The adjourned debate on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure, was resumed.

We had a great surplus, and we had sufficient taxation, but we adopted once for all the fatal doctrine that merely spending money was advancing the country. (Hear, hear.) Let him turn to the actual figures of the Budget. As he gathered from the Minister, he said that, but for the industrial disturbances, there would have been a surplus. Well, the actual expenditure last year was £16,481,000. a little over the estimate of £16,419,000, because that included the Supplementary Estimates and also the additional Estimates of Expenditure. Of this sum, the Minister said, that £300,000— and he thought he was quite right— was due to the expenditure upon the industrial disturbances, so dear to the gentlemen who sat at the bottom of the hall. (Laughter.) If they took that £300,000 from £16,481,000, they then arrived at £16,181,000 which was the normal expenditure, apart from industrial disturbances, for this country. “Sufficient,” they said. He agreed with them. He thought £16,181,000 was a vast sum of money to be expended upon the administration of this country. It was higher than it used to be. It had gone on increasing. They might say that there was the normal growth of the country and so on, but let them keep this figure of £16,181,000 in mind. What did they find this year? This year they were asked to believe that this country could not be conducted except for an estimated expenditure of £16,818,000. Why that increase? Why did we require more this year than we did last year, at any rate, why did we require such a huge amount more this year than last year?

He thought the secret of our deficiency was to be found in this fact, that the Minister had always thought it was necessary to come down with an increased estimate. Let them look at the result last year. The £16,818,000 was not all. There was always additional expenditure, and there were always supplementary Estimates. He thought it would be quite fair to say that we were going to have £150,000 of supplementary Estimates this year added to this amount of £16,818,000. They would thus get a fair comparison of the increase of expenditure over the normal expenditure of last year. The normal expenditure of last year included the supplementary Estimates, although it did not include the additional Estimates. We had gone up enormously, something close upon £900,000 of an increase upon our estimated expenditure above the normal expenditure of last year. The Minister had, he would not say adroitly but cleverly, compared it with the estimated expenditure, but the normal expenditure was a great deal less than the estimated expenditure. Of course, we had enormous savings upon the Estimates, enormous variations upon the Estimates. They seemed to be put down with the sole purpose of enabling the Minister of Finance to come forward next year and say “See what a clever fellow I am; I have saved so much upon your Estimates.” That was very unsafe finance. Unless they took this expenditure in hand at the present time, they were in for very heavy additional taxation in this country. The estimated deficiency for this year was £961,000. That was what his hon. friend took as the basis. It really ought to be £1,111,000, that was counting the supplementary Estimates. Well, if they took the actual expenditure of last year they would only have a deficiency of £774,000. If they took the normal expenditure, they would only have a deficiency of £474,000, taking the revenue as estimated at £15,707,000. He wanted to know why they should take anything else. Why should they with their eyes open go and pile burdens upon the people of this country? They had most certainly to reduce their Estimates.

He hoped to try and show some way in which they might deal with this question. They might say, why did they get such a gigantically expensive Government? First and foremost was the fact that, in the place of one Parliament voting expenditure and taxing the people and encouraging extravagance, they had got five in this country. (Hear, hear.) They had got this Parliament and they had for their sins departed wholly from the spirit of the Constitution and set up four additional little Parliaments instead of four local Councils. Never was it contemplated when that Convention sat that they were going to set up four additional Parliaments. If they had they would, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had said, either have declined to unite at all or faced the question of federation, which threw, at any rate, upon the States the burden of their own Government and their own taxation. (Hear, hear.) Now they gave these Parliaments the power to do all kinds of things to swell expenditure, and they got money out of the Central Treasury, which the Union Parliament had to find. The one cardinal necessity was to appoint that Commission as soon as possible which was promised two years ago. It was no use putting it off under one pretext or another, otherwise they would have this system stereotyped over the country and they would have the sort of vagaries that were going on in the Transvaal and, he might say, nearer home, too, all leading to extravagance all making the burdens of the taxpayer heavier in this country. He had mentioned the army of Civil Servants. Another thing they ought certainly to look to as soon as possible was the growing extravagance that they were practising in their educational system. He knew there were members in this House who urged the Government to go on. Foolish men, they imagined that if they could only pour out the money they would improve education. They would do nothing of the kind. They did not get anything like value for the money they spent on education in this country. In this country, he believed, they had the heaviest cost per child educated, at least at the cost of the State.

What did the Cape Superintendent-General of Education say? He said in the course of his report that there was so much less local effort and self-help than formerly, and that it was necessary to keep a watchful eye on the expenditure. They did not do that. They longed to spend more and still more money, and they were not getting value for that money. This education business was one of the things that required searching investigation for the purpose of putting it on a sound footing. He knew what the Minister of Finance thought, but he wanted him to do more than that and stop as soon as possible, that one outlet where his money was going at present, unchecked by him because he could not check it or would not check it, or did not like to check it. Those Provincial Councils, the absence of true self-government, and the Education Department, coupled with their army of Civil Servants and the anxiety to behave as a sort of Providence, were at the bottom of the position in which they found themselves to-day. He did not exaggerate the position. He was surprised, he would tell them, when the Minister talked about the bad years he had had and the terrible way they had been going on marching from disaster to disaster. Where did he find the figures to prove that? The figures proved exactly the opposite, for every year there had been an expansion of revenue. He only wished it had fallen to his lot to sit with a constantly expanding revenue, and if apparently a little check was kept on it one would have enough for years to come. In 1911-12, and he took full years, the estimate for the Customs was £4,302,000, while the actual receipts were £4,508,000. In 1912-13 the estimate was £4,405,000 and the actual £4,634,000, while in 1913-14 the estimate was £4,630,000 and the actual £4,733,000. There had always been an increase.

So far as Customs were concerned—and they must take something as an index of the prosperity of the country, because people did not go on for three years over-purchasing there had been a steady increase, and the Excise showed the same tale. In 1911-12 the estimate vas £370,000, and the actual £450,000. In 1912-13 the estimate was £406,000, and the actual £495,000, which in 1913-14 the estimate was £470,000, and the actual receipts £616,000. So far as the spending capacity of the country was concerned, so far from there being anything in the nature of retrogression they had been going on expanding all the time. The revenue of the Post Office told the same tale, and the total revenue also. They had had a constantly expanding revenue, and yet the Minister came down to the House and told them that their present condition was owing to some deplorable calamity that had overtaken this country. There had been no calamity except carelessness and extravagance of expenditure. With regard to exports and imports, he was not going into details, but he would draw attention to one thing, and that was the fact that this country had been blessed during the last few years with enormous trades balances in its favour, a sign the Minister would say of the evil times upon which they had fallen. (Laughter.) The gross exports in 1912 amounted to £63,000,000 and the imports £39,000,000, giving a trade balance of £24,000,000. Well, this last year, which the Minister had called one of the most appalling years South Africa had ever gone through, the exports amounted to £66,569,000, higher than they had ever been before, he thought, in the history of South Africa, and the imports were £41,828,000, leaving a trade balance of £24,740,000. That was not a sign of any calamity, and he tried to account as to where this money went. They paid for their public debt, for their private debts, for dividends, and everything else.

If they reckoned those figures up on the most liberal scale they would find that there was a balance of eight or nine millions to the good. There was no doubt that the country had advanced in wealth, though in a good many ways it was still retrogressive, but in wealth there had been an advance. He could only find some sort of indication in the price of land, and he thought he could say without fear of contradiction that the price of land within the last few years had doubled.

Well, they had done so, judged by the decrease in the export of gold. True, they had 3,000 starving men in Johannesburg, because—this is a quotation—“ Such a thing, you know, must be after a glorious victory.” (Laughter.) It was a grand thing they had accomplished and they have cut a few thousand men out of employment, and they could point to something accomplished and something done. (Hear, hear.) Well, he would like to ask his friends one or two questions. How did it come that last year they imported £886,000 worth of dairy produce, or about 25 per cent. more than the year before? He did not think that that was altogether a good sign. Of course, they could say: “We are rich and we can buy,” and that was one of the things in the otherwise unclouded sky which shone over the head of his hon. friend the Minister. He referred to the amount that had been spent on co-operation and dairies, and said that in 1910 they imported £178,000 worth of butter, in 1912 they imported £262,000 worth, and in 1913 £188,000 worth. That was progressing backwards. In food and drink so rich were they that there was a steady progress in the importation of these articles from £4,200,000 in 1910 to £5,000,000 last year. They were so rich that they could afford to pay Australia and give them a preference too by importing £1,600,000 worth of butter, wheat and so on, while New Zealand got £63,000, and Canada £464,000. Then there was cheese, and that was one thing in which he thought they would have gone forward, but while in 1910 they imported cheese to the value of £133,000, there was a steady progress to £166,000 last year. Milk had progressed from £351,000 to £464,000 last year. Then there were eggs— that old wheeze—which had gone up from £49,000 to £77,000 last year, and he regretted to say that the last three months of this year had been, perhaps, worse than ever. That was a pity. Why should the country which could produce the best oats, and could produce them so cheaply that they could send them to other countries at the world’s price, spend £50,000 in purchasing oatmeal from all sorts of places?

He must say that he thought the merchants were a great deal to blame. (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly the oatmeal of South Africa was better than the imported oatmeal, and yet they in South Africa imported a great quantity. He understood that there was a kind of ring, and that owing to that ring people were compelled to buy imported oatmeal. From this country they could export the finest raisins, but they were importing them. If there was one thing in the whole world that they could produce it was raisins, yet they imported them to the value of £21,000. Referring to the export figures in connection with ostrich feathers, Mr. Merriman said that the ostrich was a useful thing, but he would not provide food, and sometimes people got tired of wearing an ostrich feather in their hats. (Laughter.) £65,000,000 of South African produce was exported last year, but of that amount £52,000,000 were unfortunately minerals. There had been a deficiency of £1,000,000 in the export of gold, because of the efforts to keep the gold in the country to which he had alluded. (Laughter.) Wool had increased by 47 per cent. (Hear, hear.) The wines had increased very slightly indeed, and tobacco had increased a little. The export of fruit last year had not increased. He would like to point out that the figures he had mentioned touched them very closely—they showed to all extents they were dependent on the mines and mineral products of this country. All their wealth in this country depended on the merchants, the clever fellows, the lawyers, and others, South Africa depended on the mines and on the land—the farmers. Those were the only two classes of people who kept up the fabric of the State. He thought they ought to remember that lesson—that they had a great deal of leeway to make up He had been curious as to how this country compared with another country with a population of about the same size. He found that New Zealand’s expenditure had amounted to £11,000,000, including the cost of railways.

When he saw the figure which represented the value of cheese and butter exported from New Zealand he had thought that there must be an amazing number of cows in that country, but he found that in New Zealand they had 616,000 cows, whereas in this country they had over 1,900,000. Yet they exported some three millions of dairy products, while we imported at a great rate. What was the reason? There must be a reason for that state of affairs, and there seemed to be something wrong about it. New Zealand had 23,000,000 sheep, while South Africa had 28,000,000, and while South Africa exported as much wool as New Zealand did. New Zealand exported £3,300,000 worth of meat as well. Another matter which had been brought into prominence through the sittings of the Economic Commission was the question of the life of the mines, which had an important bearing on the future of this country. Some disquietening facts had been mentioned. It had been with something like a shock that they learnt that the output of the mines might considerably decrease during the next five years. That statement had been challenged that at the end of fourteen years it would be reduced by one-half. That brought him to the whole question of debt. The Minister said that they had only increased it by up to £125,000,000, but that debt rested practically only on the mines. If they diminished the prosperity of the mines by one-half, their railways, instead of being an asset, would be a burden. He knew what had happened when the Kimberley mines gave out in 1898—they were then losing on the railways at the extent of £1,000 a day. There was only one way to improve their position and that was by thrift. They must be thrifty in the public affairs, and be very careful as to how much money they were spending. He would like to allude to the proposals which had been made by the Minister. The Minister had not said a word about economy. He had taken it that the members of the House should be delighted that they were spending £900,000 more than they had spent the previous year. What did the Minister propose to do to-day? He proposed a new Customs tariff.

He spoke of preference. Why should we give preference? (Ministerial cheers.) Did we give preference to benefit England? English trade had fallen off steadily since this preference was put on—he meant the proportion. We gave preference to Australia, if you please. What did Australia do for us? It put a five per cent. duty on our dynamite, although it admitted dynamite from elsewhere free. Was that what they might call reciprocity? If his hon. friend the Minister of Finance looked in his office he would find a correspondence with Mr. Denkin. It wound up with Mr. Deakin having—(laughter)—to ask him (Mr. Merriman) how much coloured labour was employed in making the dynamite as a justification for putting on this five per cent. duty. In reply he (Mr. Merriman) asked Mr. Deakin if he had any objection to coloured people eating the wheat Australia sent to South Africa. (Laughter.) There the correspondence ended. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Merriman) could not see any justification for keeping this preference, and if they were tampering with the Tariff he would like to see it done on a proper scale and the Tariff be thoroughly overhauled. Some of the proposals he was heartily at one with. He thought tobacco was a fair thing to tax, and the action of certain people in this country with a view to stamping out the growth and manufacture of our tobacco seemed to call for action on the part of the Government. But what was the object of the ludicrous proposals to tax eggs 1d. per pound? It would bring in nothing, but it must be proposed for the convenience of somebody. The Commonwealth taxed eggs 6d. per dozen, and that one could understand. If South Africa taxed imported eggs 6d. per dozen it would bring in something like £48,000 on last year’s importation, and that would be worth getting. But his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Jagger) preferred to eat Siberian eggs. (Laughter.) Then why was the Minister afraid of touching coffee? Coffee had diminished in price 40 per cent. since our Tariff was framed.

Continuing, the hon. member said that he was amazed at the Minister of Finance putting in the dumping clause; his hon. friend must have blushed when he put that on the paper. Did the Minister know that we were carrying on dumping on the most extensive scale, and that he (Mr. Merriman) had to pay double for the rail carriage of his mealies to what a man at Southampton had to pay? Did the Minister know that because he (Mr. Merriman) chose to send his goods to Port Elizabeth by steamer, he was charged higher on the railway than people who sent all their goods by railway? There were rumours about the same practice being resorted to in regard to coal, yet we had the assurance to say that we would not have any dumpings, and absolutely forbade people to come here and sell us things at a cheap rate. We ought to overhaul the Customs Tariff, and we ought to do it with a little care and discretion, and we ought to obtain as a result a good deal more revenue than the Minister had shown. It struck him (Mr. Merriman) that this tariff was a happy afterthought on the part of the Minister, for he had never known a Minister to say that he was going to alter the Customs Tariff without having everything cut and dried, and put on the Table at once. That was not altering the Customs Tariff— leaving preference in, putting in a dumping clause, doing all sorts of things, tapping one article and leaving out another. Why not do it on a proper scale? For instance, bacon. Why leave that at its present low rate? (Ministerial cheers.) When you are anxious to promote Colonial industries, you promote some industries and not others. You put a ludicrous duty on butter. The duty on butter in the Commonwealth was 3d.—here it was only 2d. The tariff must be revised as a whole, and not in a few scattered directions, and they would get a great deal more revenue by treating it properly.

What had moved his hon. friend in the face of all past warnings to allow an exemption of £1,000 to the payers of income tax? The income tax was a good thing if required, and there was no better tax.

An hon. member had quoted Gladstone, but the quotation was used in a way that was never intended. The objection to the £1,000 exemption was that they would encourage extravagance. He was sure if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth told the truth—which he would do if he were asked —he would say that the effect of his £1,000 exemption was to encourage extravagance. Until they taxed people they would always shout for expenditure. He should to the utmost of his humble ability oppose that. It would not bring up the revenue they imagined, he was confident. It would annoy people. Besides, it was a bad principle to teach the people of this country that they had only got to go to the rich man and tax him. If they were going to have an income tax at all, they must have a proper income tax, but he did not think that the times showed that it was necessary to put on an income tax at present If the time were necessary, if economy were impossible, he should be the very first person to advocate an income tax and the smallest exemption possible.

He now came to the crowning proposal, the land tax. What was the object of putting on that land tax? Let them observe the wording of it, for it touched those of them in this part of the world thoroughly. It said that: “‘Taxable land’ shall mean land so owned which, being situate outside the area of jurisdiction of a municipal council, town council, village council, town board, village management board, or health committee, exceeds 10,000 morgen in extent.” What did that mean; It meant that all the places were exempted in the Transvaal, whereas here this land was taxed already; they paid indeed a heavy land tax. Their land tax alone cost them in this country something like £200,000 a year at present. They paid also in other directions through their local government, not cheerfully, but they recognised the necessity of paying it. Now, at the same time, it was proposed to impose an additional land tax upon them here in this country. A more grossly unfair thing he had never heard of. What were they likely to bring out from this sort of thing, with an exemption of 10,000 morgen? They had no data to go upon. The mere cost of valuing the land would be more than they could possibly get from the tax. No doubt it would give occupation for a few more officials. He was strongly opposed to that land tax—(hear, hear)—and he said so, not because he was inherently opposed to a land tax. He had got a Bill which he had introduced in 1899 providing for a land tax. Let him tell them that they were always attacking the farmer. (Dissent.) That land tax in his Bill was upon a fair basis. They proposed then to double the tax upon land not beneficially occupied. Everybody cheered, it was just as they cheered his hon. friend’s tax upon unimproved land, but when they came to define what “beneficial occupation” was, then the difficulty came, and, as they had an extremely vivacious and efficient Opposition in those days, in order to get their Bill through the House they abandoned the thing, although everybody approved of it. He was not opposed to a land tax, in fact, he thought that a land tax was the only fair way of collecting the income tax from the farming community. They did not collect the income tax from them as an income tax, but collected it in the shape of a land tax. It had to be carefully thought out, and above all things they had to have the necessity for it proved.

To finish his remarks, he wished to say that the necessity had not been proved to him for taxation of this kind at the present time. (Hear, hear.) If they brought their expenditure to the actual expenditure of last year, that was allowing the £300,000 in, and if they took the balances that they had and altered their Customs duty, they would equalise revenue and expenditure, and, at the same time, they would give a hint to the Government that they wished to have things reduced, that they must run upon a reduced scale. If this House went in now and agreed to the Government’s proposals, as he feared, from what he had heard, that they intended to do, they were encouraging the Government in that reckless career of extravagance which had brought us to this pitch. (Hear, hear.) At the present time they saw signs, the clouds were not large, but there were signs of difficulties in one quarter or another. If at the time they blew up their expenditure to the utmost and made no attempt at economy and did nothing of that kind, they were entering upon a fatal course and one that would lead hereafter to some of the trouble that had been experienced in this colony. An unpleasant thing it was, truly, to have to go and reduce the salaries of all Civil Servants; an unpleasant thing it was to tax people down to the very poorest; but it was an absolute necessity in their case in the Cape Colony, and it would be a necessity in the case of the Union, too, unless they took very great care. Therefore, he urged the House to consider this matter very carefully indeed. Whether referring the Estimates back to the Government would do any good he had grave doubts, but he did think that what would do good was to refuse to vote this income tax and land tax and accompany that with a strong mandate to the Government that they had got to reduce their expenditure, and he knew himself from his experience and from looking into the accounts of this country, that if a strenuous effort were made to reduce the expenditure of this country, there was no reason why the expenditure of this year should exceed the expenditure of last year. (Cheers.)

He would place his proposals before the House later on, but, before he did so, he would like to say a word or two with regard to the statement of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He entirely agreed with him when he said that the country had no ground for pessimism. (Hear, hear.) If one studied the figures for the past three or four years, the figures since Union, and especially the revenue figures, it would be found that there had been extraordinary development and those figures, of course, meant considerable development in the country. His hon. friend had pointed out that, in spite of the industrial disturbances during the last year or so, in spite of severe droughts which had overtaken some portions of the Union, the expansion, as shown by these revenue figures, had not been checked at all. These figures were very significant, and he thought it might be worth while to place them before the House. The revenue of the Union, during the first year of Union, a ten months’ year, was £12,730,000. For the purposes of comparison with subsequent years, they had always added one-fifth to make up the twelve months period. That, of course, was entirely arbitrary. Adding one-fifth to the revenue for 1910-11, they found that the revenue for 1910-11 amounted to £15,280,000. The revenue for 1913-14 amounted to nearly seventeen millions. It was important to remember that during this period of three years, whilst they had had this enormous development, this enormous increase in revenue, the Government made certain very enormous remissions in taxation.

The Minister had placed the remission of taxation at £2,000,000, but £1,300,000 was remission of taxation made by the railways, so they ought not to take that into account. It meant that £700,000 was remitted by the Union Government during this period. On top of that their expenditure had been increased to the tune of £1,200,000, more especially upon education and defence. Reviewing these figures, it was patent that in the period since Union the country had made a striking development, and he could not understand why the Minister, having enunciated the doctrine that there was no ground for anybody to be pessimistic, should, in framing his revenue Estimates for the present year, have at once adopted a pessimistic attitude. He could not understand why his hon. friend did not place his revenue on the same progressive basis as the revenue of the last two or three years, or while, at all events, he had not placed the revenue of the present year on the same basis as the last year’s receipts. If he had done so he would have found that he would have budgeted for £100,000 more revenue. There was no doubt that the Estimates of Expenditure had been framed on more than a generous basis. His right hon. friend had drawn pointed attention to the enormous increase. The Minister had said that the Estimates laid on the Table were £150,000 too high, and he had no doubt that that amount could easily be made £300,000, and still the Estimates would be higher than they were during the past year. He suggested that the Minister would have £100,000 more revenue than he had budgeted for, or, in other words, that the Treasury would be better off at the end of the financial year by not less than £300,000. He would put this figure at £300,000, but he would say that the Treasury would be better off at the end of the year by the sum of £100,000 for the purpose of an argument which he would advance to the House later on.

They had no right to agree to the proposals of the Government to propose new taxation unless and until all existing sources of taxation were made uniform and equal. It was unfair and unjust that one section of the taxpayers in one part of the Union should be made to pay a higher rate of taxation than another set of taxpayers in another part of the Union. There were two outstanding sources of taxation at present existing, in respect of which no equality or uniformity existed. These were very prolific, and from which very large revenues were derived, and he said that these sources of taxation should be equalised throughout the Union, and that if that were done his hon. friend would have more than enough to meet any deficit he might have to face. The two striking inequalities he had in mind were the inequalities in respect of native taxation— (hear, hear)—and the other taxation was in respect of estate duties and succession duties. He had some figures, and he hoped the House would pardon him if he placed these figures before it in some detail He would first deal with native taxation. He had received figures for each of the Provinces for the past year, and he was informed that these revenue figures were about the same as they were during the last two preceding years. In the Cape the revenue derived from native taxation was £96,000, and the native population which contributed this amount, on the figures of the 1911 census, totalled 1,519,000. The hut tax in Natal, which was at the rate of 14s. per head. yielded £250,000, and the native population in 1911 was 953,398. In the Transvaal the poll tax yielded £385,000, and that was contributed by a population of 1,219,845. In the O.F.S. the poll tax yielded £79,000, which was contributed by 325,824 natives. This was the result. The tax in the Cape worked out at 1s. 3d. per head, for men, women, and children; in Natal it was 5s. 3d. per head; in the Transvaal, it was 6s. 4d. per head, and in the O.F.S. it was 4s. 10d. per head.

In other words, in the Transvaal it was more than five times that of the Cape, Natal about 4 l-5th times, and the O.F.S. nearly four times more. He submitted it was not right, although these were natives that one body of subjects in one part of the country should be made to contribute to the revenue of the country a larger share than the subjects in other parts. He did not want to be misunderstood in regard to this question. He did not suggest that the heavy taxation of 6s. 4d. of the Transvaal should be made applicable throughout the Union, because he thought it would be unfair; nor did he suggest if any scheme for equalisation were carried out that the heavy scale of 5s. 3d. should prevail, but he suggested it was unfair and unjust that the Cape should pay one-fifth of the rate of taxation that the same people paid across the border. He suggested that this question of bringing about uniformity was one that the Government could not and dare not put off. He asked hon. members from the Transvaal, the Free State, and Natal, what they were going to say to their constituents with regard to this taxation. Were they going to say that they were satisfied with these inequalities, or that the white men should be taxed through the income tax and the land tax before other inequalities were put right. The total amount obtained from native taxation throughout the Union last year was about £810,000, and the total number of natives taxed as disclosed by the Census of 1911 was 5,019,000. If the tax was made uniform—he did not suggest it should be put on a per capita basis, but he did so for the sake of argument—at the rate of 4s. per capita, the result would be that the revenue would be increased from £810,000 to just over £1,000,000. A uniform tax would yield to the Treasury over £200,000 more. He suggested that, in considering the question of equalising taxation, that that would not be an unfair figure to take—that the Minister should so arrange his system of taxation that it would result in yielding 4s. “per capita” throughout the country.

He was not making an unfair suggestion when he said that the whole of the expenditure in connection with the strikes should be treated in the nature of war expenditure, and temporarily, at all events, should be carried to the loan account.

That applied equally to the expenditure of January. But he went further and said that it was not a fair charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The expenditure in connection with the January strike should be borne by the Railway Administration. To show that he was not making a suggestion which was new to the Minister of Finance, he would say that he understood the Minister of Finance had stated that he was negotiating with the Minister of Railways with a view to saddling the railways with that expenditure. The whole of the January expenditure was due to the strike on the railways, which should shoulder the burden. It might he said that the railways would not be able to meet it, but the railways would be entitled to meet it on the basis of a loan, for it was extraordinary expenditure and should not be charged to the revenue of one particular year. If the plan he suggested were adopted, if a reasonable scheme were carried out for equalising expenditure and revenue, and if the expenditure for the July and January strikes were treated as abnormal, there would be no necessity to ask the House to submit to either an income, a land tax, or to a revision of the Customs.

He had thought of moving an amendment, but he was advised that perhaps the better course would be to propose it on his hon. friend’s motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and when that was done he (Mr. Hull) would propose the following amendment: “That this House is of opinion that no new or additional taxation should be imposed until the laws dealing with the succession and estate duties and native taxation shall have been made uniform throughout the Union; and the House recommends to Government for its consideration that any deficit which may arise should be met (1) by charging the expenditure in connection with the strikes of July last to loan funds, (2) by charging the expenditure in connection with January last to the Railways and Harbours Administration, and (3) by appropriating to the services of 1914-15 any portion of the surplus for 1910-11 which may not be required to meet the deficit in respect of the year 1913-14.”

With regard to the bewaarplaatsen, he did not think it was proper that this £250,000 which represented the accumulation of a number of years should be used towards meeting the deficit. The proper way to deal with that money would be to use it for debt reduction, as had been pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, but he (Mr. Hull) recognised that the Minister was in a tight place. On previous occasions he (Mr. Hull) had indicated that he regarded the whole of these bewaarplaatsen as assets which belonged to the State. Two years ago both the leader of the House and the Minister of Finance and—he thought—all his late colleagues were in agreement that the bewaarplaatsen belonged to the State and that the proceeds should go to the State. (Hear, hear.) He did not want to go into a discussion of the bewaarplaatsen now, because he understood that later on a Bill would be brought forward under which the Minister of Finance proposed to hand over half of these State assets to certain companies and individuals, the Government retaining the other half. When that time came he (Mr. Hull) would again resist this attempt to take valuable assets — assets worth probably more than a million — for the purpose of presenting them to certain parties and companies. He was curious to know when the Prime Minister changed his mind on that subject and why? (Cheers.) The hon. member for Losberg was Prime Minister in the Transvaal when it passed the law of 1908, and when the Government deliberately refused to state that anybody except the State was the owner of these bewaarplaatsen. The opinion of the Prime Minister then and subsequently was that these assets belonged to the State, and he (Mr. Hull) wanted to know what the right hon. gentleman’s reasons were for changing his opinion, but he did not know what had taken place between the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) and the Prime Minister since. (Labour cheers.) In conclusion, Mr. Hull expressed the hope that the Minister of Finance would take into consideration the suggestions he had put forward.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had stated that if an income tax were placed upon merchants and other employers it would be passed on to other people. Let him (Mr. Creswell) point out to this House that that sort of talk had gone down for a long time, but it would not bear investigation. The fact was that those who depended for their livelihood upon their daily work were already taxed to the utmost. When the hon. member (Sir E. H. Walton) told them that anyone who was taxed and whose income was over £1,000 a year was going to pay less to the men he employed, he maintained that the hon. member was judging without investigation. Did any employer pay any workman in his employ to-day one brass farthing more than he need? Did the hon. member pretend to say that if the profit tax now levied on the mining industry were withdrawn, the increased profits would be distributed among the employees? The position was too absurd. When they heard hon. members on each side quarrelling as to which of them was to pay, as long as they were going to keep to that basis of taxation, after all, it was not a matter of profound importance to members on the cross-benches. When they talked about Customs duties and duties that made the cost of living higher, then they reached a matter which was of importance to members on those benches. Two amendments had been placed before the House, one by the hon. member for George Town and the other by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. To a large extent members on the cross-benches agreed with the latter.

They agreed that, in all probability, if the whole public service of this country and the whole policy of the Government of this country were revised, there might be very great room for economy in public expenditure, but when they listened to the speeches made in support of that, such as those made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, and the right hon. the member for Victoria West, they saw that their real notion of economy, the real way in which they would carry out this policy of economy, would be simply to reduce wages. (Labour cheers and dissent.) That was what it meant. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had referred to Ministers’ salaries as being upon too high a scale. They were going to reduce the salaries of Ministers and they would reduce all the way down. That was their idea of economy. It was not the idea of the members on the cross-benches. They said that the labourer was worthy of his hire, whether he were a Minister or anyone else. He wanted to put it to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that they took an altogether different view from him of the functions of the State; they looked upon those who were administering the government of the country, if they were doing their work properly and well, as contributing just as much to the welfare of the country and as being just as much real producers as the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. From a social point of view, they were doing a vastly greater work than the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Answering a jibe of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, that they on the cross-benches would have to account for their vote and the attitude they took in refusing to vote for the reduction of Minister’s salaries, he was glad the salaries had been reduced, and he would like to see many other informal salaries reduced, but they would have no difficulty in justifying their position; on the contrary, how would the hon. member and his friends justify the handing over of £300,000 worth of State assets in the shape of the bewaarplaatsen money? They on the cross-benches would have less difficulty in justifying their position to the country in regard to the Ministers’ salaries than his hon. friends would in connection with the bewaarplaatsen. If the Ministers’ salaries were to be the gauge for setting the tune what would the man with 4s. 3d. per day at the bottom be reduced to when they reduced the Ministers’ salaries as low as possible? They agreed with public economy, but what would be the effect to the country of the substitution of the hon. members on the Opposition side of the House for the hon. members on the Government side of the House. There would be no radical fundamental change of policy, but simply, taking the national finance, they would continue outting down the salaries, dismissing men, and trying to produce in the public service that same state of unrest and disquietude as there was in private service. He would not accuse the Government of corruption, but if there had been profligacy, if there had been reckless expenditure, in the manner of a spendthrift, and the Government were using money which rightly represented assets, then he agreed with the Opposition, That method of living on capital was undoubtedly the way of a spendthrift. The mines could not go on year after year. There might be mining discoveries probably for many generations to come, but the Witwatersrand was not an inexhaustible asset. Profligacy was being adopted in another department. What thriftless economy it was to waste a far more important industrial asset, the efficiency and healthy of the citizens, and the Government devoting itself to putting nothing in its place. The function of the mining industries in this country was not primarily to make large profits. Of course the Minister of Finance was bound to take a view sympathetic to those who earned profits. That was an evil thing, however, and the Minister, as Minister of Defence, frequently went to the aid of his friends in that matter. The functions of the mining industry should be to afford a foothold for the population, not only of those who laboured in the country, but for immigrants to come into this country from oversea. But that function the Ministry, with the sanction of the Opposition, was not fulfilling.

The hon. member referred to some figures prepared by the Transvaal Miners’ Association in the report of the Economic Commission. It compared the progress and the volume of industry with employment and wages within a period of six years. Comparing the period immediately preceding the strike of 1907 with the period immediately preceding the strike of 1913, the figures showed that the total tonnage had increased 66 per cent. and the total number of workers 45 per cent. There had been a larger output, a greater volume of work, and a great increase in employment of indentured natives, but the employment of skilled labour had remained practically stationary. The wages, too, showed a diminution. Another interesting table given was the number of men other than skilled miners employed under-ground. In those six years the number of timber men, trammers, and all sorts of workers in “other occupations” had shown a considerable increase, from 3,300 to nearly 6,000. It looked extremely satisfactory. If those men were divided into grades below 15s. and above 15s., a figure which really corresponds between skilled and semi-skilled and practically unskilled occupations; in spite of the tremendous increase in the volume of work, and in spite of the additional employment given to indentured labour, there had been a diminution of one in those who found employment over 15s.; the whole of the increase had been in those occupations paid at 12s. 6d., 10s. 6d., 7s. 6d., and so on. The pressure of that system which the Government had supported, and the lack of employment throughout the country, had reduced a large number of men to such a state of poverty that they would take any wages whatever in order to get a livelihood at all.

He went on to refer to what happened on the mines, and said that in 1907 there were something under 2,000 machine drills in operation, while in 1913 the number had risen to 6,000. In 1907, for every 100 drills there were 118 white men; while in 1913, the number of white men to each 100 drills was only 28. Some small correction must be made for mines working day shift, but when every allowance was made the fact remained that more and more all this work was being performed by indentured natives. If they were going to pursue this national policy, if they were going on with their land policy, the sooner they got into money difficulties the happier it would be for the country, because these pecuniary difficulties were simply the result of the system they had been pursuing, and could only result in national and economic ruin. Most of the revenue was derived from profits. Continuing, he said they were certainly going to have more taxation in the future, and there was no sign of any real effort to curb expenditure. From the other point of view if they were going to drive them out of the country it was a matter largely of academic interest whether they put the limit of the income tax at £500 or £1,000. They demanded a complete revolution of policy. He hoped the Minister of Defence, owing to his (the speaker’s) proximity to the port at Cape Town, would not misunderstand him, because he would not be tempted into making any violent statement. If they read the report of the Minister of Justice and the Magistrates, they would see evidences all round the country of growing poverty. If they went to the Docks they would see numbers of men leaving the country. If they went to the industrial centres they would find a large number of men out of work. They would find men unemployed in Vrededorp particularly. They would find the tendencies they on those benches had talked of so long abating no one whit in their pressure. If Ministers went on as they were going where was this country coming to? Were they going to continue the system, the effects of which were so unmistakable?

Was it worth while discussing the relative merits of an income tax with a limit of £500 or £1,000, when unless there was a revolution in policy they were going down hill in any case? The amendment set forth that something more than the reference back of the Estimates to the Government was required if that country was to go ahead. He could conceive the Minister coming before them having greater revenue than he needed. He could conceive the Minister telling them that the profit tax, without alteration, was yielding a great deal more money. The Minister could go further, and just as he made the native work at an artificially low rate, he could enslave the white workers on terms suitable to the mine-owners. That would mean an inflated revenue, but would that mean increased prosperity? The Government should recognise that the industries of the country existed for the purpose of supporting the population of the county. The point was that they would have to reverse their labour policy on the gold mines. In every item of expenditure, whether irrigation, agriculture, or land bank, the Government should recognise that the expenditure was for the public benefit, and not for the benefit of the landowner. They had heard from the right hon. member for Victoria West that the increased land value was connected with their balance of trade, but he could not follow the right hon. gentleman in that speculation. Was that going to be the only result of their agricultural expenditure? Did that improve the position of the man in the street? It only improved the position of the poor chap who owned the land. Did the right hon. gentleman, when he talked of those 3,000 unemployed men, did he think that they should only be used as a sort or false Jibe at the cross-benches, and that they on those benches were at fault? It was in the power of the members on the Government side as it was in the power of the Minister of Railways to take a mean and vindictive advantage of the necessities of these men. It was that sort of callous attitude on the part of the right hon. gentleman and his friends which led to the inflamed tempers of these men and trouble. He did not think that if he talked from now until doomsday any benefit would be gained from that House, or that there would be any chance of useful action being taken by that Parliament. They regretted the Government had not seen its way to revise the position, that the Government had not seen its way to note the way things were tending, and that the Government had not seen its way to deal with the problems of unemployment and poverty, and trace these problems to their sources. Until they settled these questions, the whole structure of their national finance was resting on in secure foundations. In their opinion, the wealth of the country resulted from free opportunities being offered to its inhabitants, but on every hand they saw apathy, and in many cases despair, sapping at the vitals of the nation. (Labour cheers.)

Mr. Grobler went on to deal with the procedure followed in the Free State in regard to the collection of native taxes, which he held was highly unsatisfactory. Under the old Republican Government the field-cornet, enjoyed the princely salary of £25 per year, and he had to collect these taxes and the dog taxes as well. Even then he had to be a landowner, As to the salaries paid to officers in the Defence Force and to the Commandant-General, he held that these salaries were far too high. Some people had been trained and had passed certain examinations so that they were appointed officers within six months at salaries of from £600 to £700. They received these large salaries—and “dikkopziekte ” followed. They were, he proceeded, proud of the Defence Force. In three days they had raised 80,000 men. Yet they were not in a proper state of defence. Did the Minister know that at some posts during the recent trouble 45 men had six rifles between them? A position like that could only be called unsatisfactory Each man should have had a rifle and have been properly trained. The screw was loose somewhere. He knew of a case where the secretary of a rifle club had sent several letters to the Defence Department, but had received no reply at all. The overpaid officer had a swelled head, and had not deigned to reply.

Proceeding, Mr. Grobler regretted that so far so little had been done for the development of industries. Why should their wool still leave these shores in its raw state? People spoke of immigration. They should import people to work the wool, and then there would be work for the poor whites, who could learn to work it. Premiums should be paid for the establishment of such factories. Let the industries first be developed, and immigrants, the desirable class of immigrants, would follow.

Business was resumed at 8 p.m.

There was nothing which the people objected to more than inequality of taxation. Why should the Cape, with so many more natives, contribute so much less than the other Provinces to the native taxation? The fact was that the Cape was afraid to treat its natives on the same basis as the other Provinces. It was said that natives in the Cape paid indirectly taxation that was higher than elsewhere, but that had got to be proved. He did not say that whites and natives should be taxed alike, but he did hold that all natives should pay equally. Estate duties should also be equalised, and people in the Free State would realise that it would be fair that they should contribute more to the Treasury under this head. Referring to the bewaarplaatsen moneys, Mr. Wessels said that if the Minister intended to give half of these moneys to the mine-owners, a storm would break loose. The whole of that money ought to be applied to meet the deficit. They had already given £47,000 to the mine-owners, and the people would not allow any more to be given away. He did not see in how far the mines were entitled to any share of these bewaarplaatsen moneys. The mine-owners had not got a leg to stand on. (Hear, hear.) Had the Government ever given in to anyone else besides to the mines? Had they ever given in to any request by agricultural deputations? The money did not belong to the mines, and they certainly should not give up the money without a fight. President Kruger would certainly never have given it up. With the estate duties and the bewaarplaatsen moneys, etc., the Government would have about £961,000, and there was no need to impose fresh taxation. He (the speaker) could not say which amendment he would vote for, but he thought the proposals of the hon. member for Barberton should be carefully gone into. He hoped that in Committee they would be able to devise some means to cover the expected deficit without further taxes.

He admitted that we were having a slight depression, a slight set back at the present time, but he did not believe for one moment that it would be permanent. He believed that it would be temporary. We had had drought and we had had labour troubles, but he did not for a moment think that we were entering upon a time of depression that warranted special taxation. (Hear, hear.) Those of them who had lived in this country for many years knew that it was a country of surprises, that we had our ups and downs, and he firmly believed that there would come a time—he hoped it was far distant—when we should have serious depression in this country. If the Government in the present period of the slight depression flew at once to the, only remedy that would be open to us then, i.e., increased taxation, they were doing away with that which would be an absolute necessity then, and it would be very difficult if they imposed an income tax now. He firmly believed that if we had an income tax this year with an exemption up to £1,000 it would be found that next year we should want more money. Every year since Union they found that the Government required half a million or so in excess of what they had had before. If the Government next year required more money it would be easy for them to reduce that exemption and bring it down to £500. They ought not to adopt such a principle as that without first going in for reduction of expenditure and economy.

He looked upon their using the revenue of the mines as living upon capital; a portion at any rate, of the direct taxation or revenue raised from the mines ought to be used for developing this country in the matter of building railways, irrigation, closer settlement, and such things. If the Government would go in for that kind of development he believed that in a few years, instead of sending away five or six millions for food supplies, we should retain that money in the country and instead of importing would be exporting food supplies. He had before him a very interesting document from which he would read one or two extracts. The day before yesterday some of them had had an opportunity of meeting Mr. Lester, a Commissioner who had just come from America instructed by President Wilson to try and induce the Government of the Union of South Africa, to send some of their products to the exhibition which was to be held next year in San Francisco. Mr. Lester spoke to the representatives present at the luncheon and made some statements which were rather surprising. He said that in the past America had been a great exporting country, but they were passing from that into an importing country, and in a few years instead of exporting a large number of things as they had done in the past they would be importing into America many of those things. He said that in a few years’ time America would not be able to supply themselves with meat.

Quoting from a list he had of articles which America is importing, Mr. Oliver said that ostrich feathers had been imported into that country during 1913 to the value of £1,284,763. With regard to their fruit, £275,000 of grapes had been imported, lemons £883,000, oranges £48,000, pineapples £271,000. He did not think they were sending much in that way from this country to America, but seeing that their seasons were just opposite there was a grand opportunity for this country to do so, and he thought the Government would do well to move in the matter of getting direct communication between South Africa and America so that products could be exchanged with that country more easily than it was possible to do at the present time. In addition to those he had mentioned, there were lots of other things which this country could supply. Last year 9½ million hides were imported into America, and with regard to precious stones during 1913, uncut diamonds valued 2½ millions and cut diamonds £5,591,000, making a total of £8,127,000. With such a market open he thought it was the duty of the Government to send samples of South African products to the exhibition. It was of an international character, and there would be millions of people visiting it from all parts of the world. South Africa could make a good display, and it would do a tremendous amount of good. The hon. member proceeded to give an illustration of what an individual could do and mentioned meeting a gentleman from Oudtshoorn who was travelling about the East carrying a supply of ostrich feathers with him. He supplied some of these to the Empress of Japan, and on the occasion of a ceremony great crowds of people admired them. They were very much impressed with those feathers. In the East there were great possibilities for the sale of ostrich feathers, and if there were more like the gentleman he had referred to showing South African products to the best advantage in going round the world it would do a great deal or good. They would have a great opportunity of sending a magnificent display of ostrich feathers to the exhibition, for in that department nobody could compete with South Africa. The fact that there was a depression was a reason why the farmers and the Government should do all they could to increase the sale of ostrich feathers. An hon. member had told him that the reason of the slump in ostrich feathers was that the aristocracy rode so much in motor-cars and wore small hats which could be covered by a veil, hats with ostrich plumes could not easily be covered in that way, and as everybody seemed to follow the lead of the aristocrats, small hats had become the vogue. That House should do what it could to bring home to the Government the necessity of trying to regain the market and trying to increase the sale of ostrich feathers.

He thought that the financial experts had convinced the House that they were spending more money than they were justified in doing, and that the Government should see that the expenditure was reduced to the lowest limit before it went in for fresh taxation. In some respects it was rather unfortunate that they had two Budgets laid before them at the same time. He knew it was considered good business by the Government, but when a member had devoted his attention to the finances of the country, and spoken on these, it was wearisome to the House if he then went into the railway figures. At the commencement of Union the railways were making considerable profit—he was talking of the railways as a whole. The profit was considerably over a million at Union, and in the first ten months after Union the profit was £1,795,000, while the total for the twelve months was £1,914,000. During the last four years, however, the profit had disappeared, and the Minister budgetted for a deficit this year of £66,000. There was a difference of about two millions between the state of affairs at present and the position when the Provinces went into Union. The General Manager, in accounting for this, said that the department had sacrificed £1,356,000 by the reduction of rates, £455,000 by the payment of interest on capital out of revenue to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, £898,000 in the increases to the salaried and daily-paid staff, £218,000 interest on new capital, £498,000 increased contribution to depreciation account, £299,000 loss on the opening of new railways, £232,000 on relaying work, £50,000 contributions to deficiency in the Pension Fund, and £680,000 increased working expenditure, due principally to increased traffic.

That was how the profit had disappeared. The hon. member for Maritzburg said that the loss of profit was occasioned by the reduction of rates and the increase in salaries. But he did not think that those two items accounted for the total disappearance. He found the item “loss on opening of new railways,” which amounted in round figures to £300,000, and he would like to address the House on this point. If this country was to advance they would have to continue building railways, but if the loss was to be taken out of profits of the payable lines, there would come a time when these lines would not stand any more. It was possible to meet it by increasing railway rates, but the point would be reached when these rates could not be increased. Rates should not be increased, because it tended to increase the cost of living and prevented expansion. He maintained that the loss on development lines should not be taken out of profit. He maintained it was not right that up-country people should be the only section to pay for the development of the country through railways. The loss on these lines, he contended, should be taken out of general revenue or out of the profits earned from the mines. In 1907 the Cape Parliament appointed a Commission on Railways, and the question placed before that Commission was the future construction of railways, with a view to securing impartial consideration and report upon any scheme of railway construction.

He thought the names of some of the members of the committee would carry weight with the House. There were Sir Thomas Smartt, Mr. J. W. Jagger, and others. He was sorry to say that the recommendations of the Commission were not carried out in their entirety. A Railway-Board had been appointed to carry out the recommendations of the Commission; but had it done so? The recommendations of the Commission had not been carried out, and if the Government would investigate the matter he thought it would be found that the majority of the members of the Board would be in favour of carrying out those recommendations. He thought that instead of taking the loss made on developing lines out of railway profits or general revenue they should use some of the revenue derived from the direct taxation on gold and diamonds. There was another thing he would like to suggest. When he went to Canada a few months ago he found a railway extending from the east of the continent to the west, He was told that over 4,000 miles of that territory, the railway had been built through uninhabited country—where there were no people at all. That railway was now making an immense revenue because it had settled people on the land and created a great traffic. If the Government of this country had taken the precaution of securing a certain amount of land on each side of the railway they would have been doing what was right. An instance had been brought to his notice where, owing to the building of a railway the price of certain land had been trebled. It would be a wise policy for the Government to purchase land in neighbourhoods which were going to be served by railways. At present in South Africa they were employing more men as railway employees per mile than there ought to be. He was in favour of employing as many white men on the railways as possible, and at a fair wage, but he did not think that it was desirable to have more men than was necessary. He would rather employ fewer men getting a better wage. He was not prepared to give an opinion as to the advisability of making further provisions for depreciation and things of that kind. If the Estimates were correct he thought that some of the contributions had been excessive. The figures showed that too much had been contributed to the railway funds. He believed that in the near future the railways would prove that they were payable sources of revenue.

Most of the people in this country supported the Government in the action it took—up to a certain point—in connection with the calling out of the Defence Force, but unless the Government showed that the industrial measures now before the public were to be put through this session he did not think it would be justified in looking forward to a year devoid of difficulties. (Hear, hear.) The Government was labouring under disadvantages last year, and the country suffered in consequence. They did not blame the Government, but they would blame the Government if it did not put through this remedial legislation, which was absolutely necessary. He would advise the Government not to attempt to force through its financial measures before completing its industrial legislation. They owed a duty to the working-classes, and unless the Government made due provision for their interest, and so arranged matters that we should not have these disturbances, the Government would not be carrying out its duty. Instead of keeping the House on the Estimates day after day, the industrial Bills should be sandwiched in between. (Hear, hear.)

He was also strongly against the proposed land tax. The agrarian portion of the population had always opposed itself tooth and nail against the introduction of a tax on the unimproved land value. That sort of tax owed its origin to the Labour party. Certainly the Government had put the exemption at a high figure, but the proposals were only the thin end of the wedge. If they accepted the proposal they would approve the principle, and, that once affirmed, they could not afterwards object to an extension of the system. The tax would certainly not produce the effect which the Minister expected. The Minister expected that farms now lying waste would become occupied, but the imposition of the tax would not lead to that. In former times there existed in the Republic a so-called absentee tax, and that was a sound measure. The proposal of the Minister was not sound, and it had evidently been taken over from the Labour party. What did they mean by the expression “unimproved land value”? The Labour party meant all ground that was not being worked, and that, of course, would include the grazing ground used by their cattle. That was a dangerous system, and it was his intention to vote against the proposal unless the Minister was able to prove that there was absolutely no other way out of the difficulty.

The speaker had also strong views on the amendments to the Customs tariff, and he regretted that the Minister had not brought his proposals more into agreement with the recommendations of the Industries Commission in regard to the protection of local industries. He quite agreed with what had been said last year on that subject by the hon. member for Waterberg, but as the hon. member would doubtless have something further to say on the subject, the speaker would make no further reference to it. The Minister had complained that local industries received so little of the support of the public, but what could the Government expect when they set such a bad example themselves? What had the Government done, for instance, in the matter of ordering saddles? Because the saddles made here would have cost £5,000 more, the order was sent abroad. The Government forgot, however, that if they had given the order here the whole of the money would have been kept in the country. And the Minister of Railways and Harbours was also in favour of supporting local industries, but the costs must not be more than seven per cent. in excess of foreign prices. That Minister also forgot that if he gave out orders locally all the money would stay in the country, to the advantage of the country as a whole. No, the Government was not setting a very good example.

The speaker would like to be permitted to point out to the Minister two sources of revenue which would help him out of his difficulty, so that there would be no need to impose fresh taxation. He referred to a report which had been presented to the Senate on the subject of the diamond polishing industry. Both the majority and the minority recommended the levying of an export duty on rough diamonds. By that means the local polishing of diamonds would be encouraged. Last year they exported diamonds to the value of £10,000,000, and if a five per cent. export duty had been placed on them the tax would have produced £500,000, and no one would have suffered from its imposition. The industry would suffer no injury from it, as the tax would be paid by the rich people in Europe and America. No one in South Africa need pay a penny of it. To the rich man in Europe who bought a ring for his wife it would matter little whether the ring cost a pound or two more or less. Their attention had been repeatedly drawn to what was a fact, namely, that they were living on the produce of the mines, which became less from year to year. Once that was exhausted they had nothing to put in its place. If a tax such as he suggested were placed on the export of raw diamonds they would get something back of the wealth that was being taken out of the ground, and at the same time there would be no need to impose new taxation. They would even have a little over with which they could tackle the poor white question, a question which became every year more serious and more urgent, and in regard to which he regretted to say nothing was being done.

If they made that tax ten per cent. it would produce £1,000,000, and any further additional taxation would be rendered unnecessary.

Another source of revenue was the mint. He had urged before that the mint be reopened, and had done so year after year, and he could not understand why the Government did not carry out the suggestion. The whole institution and the machinery were here, and the only thing lacking was the stamps, but that was only a trifle. When the matter was discussed last year at his instance, he had pointed out that the Prime Minister of Australia reckoned on a profit of £200,000 on the local mint. If it were possible for Australia to make £200,000 in that way, surely the Union could win a profit of £50,000? In reply to a question which he had put last year the Minister had promised to institute a thorough inquiry, but the answer this year was that the Minister had nothing to add to the answer that he gave last year. That disappointed him, and it also astonished him. The Minister seemed to have forgotten that he had promised to make an inquiry. The population of this country, apart from the coloured people, was as great as that of Australia, and South Africa could look therefore to make as much profit in the minting of silver. But even if they made a profit of only £50,000, it would be an amount to which not a single person in the Union would contribute a penny.

Those two sources of revenue which he had indicated made it quite unnecessary to impose any new taxes.

In the Transvaal they had now been suffering for two years from the severe drought. In many cases they would lose both the summer and the winter harvests, and those losses would have a great effect on Johannesburg and Pretoria. Many poor farmers who were unable to find a living on their farms would leave for the big towns. And with reference to the poor population of the towns he wished to draw attention to a sad side of the poor white question in Johannesburg, and that was the deplorable effect of the so-called trap system. It was a system that was a discredit to any civilised nation. For a civilised people it was simply a scandal. What was going on? A poor man who could not get food and was unable to find work was liable to become the prey of the Kaffirs who were used as traps. The latter persuaded the former to go and buy liquor for them, with the result that the next thing heard of him was that he was in prison. He personally knew the members of a family as respectable as that of any member in that House, who had been dragged to gaol by means of that scandalous system. The magistrates’ courts in Johannesburg often showed heart-moving scenes. There were cases of mothers with children in arms, who had perhaps sold liquor in order to get food for their little ones, where the children were torn from their arms and the mothers dragged off to gaol. Such a condition of affairs was a horror to any true Afrikander. They had to look on and see their own flesh and blood plunged in shame, see them lose rank, character, and the franchise, all as a consequence of this mean system of trapping.

A couple of days ago, in reply to a question which he had put, the Minister of Justice had actually stated that it was not his intention to put an end to this system. And yet a little time previously when speaking at Standerton the Prime Minister had delivered a moving speech touching the condition of affairs in Johannesburg, and the results of the trap system that was applied there. The Prime Minister said he had reflected on the subject till the tears came into his eyes, and that he would take care that the system was abolished. How was that to be reconciled with the statement that had been made by the Minister of Justice? Did the Prime Minister stand by what he had said at Standerton, or had he changed his opinions? And if so, why? Who had caused the Prime Minister to change the views which he had given utterance to at Standerton? Or dirk the Minister of Justice speak only for himself, and were they facing two different opinions from two different members of the Cabinet? It was the old two voice policy again. The whole liquor law in the Transvaal was an unheard-of thing. For instance, they were allowed to drink as much whiskey there as they wanted, provided only it came from Scotland, but they could not make any whiskey nor any other kind of liquor. The whole liquor question had been gone into by a Commission, which had made certain recommendations, but the Government had done nothing further in the matter. Nevertheless a change ought to be made in the condition of affairs, as the state of things in Johannesburg was a scandal. It was the duty of the Government to do something. The liquor law in the Transvaal was immoral. The people were led by that law to do something which was not a sin, but which by law was made into a crime. If they gave a Kaffir a drink on a cold morning, after he had, for instance, been leading water, they were liable to be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Of course the law was violated hundreds of times; and must they preserve such a law? The sooner an end was made of it the better.

He wished to draw the attention of the Minister of Defence to a few grievances which existed in his district in connection with the Defence force. When the burghers were called up for service during the time of the disturbances they were carried from their houses to the town, and afterwards transported by train. When, however, they had completed their service they were carried back to the town, and no further, and had to provide their own means of transport in order to get back to their homes. He was informed of that by several of the men who returned, and whom he met in the town. Many of them lived a long distance away, and they were obliged either to borrow a vehicle or else to walk home. The Minister ought to institute an inquiry into the matter. The rifles which had been distributed in his district were old and worn-out, and the burghers did not want them. The district was a border district, and the Minister ought to take care and see that the inhabitants on the borders were properly armed.