries were far too high and that they should be reduced. They must bow their acknowledgments to Ministers that they had at last—

Accepted your policy. (Laughter.)

Accepted our suggestions. Let us hope that it is a sign of better things; let us hope that it is an omen for good. Continuing, he asked what justification members were going to take back to their constituents to account for the taxation that it was proposed should be placed on the country? Had the population increased? What was there to show for it?

Gratitude for services rendered.

said he had endeavoured to arrive at a sort of balance on the other side to the statement he had made. There was one way in which one could do that. If the country were increasing its exports it might be said, “We are spending more, but we are producing more.” If, on the other hand, it could be said, “We are importing less foodstuffs,” that also would be an answer. But was that the position? What were the increasing exports? Ostrich feathers, wool, skins and hides. Did these increases justify our increased expenditure in any way ? The increased exportation of ostrich feathers from 1910 to 1913 amounted to about £700,000. He was not worried about the future of the ostrich feather industry, for he did not think the ups and downs of the market mattered much. So long as the world loved beauty the world would love ostrich feathers. (Cheers.) The export of wool had increased nearly £2,000,000 a year, which was splendid—(cheers)—but was that accounted for by our increased expenditure? Had that increased expenditure done anything for wool? The same with ostrich feathers. Was the increased production of ostrich feathers due to the increased expenditure? (Cries of “Yes, Barbary ostriches,” and laughter.) The imports of foodstuffs had all gone up, including fresh and dried fruit, sugar, tea, and butter.

The drought.

said the imports of cheese also showed an increase. Why people were always asking for these wretched foreign cheeses, and could not be content with good South African cheese, he did not know. Milk had gone up by over £100,000, and eggs had increased by £27,000 a year. The imports of bacon had also increased. The point was that we had increased our imports during the four years of things that we ate by about £1,600,000 a year. But he did not see in these returns any justification for our increased expenditure. Our expenditure was too high, and we were misusing our mining revenue. The banking returns were a very good index to the position of the country. The local advances increased from £25,000,000 in 1910, to £32,000,000 in 1913. This was a very good sign, showing the demand there was for capital and the spirit of enterprise that was abroad—(hear, hear)—and that the security had been so good that the banks had been prepared to advance the money. Might he say a word or two about the proposals of the Minister? When the Minister faced the position, which he did by running away, he said he had a deficit of £961,000, but when he faced this deficit the first thing he did was to snaffle the bewaarplaatsen fund, which he had no right to touch. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that fund might be —on which he (Sir Edgar) had an open mind—it was certainly capital, not revenue (Cheers.) It was part of the permanent assets of the country, and if the money was used it should be put into loan account, but instead of that his hon. friend was living on the capital. The Minister proposed to take £250,000 towards paying this deficit of £961,000.

What does?

The income tax. The reason I made this point is this, that I don’t want the working-men in this country to think that they need not trouble about the increase of expenditure, because they are not going to pay this income tax. They are; they are going to pay their fair share of it. They are just as much interested in the growth of expenditure in this country, in the economical and prudent expenditure, as the richest man in the land. Proceeding, he said he did not intend to say much about the land tax, because that was a Unionist proposal. (Hear, hear.) It had not been so popular with some people. Anyhow it was an attempt in the direction of the taxation of unimproved land, unoccupied land. He thought it was a very sound tax.

said he hoped it would not be considered presumptuous on his part to intervene at this early stage of the debate. He thought that the Minister of Finance was to be commiserated with in that it had fallen to his lot to be the first Finance Minister of the Union to come down to this House and report a deficit as between revenue and expenditure, and also to be the first Minister of the Union to place additional burdens on the people of this country. It was, to his mind, the more regrettable because of the very large surpluses that year after year we had had since the inception of Union, but he thought that the speech of the Minister would be remembered throughout the country with the greatest satisfaction, certainly by members of this House who sat on that side, because the Minister had given them as a party the motto, “Economy before Taxation,” which, if they were true to it, would carry them not only to a certain but to a glorious victory, in spite of the forecast of the hon. member for George Town, who told them the other night that the party which he represented would come back 40 strong to this House at the next general election.

said the hon. member for George had dealt with the taxation as additional taxation, but he (the speaker) thought they should look upon it as a substituted taxation, because they had had under the Act of Union a complete change in the form of their taxation. They had sacrificed a very large revenue through the railway. The general revenue could no longer benefit by the subsidies of the past. If the ordinary revenue and expenditure of the country should be made to balance, some other source of revenue must be found. He had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth—that expert Treasurer of the past or, with a past. (Laughter.) The hon. member gave the House no indication as to how he would cut down expenditure were he to succeed the Minister of Finance. There was no constructive attempt on his part to make ends meet. He wished to criticise the doctrine laid down by the Minister of Finance that so long as they were a borrowing community they need take no trouble about repaying their debts.

Oh, no.

proceeded to quote from the Minister’s speech, wherein the latter referred to the fact that surpluses had, under the Act, to go to Debt Redemption. This was a very important question, Mr. Orr said, for the House to consider, because it was an absolute change of policy on the part of the Government. Continuing, he was understood to say that the Minister had suggested that the surpluses should be carried to loan account and then given back as loans to the country. Mr. Orr pointed out that under the present arrangement debt was cancelled and the country had not to continue paying interest on such amounts. But he had profound distrust for a policy that proposed to pay this sort of grant-in-aid to loan fund. If they adopted this principle of the Minister it would not reduce their loan expenditure by one penny or the amount they borrowed on the London market. It would be far better to keep the surplus and ask Parliament to vote it to some particular purpose. Generally, with regard to our debt, it was a sound thing to have a sinking fund. In time of prosperity such as we had been enjoying since Union it was our duty to put away large sums for sinking fund purposes. But although our debt was reproductive we must remember that we were paying to investors £5,000,000 a year in interest. Let us try to reduce that in times of prosperity and peace so that we might the better be able to face periods of storm and stress. (Cheers.) He urged the House to be careful about tampering with any sinking fund repayments. It was significant that we had only found that this method of payment was vicious in the first year that we had a shortfall. (Opposition cheers.) By the Financial Relations Act the Provincial Councils were tied down to repaying loans within 15 to 20 years, but was this vicious principle to be seized on by the Provincial Administrations? Owing to the policy developed under Union our magnificent railway surpluses had steadily diminished. The total estimated loss by the reduction of railway rates was £2,500,000.

said he had listened with great interest and appreciation, particularly with regard to the last portion of the speech of the hon. member who had just sat down. He (Mr. Andrews) held the view that there was a great deal of reason for the men engaged in any industry having a say as to the conditions under which they were employed. He thought that in the course of his remarks the hon. member had rather followed the same lines that had been followed by the Minister of Finance, who had spoken of the general and steady expansion and progress of the country. They had been told by the Minister that in spite of the most terrible years through which the country had passed, they had £582,000 more than they had expected, and he had gone on to say that this was accounted for by the increasing importation of motor-cars and foodstuffs. The Minister evidently did not recognise that although that was satisfactory to certain individuals, it was not an unmixed blessing to have a largely increased supply of foodstuffs imported into the country. He did not see how the country could congratulate itself on the matter. The figures did show that certain people in the country were making progress, but they would have to go further into the various sources of information at their command to discover whether the great mass of people in the country were sharing that prosperity, and that was the position he wished to investigate that night. One of the most interesting reports, and perhaps one not widely read, was the annual report of the Department of Justice. In that report they got briefly from every magisterial district a statement of various matters. There was one interesting item in the index of that report of “From prosperity to pauperism.” The magistrate of the various districts showed how pauperism was either advancing or growing, and there were instances of unemployment side by side with considerable prosperity. The hon. member drew attention to one or two of these reports. The magistrate of Port Elizabeth stated that the farming community were purchasing motor-cars to an increased extent, on the other hand European unskilled workmen were suffering owing to increased competition of natives; and further on that great distress was arising and there was a danger of creating a pauper class in South Africa, especially among Europeans. The magistrate at Victoria West drew attention to the fact that the poor white population was still drifting downwards. At Jansenville the poor whites were in a deplorable condition whilst farmers were well to do; and even from the labour colony at Kakamas the poor white had to approach the Government to supply them with meals. Even that particular enterprise then was not as successful as they had been led to believe. The hon. member quoted similar cases reported from the Free State, and pointed out to the Free State members that they would not alter that state of affairs by remaining supporters of the Government or the Government’s policy. There were similar reports from Pretoria and also in respect of Johannesburg before the industrial disturbances. There was a tremendous amount of distress right throughout the Union, particularly in the European centres. Many would argue that it was owing to the inherent laziness that there were so many paupers. The hon. member for Victoria West had said that he would like to see some of the working classes sweating occasionally, as if that were rare, but he (Mr. Andrews) had seen the workmen in this country working just as hard as in other countries, and he knew there were hundreds of men walking the streets of the various towns in South Africa willing and able to do work but unable to find it. The tramp was becoming a feature of South African life. In consequence of this pauperism we have overcrowding and crime. This could be seen in the criminal records of the Union.

called attention to the fact that there was no quorum.

The hon. member should be more certain. There is a quorum.

said that the percentage of people who were in prison in 1911 was, for the Free State, 1.7, and in 1912, 1.9; in Natal the figures were 1.9 and 2 per cent. In the Cape, 1.6 and 1.7, and in the Transvaal, 3.8 in 1911, compared with 4.3 in 1912. The total admitted into prisons in 1912 was 110,344, of whom 5,747 were Europeans, a record he thought of which South Africa ought to be proud, and which hardly justified the Minister of Finance in saying this country was in a most prosperous condition. Prosperity could not be gained only by imports and exports, but rather by the condition of the population.

seconded the amendment, and thereupon moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned until Wednesday next.