The adjourned debate was resumed on the motion “that the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending March 31, 1915, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbours Funds, respectively.”

The following amendments had been moved, viz.:

The Minister of Finance, he thought, rather incorrectly referred to the slump in ostrich feathers, and he (Sir T. Smartt) thought that that slump was going to have a good deal to do with the depression. He pointed out that whatever might be said about the ostrich industry, the fact remained that it had had a great deal to do with the encouragement of irrigation, and nothing was going to have a greater effect on the future welfare of the country. He referred to the opportunity given this country of advertising its produce at the forthcoming exhibition at San Francisco. The Minister of Railways had put down £25,000 for advertising, and he thought that no better opportunity would be afforded this country of advertising its attractions than at the exhibition he had referred to. They could make a great exhibit of ostrich feathers, wool, mohair, and other articles which the country was capable of producing. He did say that in the present condition of the country’s finances, when the Government could not balance revenue and expenditure without fresh taxation, the Minister ought to appoint a committee to go thoroughly into the question and see whether ways and means could not be devised for making a big exhibit at this exhibition. He was quite sure that if the ostrich farmers were consulted they would be prepared for a period of one year to agree to a small export tax on their product for the purpose of having it exhibited in a proper manner at the exposition. He pointed out that it was a world-wide affair, and that a large exhibit would result in an expansion of the market for this country’s products. There was another thing in connection with the unfortunate ostrich in regard to which the right hon. the member for Victoria West was very severe, and he thought incorrect. He said that a large number of people had pulled up their sultana vines for the purpose of planting lucerne for ostriches. He did not think that his right hon. friend would be able to give him one case where this had happened.

With regard to the taxation proposals, he thought the proper time for discussion would be at a later stage. There was only one question to which he would like to draw attention, and which he hoped the Minister would consider before they went into committee. They were pleased to see that the Minister had adopted the policy which had been put forward on his (the speaker’s) side of the House. That was the tax on the unimproved value of land, but he would like to ask the Minister who had drawn up the proposal, because, after all, it was the most extraordinary proposal he had ever seen. The Minister suggested they should have a tax on the unimproved value of land, and he proceeded to explain to the House that, before the tax was paid, they would take away the capital value of £10,000. He (the speaker) went on to say that he did not think that the House should consider a proposal of the sort put forward by the Minister. They were willing to consider such a proposal, but it must be on a just and fair basis. He thought the exemption of £10,000 was far too much, and the proper basis on which to introduce taxation was upon the value, so that everybody would have to pay alike. He dealt with the remarks of the right hon. the member for Victoria West with regard to Imperial preference, and said he hoped it would be maintained. The time would come when the people in the centre of the Empire would also recognise the advantages of Imperial preference, and then it would be in the interests of this country. He and his supporters would help the Government to retain this preference, and went on to say that he thought it should be recognised that £85,000 a year was not an adequate contribution for the protection of their sea-borne traffic. He hoped that they would see their way to making an increase in the future. With regard to the speech of the hon. member for Barberton, he said he found great difficulty in following the trend of the speech, save and except when the hon. member said he was at one with hon. members who believed that the Government would be able to effect economies without any disadvantage to the country.

He made the statement that taxation should be equalised throughout the Union. They on the Opposition side had always laid it down as one of its quarrels with the Government that the Cabinet was so taken up with internal trouble and dissensions that it was not able to carry out the first duty of a unified Government, which was to unify taxation. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Barberton must have looked very hastily at his figures, for he drew a picture of native taxation, and tried to persuade the House that, under existing conditions, the native in the Cape paid only 1s. 3d. a head in taxation, whereas the native in the Transvaal paid 6s. 4d., in Natal 5s. 3d., and in the Free State 4s. 10d. Where he got his figures from, he (Sir Thomas) could not understand.

Sir Thomas went on to say that he was exceedingly pleased to see that Government had made up its mind that there should be a forward policy in connection with irrigation. He did not desire to hamper that development, but as the fundamental prosperity of this country was bound up with the success of our irrigation schemes he hoped Government would not go hastily into any scheme without having thoroughly worked it out on a commercial basis. (Cheers.) The Minister of Finance had referred to the expenditure of £100,000 at Brandvlei. He (Sir Thomas) dared say that was justified. The Minister had also referred to a scheme with which he (Sir Thomas) had a great deal to do many years ago when Commissioner of Public Works. That was the Robertson Canal, a scheme which was estimated to irrigate 17,500 morgen. Anyone who had visited Robertson would realise the enormous advantages irrigation had brought to that district. He welcomed the proposal of the Minister, because it was not a Government scheme alone, but the landowners had entered into an agreement by which their property would be rated. At any rate that was the old proposal. It was a work of such magnitude that it was impossible for private individuals to carry it through, so they went to the Government and said, “We will be responsible and pay all the charges, but we ask you to carry out this great work for the benefit of the people.” The works which would pay were those in which the individuals concerned had sunk their own capital. (Cheers.) In cases of that sort in which Government gave financial assistance one of the fairest things would be to say to those interested, “You must give Government a certain proportion of the land to be irrigated so that Government could place settlers on it.” Thus settlers would be placed in districts where they would be surrounded by practical farmers, on whose experience they could draw to very great advantage. If that policy were adopted it would have very great results in the development of the country. With regard to the reservoir at Crocodile Poort, he understood the proposal was to spend £605,000 on a scheme which would irrigate 30,000 acres. He understood that some of the ground was very good, but that it was difficult to work it under certain circumstances. £20 an acre was a very heavy initial cost, and if £150,000 had to be added for the purchase of the ground the House would be anxious for the Government to put on the Table the fullest information in regard to the scheme. (Cheers.) But if it were a practical scheme and economically possible, he did not think any member would approach a proposition of that sort from a party point of view, for they should all be interested in developing the resources of the country—(hear, hear)—and thereby increasing our population.

Might he now turn to the Estimates of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The Minister did seem to be very optimistic He had estimated for a larger revenue than he actually received last year, and then he estimated for a diminishing expenditure. The Minister of Lands, who was yet a simple Minister, said that was very good. (Laughter.)

A couple of hundred of small holdings were given out and that was what they had been given to expect—that was what they were given to expect by the statement of the Prime Minister at the Eighty Club in London. It was pointed out then by the Prime Minister that the laws of South Africa provided opportunities for agricultural settlements. That still went on, he believed. As he had been saying, they had been led to believe in a system of closer settlement by the statements of the Prime Minister in London, and they believed that there was going to be a great development of land. One of his (Sir T. Smartt’s) great charges against the Government was that the Government had done nothing to raise the people whom he had referred to in his speeches—the people who were again to be placed on the land. Nothing had been done excepting the great work which was being done by the Dutch Reformed Church. (Cheers.) On the 16th of October, 1913, the Minister had advised farmers not to sell their land and previously he had advised them not to sell land which they could use. A policy of that description would not lead to placing any additional individual on the land. The Prime Minister had said in a speech that the new Minister of Lands (Mr. Theron) was one of the calmest men in South Africa, and judging by the rate at which he was putting people on the land he (Sir T. W. Smartt) was prepared to endorse his statement. (Laughter.) The Minister of Lands had also said that too little was being done in connection with people being placed on the land, and that that was due to there being too much redtape, and he had said that he would do his best to do something of a practical character. (Laughter.) The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, while he was in charge of the Lands Department, had said that the work of that Department was a “steady business.” The statement issued by that Minister was one of the “jammiest” things he had ever discovered. (Laughter.) The Minister was so proud of his statement and his colleagues were so proud of it that he asked specially that it should be inserted by the Press so as to be circulated broadcast over the country. In this report it was stated that “the country in the past has had a heavy price to pay for settlement. ”

Had the 1820 settlers in the Albany district been a great burden upon the people of this country? Had the settlements in the Orange Free State been a heavy burden upon the people of this country? That land, owing to the energy of these people, had doubled or trebled in value during the last eight or ten years. How about the German settlers on the Cape Flats and the German settlers in the vicinity of King William’s Town? It would be a lesson to members of the Government if they would go to these places and see what had been and what could be done. He would like to read to the House the manner in which the Government advertised their wares. He had in his hand an analysis sent to a prospective settler. This man was told that there were 73 farms with an option of purchase and 23 farms without. Then they proceeded to describe these farms in the “Government Gazette” in glowing terms. Forty-nine were declared to be malarious— (laughter)—five had got no water, four had got no labour, one was difficult of access, and two were capable of carrying a limited number of sheep and goats. He thought he might also add “donkeys.” (Laughter.) Hon. members laughed, but was it a laughing matter, if they desired to encourage land settlement in this country and take a leaf out of the book of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, that their wares to the public abroad should be advertised in this ridiculous manner? Did his hon. friend wonder that it was impossible to provide for more than ten or twelve per month, when farms of this character were the only practical inducement given to people from overseas to come into this country?

It was so serious a position that even the Land Department’s report, which only came to the end of 1912, said that the inquiries for land were about 1,000 per month. The report then referred to the unsuitability of most of the Government land in the Transvaal owing to the lack of water and the consequent surrenders, and pointed out the necessity in connection with settlement of providing education for settlers’ children. Now, they could only provide education for children under land settlement by placing at the disposal of people land which was capable of intense cultivation, small holdings and village communities. “Applicants complain that they apply over and over again for Government farms.” Then this report went on to explain that when good small agricultural holdings were gazetted, the number of applicants with a capital of between £500 and £200 was enormous. Yet the Government made no effort to supply their applications. He knew of one case where a young man with a capital of £200 had been told, on making application for land, that the amount of capital at his disposal was too small. Surely these were the people they ought to help. (Hear, hear.) For political reasons and because perhaps it would not gather under one umbrella those heterogeneous sections of people who sat behind members on the Treasury benches, they had a policy of make-believe and nothing was done. Proclamations were issued by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, saying what wonderful people they were, and what an enormous amount had been spent in settling people in this country.

With regard to the artisan class, the report, speaking about town settlements, said that there were many demands, especially from the Rand, but most of the Crown lands available were not suitable for settlement. How, asked Sir Thos. Smartt, were they going to help these people if they did not embark upon a new policy? It would be far more honest for the Government to say that they were not desirous of helping them. Was it a fact there was no necessity for a policy of this kind? People from every side of this country told them that the one thing necessary, over and above everything else, was to increase the white population. He asked what was done? They wanted in this country, over and above every country, a stable and a contented population. (Hear, hear.) After all, who were the most stable and contented people that they could possibly get?

In regard to the poor white question, he recognised that the poor whites were a danger to this country, and that there was a large section whom it was impossible to do anything for. But they were by no means all hopeless, for there were many of these unfortunate people who, owing to peculiar circumstances, owing to prolonged drought, had lost, all their possessions, and not having the necessary education to embark upon any other walk of life, they had sunk lower and lower. There were a certain number of these people who, if they were properly treated, would have an opportunity of rehabilitating themselves. At the present moment they were, a great many of them, a danger to the white race in this country. It was the duty of the Government in any and settlement scheme to make provision for these people also. God forbid that they on that side of the House should advocate that we should only have settlers from oversea! They wanted to give every opportunity to the honest industrious man to settle on the soil. He would take the case of Kakamas. He believed that the Dutch Reformed Church had there done admirable work.

There was one great imperfection, in his mind, in regard to Kakamas, and that was when a man went there he got to a certain height, and then was no possibility of bettering his condition. The Government had got large tracts of land in the Northwestern districts which were unsuitable for settlement of the character he had referred to. At Kakamas they had a body of people who had grown up under those conditions. They had rehabilitated a certain number of those people at Kakamas. Let the Government then come down to this House with a proposition to grant to these people sections of the lands of the North-west, and give them facilities for boring. In that way they could draft from a settlement of that sort large numbers of people who would again establish themselves as farmers in this country, and they would leave behind a place for other submerged people to come in. What was our great trouble in connection with land development? It was that we could not get trained white overseers to take charge of works, as they were wanted to develop them. When he spoke of land settlement, he hoped that the House would realise that nobody would give more cordial support than he would to every legitimate step to improve the conditions of the submerged tenth of the population of this country. There must be large numbers of men in the towns who had got small means and were anxious to get on to the land. If they got those men mixed up with communities in closer settlement, where they had practical people developing the soil, from whom these men could learn under proper supervision, he believed that it was possible in this country, as had been done in other countries, for them to make a success of agriculture.

This brought him back to this question of the deficiency in the production of the necessities of life in this country. He heard with the greatest shame the reading of these figures, because he recognised the country had resources sufficient not only to produce its own requirements, but to enter the ranks of large exporting countries. But they could not do that if the Government sat still. This was not expenditure that was going to be wasted. This was not using the money of Land Banks for the purpose of paying off mortgages, when they thought that that money was to be used for the purpose of developing the country. He did hope that the Government would turn over a new leaf and honestly try and do something in this direction. There was another thing to which he would refer— the denudation of the country and the sluiting that was going on. So in the interests of the national estate the Government should do everything it could to encourage a policy of closer settlement. Hon. members might say that it was all very well to advocate a policy, but that this country was not adapted to such a policy. He asked hon. members, acquainted with the conditions of this country, if such was the case? He went on to refer to the views of Sir Rider Haggard, a member of the Dominions Royal Commission, who, in a speech at Bloemfontein, pointed out the great possibilities of the country, and Sir Thomas contrasted it to the way the land was deprecated by the Land Department in the “Government Gazette.” Sir Rider, in the course of his speech, referred to the unrivalled agricultural resources and the wonderful climate of this country. He referred to some land on the Modder River as richer than any he had seen in the world. Continuing, Sir Thomas said that outside the possibilities that existed on the Modder River, there were hundreds of thousands of acres in the country that would be capable of carrying a large population. He remembered the time when he (Sir Thomas) was laughed at when he said the Karoo was capable of carrying a large population. What was the position to-day?

Thousands of acres had been brought under cultivation with most beneficial results. Continuing, he was understood to say that unfortunately these people had not the capital to go as far as they should, and he thought the oversea settler was needed. Apart from what had been said by Sir Rider Haggard, he referred to the very interesting book written by Captain Du Toit, who had done a great deal for the country so far as dry land farming was concerned. It showed them the enormous possibilities that existed. Dealing with settlers, he said there was the settler who had a fair amount of capital, and ought to be assisted by the Government to prevent him being fleeced by the land shark, and who should gain some experience of the country before he invested his money. Then there was the small settler, the man who could only be put on close settlement under supervision for a certain time, under similar conditions that obtained in the closer settlements that had proved so successful in California. The policy of the Government should be to prepare the land for these people, and that was a policy in which nothing at all had been done. He referred to the work done by the Duke of Westminster in the O.F.S. in the way of preparing land for settlers, and said that if the Government was honest it would embark on a policy of that sort. When the man oversea, instead of choosing to go to Canada—and conditions were better in this country—decided to come to this country, he ought to be able to go to the High Commissioner’s Office and see what land was available and the conditions under which the Government would give it out, and on arrival in this country be met and given every assistance.

They should compete, he argued, for the bone and sinew that was making other parts of the world. He referred to the policy adopted in New Zealand of acquiring suitable estates for settlement, because the best: land was required for the carrying out of a policy of that sort. He thought that some scheme might be devised whereby large tracts of land which were not being developed by the owner should be put at the disposal of people who would develop that land. Another thing the Government should do was to encourage the immigration of suitable white women. The right hon. the member for Victoria West talked about the dairy industry, and if they were going to carry out such a policy successfully they must encourage the immigration of women settlers. He had no concern with regard to the future of this country, and he pointed out that land that was now placed under lucerne cultivation for ostriches would under intense farming in the future return a greater money value than could be obtained from ostrich farming. The hon. member for Jeppe, in the course of a speech which he made on the previous day, twitted the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. J. W. Jagger), with saying that everybody got State protection, and he (the hon. member for Jeppe) also touched upon boycotting and blacklisting.

He was glad to see that the hon. member for Jeppe was beginning to realise that he was embarking on a very dangerous policy, because, though what he attributed to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was not correct, they were extremely pleased that the hon. member for Jeppe was opposed to a policy of boycott. He (the speaker) had some recollection of a policy of boycott not long ago. Did the hon. member for Jeppe say it was not a policy of boycott when a man, who did not like to be tyrannised by a Trade Union, left that Union and was threatened? Did the hon. member for Jeppe say that it was not a policy of boycott when a man, desiring to earn his living as he liked, was followed about the streets and called a scab and a black-leg? Did the hon. member for Jeppe say it was not a policy of boycott when a small tradesman in Johannesburg was told by his supporters that if he did not support certain people belonging to a certain political party and did not subscribe to their funds that his trade Would be taken from him? Surely it ill-became the leader of a party—or, rather, he should say, the leader of a party who was led by his party—because the hon. member for George Town piped the tune—at the wheel of the Socialistic cart—to come there and talk about the hon. member for Cape Town, Central embarking on a policy of boycott.

Continuing, he said there was even the policy of boycott at public meetings. Only the hon. member for Jeppe and his loud voiced supporters, and only gentlemen who wore red ties and sang the “Red Flag,” as a distinguished member of the Provincial Council said, sometimes out of tune— (laughter)—were allowed to express their opinions. The hon. gentleman who advocated free speech wanted free speech for himself, but that there should be no opportunity for anybody else to speak. (Laughter.) There was very good reason indeed for that, because the hon. members on the cross-benches knew full well that only by misrepresentation could they exist—(loud cheers)—and so long as they could continue to prevent the workers from hearing the truth so long only was there a possibility of their remaining in their present position. (Loud cheers.) But a day would come when the workers would retaliate. (Labour cheers.) He was glad to hear those cheers. He understood that the hon. member for George Town was a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He hoped the hon. member thoroughly enjoyed reading the cable published in the morning papers stating that the members of that Society had rebelled against having to pay a political levy to such gentlemen as he. That was not the view that was adopted some time ago when the House was told that the workers were unanimous. But the workers were now beginning to realise that their Trade Unions had been captured by the Socialist organisation and that their Officials were forcing their views on the workers. The people were now beginning to learn that very often the agitators were not their real friends. (Loud cheers.) It ill-became the hon. member for Jeppe, unless he were going to make a confession and ask for absolution, to talk about anybody being engaged in a policy of boycott, a policy which the hon. member for Jeppe and his friends had supported throughout the country. It was a policy which he (Sir Thomas) believed the Unions in this country would determine should be put an end to. (Loud cheers.) Hon. members on the cross benches had no more right to their opinions than he had, and the opinion of the hon. member for Jeppe must be very badly expressed when he was associated with persons who howled other people down. (Loud cheers.)

The member for Barberton had said that the natives in the Cape numbered 1,520,000, and that each native to-day paid 1s. 3d.; that in Natal there were 950,000 natives who paid 5s. 3d. each; that in the Transvaal there were 1,200,000 who paid 6s. 4d., and in the Free State 326,000 who paid 4s. 10d., and he said that there were altogether 5,090,000 natives, whilst in fact they numbered only 4,090,000. (Laughter.) The member for Barberton said the tax in the Transvaal was too high. He said take the tax in the Free State, and impose it over the whole of South Africa—say, 4s. each—and if paid by the 5,090,000 natives, the tax would produce £1,000,000. If the member reckoned it out on the correct number of natives, namely, on 4,090,000 natives at 4s. each, he would find the result would be less revenue than was received to-day by £7,000. (Laughter.) He (General Botha) feared that if this proposal were accepted, the Minister of Finance would be in rather an awkward position, because we should be receiving £7,000 less than we were receiving to-day. (Ministerial laughter.) The native taxation was an impost which they must deal with very carefully, and that House must not take up this view that, as soon as there was any difficulty, they should tax the natives and leave the whites free. If they did that the natives might cease to be as loyal as they were at present. If this country suffered financially, and they appealed to the natives with the same earnestness as they did to the white population, he (General Botha) was sure these people would uphold the honour of the natives and answer that appeal; but if they placed a tax only on the natives, he was afraid it would do more harm than he could imagine. It might happen, too, that the costs in connection with an increased tax were greater than the increment in revenue. Proceeding, the Prime Minister said that he was very greatly struck by the fact of a native war following the imposition of a native poll tax in Natal. If they took up the attitude advocated by the hon. member for Barberton, it would lead them into the greatest difficulties. The proposal of the hon. member showed clearly that he had never really studied the native question. If that was his real opinion, why was it that when he was Minister of Finance he never proposed such a tax? In the first Budget speech which the hon. member for Barberton made as Minister of Finance, he told the House that he would have to introduce fresh taxation. In his first year as Treasurer he had to take one and a quarter million pounds from the railway. The question was, how were they to deal with this question? Were they to deal with the native question piecemeal or as a whole? The Native Lands Commission was at present going into the whole question of the natives, and he (the Prime Minister) did not think that they could, under the circumstances, introduce special taxation before they had received the proposals of that commission.

The legislation with regard to native taxes in the various Provinces differed considerably. If for instance, a native at the Cape lived as a servant with a farmer, he paid no tax at all. It was otherwise both in the Free State and in the Transvaal. If at present they deviated from the policy they had followed, they would create a state of unrest in the native mind which would have nothing but disastrous results. It must be remembered that the natives did not have direct representation in Parliament. Members of Parliament in the Transvaal did not go back to the constituents and call the natives in their constituencies together to explain to them what had been done. They should take up an attitude of treating the native with justice, and he did not think that the proposals of the hon. member for Barberton were just. The Prime Minister repeated that he had no objection to a system of uniformity, but before they introduced such a system all the special circumstances had to be taken into account. For instance, in the Cape, in addition to the ordinary taxes, the natives paid lease moneys which amounted to £30,000, which was about 20 per cent. of the total land tax in South Africa Furthermore, they paid £110,000 to the Transkei General Council. That was £22,000 for education, £21,000 for agriculture and industries, £43,000 for public works and roads, and £1,000 for public health, etc. He only referred to these figures in order to show that if the native of the Transkei paid less in poll tax, he yet in other taxes paid more than the natives of other Provinces.

If there was one man who had preached Provincialism in regard to railway taxation that man was Mr. Hull, who had told the people of the Northern Provinces that railway taxation fell heaviest on the people there. But if they debited this strike expenditure to the railways, the people in the North would have to pay. If that charge were debited to railway account, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, and Durban would not pay a penny of it. (Hear, hear.) The Transvaal and Free State would never agree to such a proposal. Proceeding, the Prime Minister said that he had never heard any more ill-considered proposals than those which the hon. member for Barberton put before the House. In regard to the question of land taxation, he regretted not having heard what the hon. member the Leader of the Opposition had said on that subject, but he could quite imagine his attitude on the question. He only wondered why that hon. member had not again brought forward his expropriation ideas or had the hon. member got such a fright at the Durban Conference of his party that he had decided never again to speak of expropriation? (Laughter.) He (the speaker) thought that the taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance were necessary. Sir Thomas Smartt compared this country with Australia, but he forgot that in Australia a man’s possessions in lands were far larger than here, and that one might expropriate 5,000 or 10,000 morgen of a man’s land there without the man feeling it at all. But he (the speaker) knew this country. Hon. members might talk about the farmers who sat on 5,000 or 6,000 morgen of land without doing anything with it. But where did they find these farmers? Did not hon. members know that these people had long since disappeared, that these large farms had either been sub-divided many years ago or that now a days a grandfather with his sons and grandsons lived on them and worked every bit of them. Surely hon. members did not wish to expropriate land like that which was being worked in that manner. He for one would always oppose any effort in that direction, and he would sooner have his hand cut off than to consent to such a step being taken. (Ministerial cheers.)

Millions of acres of ground on the showing of hon. members themselves were held by people like that, and was it not right that these people should pay something towards taxes in addition to benefiting from the land they held in that manner. He (the speaker) did not wish to tax a man who made great sacrifices to work his land and bring up his children in a decent manner, but he did want to tax the man who did nothing with the land except draw income from it. (Ministerial cheers.) And the hon. member knew what he had said at the Eighty Club, but he was quite prepared for his benefit to repeat it. (Cheers.) He had said that there was room for people in South Africa, but they did not want the loafers (“ straatloopers”) from England, they wanted the very best. Was there anyone in this House who did not agree with him there? (Cheers.) What would the position be here if, as some hon. members seemed to wish, they imported thousands of people from England and allowed the tens of thousands of people in the bigger cities, who were out of work, to suffer want? A Government which allowed such a position could not stand. (Cheers.) One of the great difficulties of the country was that people, at least a large percentage, thought that they could very easily get rich by going in for some gold mining proposition on the Rand. Many people thought that by going to the Rand they would get rich much more quickly than by farming. So they went to the Rand and many started speculating and went in for matters of which they had no knowledge with the result that they failed.

And that was a state of affairs which was not peculiar to this country only. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had told him that Canada had experienced similar difficulties, in fact in a country where a gold mining industry was being developed next to an agricultural industry one would always come face to face with difficulties like that. People saw greater prospects in gold mining and failed simply because of lack of experience. (Cheers.) Let the hon. member go to Bloemhof or Christiana, where he would find sometimes tens of thousands of people living in tents or under bits of corrugated iron, often suffering from great poverty. There had already been a number of settlements in the country. He could point out cases of good Englishmen who formerly occupied farms, and who had now joined the ranks of the poor whites in Johannesburg. It was possible to waste a lot of money on settlements. The State owned millions of morgen of ground, but it was not suitable for settlement purposes until it had been put in order and until water had been got. To render the places fit for settlement purposes was a difficult and a heavy task, to which the Minister of Lands was devoting his utmost strength. The Government, as matters stood at present, could not start bringing people into this country before they had rescued these people who were at present in the position of poor whites.

He had listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. member for Victoria West, and wished to tell him that he was unfair in comparing the normal position to-day with the period of depression some years ago. In those abnormal days, men earning £53 a year had to pay a heavy income tax. The Civil Servants had to forego their increments, and had also to sacrifice 5 per cent. of their salary. He thought the right hon. gentleman should have spoken with more appreciation of what had been done in the interval, and that he should have remembered that all those things referred to had since been put right. The income tax was removed, and the increments were now paid. Mr. Merriman had also spoken of the army of Civil Servants, and this he (the Prime Minister) much regretted. They could look into any office they liked, and they would find in many cases that the men there were working overtime. Let them try to find a single Magistrate’s Office where there were too many officials. It was not right for the right hon. gentleman to give the impression that the Civil Service was overstaffed.

Proceeding, the Prime Minister said Mr. Merriman had only looked at the white male population, and had not taken the slightest notice of the natives. Did he not require any officials for the native population? Did they not require police to deal with the 4,000,000 natives? The unsophisticated people in the rural districts were misled by such statements as those made by the right hon. gentleman who spoke of 37,000 members of the railway service as being included in the number of State officials. The right hon. gentleman had included such people as unskilled labourers, which was neither a fair nor a just calculation. He had also compared their railways with those in other parts of the world, forgetting that railways in other States were not all the property of the Government. It was also unfair to compare the vastness of South Africa with a little country like New Zealand, and that was an important point when they were comparing such matters as the Civil Service. In remote districts like Zoutpansburg and Lydenburg where there were few whites, they still had to have public servants. With regard to the question of the bewaarplaatsen, the Prime Minister said that the hon. member for Barberton had made certain remarks which he (the Prime Minister) considered were low and mean. He (Mr. Hull) had made a mean insinuation. Mr. Hull had asked what had taken place between the hon. member for Germiston and himself with regard to the bewaarplaatsen question, which had caused the speaker to change his mind. He had no objection to hon. members making remarks but to make insinuations of a low-down nature like that was certainly unparliamentary and out of place in that House.

He (the Prime Minister) had never either negotiated or discussed the question of the bewaarplaatsen with hon. members opposite and the insinuation that he had done so was incorrect, and out of place, and did not come properly from the mouth of a member of Parliament. He could only say that troubled fountains gave bad water and unclean consciences bred unclean thoughts. Proceeding to explain his attitude on the bewaarplaatsen question, the Prime Minister said the question had been discussed by the Government of the Transvaal at the time when Mr. Hull was Minister. On that occasion Mr. Hull expressed a certain view, and it was agreed that they had to consult their party in the Transvaal. Their party had not agreed with that view, but wanted the whole question gone into. Subsequently the Union Minister of Justice made a speech in the House in which he clearly said that this question was decided by the old Volksraad, which had passed a resolution, and before they could make any alteration in that decision they had to have the whole matter looked into by a Commission, because as it was they did not have any data before them. The Prime Minister then quoted the resolution of the Transvaal Volksraad, in the course of which it was decided that the rights should be put up for public sale and sold to the highest bidder, the price paid being divisible, after paying the costs, “one half to the State and the other half to the registered owner of such farm or ground, or his lawful heirs. This resolution was passed in 1896, and up to the time of the war several attempts had been made to go away from that decision, but every time without success, and the decision still stood to-day. His Government appointed a Commission, Consisting of Messrs. Fleischer, Esselin, and Gregorowski, which made a certain report. When that report was handed to the Government the question was never again discussed, and if the hon. member (Mr. Hull) made a speech in that House on the matter he made it on his own responsibility and without having considered it with the Government. This was the position of the Government to-day, and he rejected the insinuation which had been made. It was now for the House to decide the question.

Conditions in South Africa, he contended, were as hopeful as over they had been before. On the question of the debt the Prime Minister stated that they could not place undue taxation on the people in order to pay the debt. Referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Bethlehem, he asked: Did that member know that there was a large percentage of the debt which was reproductive? There were a lot of points to be considered in connection with this matter, and it must be remembered that if they increased the redemption on debt they would not be able to devote sufficient money to ordinary development. Since the establishment of Union the ordinary administrative costs had been reduced, but there had been other and extraordinary matters to be provided for, and as a consequence there had been a large increase in expenditure. Was it not in the true interests of the country that this further development should take place? Could they economise at the expense of the rising generation? The people who stood still in regard to education and such matters were bound to go down. How many requirements of his constituency had not the member for Bethlehem put before the House, the Prime Minister asked, and proceeded to say that he (General Botha) was the only member who had a constituency without a Field-cornet. (Ministerial laughter.) Concluding, the Prime Minister observed that the people were gradually progressing and that had been taken into consideration. He was grateful that the criticism levelled against the Government had not been of such a character that it need trouble the Government to any great extent. The amendment moved by the member for Cape Town, Central, was the same amendment he had proposed last year. Once more it was a direct vote of no confidence, and they could not accept it. (Ministerial cheers.)

If they took that amount of £78,000,000 which the Auditor-General showed as an allocation to the railways, and the amount mentioned by the Public Debt Commissioners, it would be found that there was a difference of some sixteen millions. He had stated already how that money was found out of the revenue of the country and out of the revenue of the railways. It might be fair to say that they should value their railways according to what they had cost. The important question was whether the railways were worth £95,000,000. He had raised that same point last year. The Prime Minister had said that the repayment of the amount should be spread over a period of time because other people would derive benefit from the railways as well as themselves. He would like to put this question before the Prime Minister—if there were no railway from Cape Town to Muizenberg, would he build a railway of that kind? He (Dr. Watkins) was sure he would do nothing of the sort, end if he did posterity would say that they could have built say an electric railway at a much lesser cost There were many such criticisms that one might apply to the railways. The Minister of Railways had let in some daylight on the question of whether they should take the amount mentioned by the Auditor-General or the 95 millions named in the report of the Public Debt Commissioners. The Minister had said that an insufficient amount for depreciation was written off the railways before Union, and he had estimated it at £10,000,000. He had said that they might call the railways a sound proposition because they had contributed £13,000,000 to general revenue, and they might set these amounts against one another. But they could not again bring in that £13,000,000 as an asset. It was fallacious to say that their railways were a reproductive asset to the extent of ninety-five millions. If they could spend now £95,000,000 on railways they could obtain for that money a better system of railways than they had at present. Now the railways paid interest on the £16,000,000—that is, they had to pay half a million to the Public Treasury in addition to what they paid on the money which was spent out of loan funds in building the railways. That half million went into the general revenue of the country. It was perfectly clear that the people up-country were taxed to a greater extent than they ought to be taxed. When they taxed the railways by imposing a bigger rate of interest, then he said that that amount should be utilised in reducing the liabilities on the railways themselves. The railways could therefore not be regarded as an asset amounting to £95,000,000, but rather as an asset amounting to £78,000,000. That left a very considerable amount of money—a great deal more than six or seven millions—for which the country had to pay without having in return the reproductive assets. The Minister had spoken about the large amount they were paying off that debt. £1,400,000 was money brought in by the Union, so that the amount they had paid off was not one per cent., but a very much smaller, amount. If they were paying off that debt at the rate mentioned by the Minister they would be paying it off within a reasonable time. Why had the two Ministers of Finance given them two such totally different statements? The basis on which the first financial Minister had told them they were paying off their debt was one per cent. That might have been alright, but one had to bear in mind that that would only wipe out the debt as it stood at the time of Union. If they looked at the Estimates of Expenditure from lean funds they would see that they were increasing their debt, not only their reproductive debt. If they looked at the Loan Estimates they would find that for railways and harbours the amount was two and a half millions, while nearly a million and a half was to be borrowed for public works, and so on, and he thought some arrangements should be made for the repayment of that money. Otherwise they would be running a risk of depreciation, and everything else that might happen. He quite agreed that such matters as asylums should receive serious attention, but the money spent on asylums and gaols was not reproductive. Telegraphs and telephones were again not a profitable investment, and it did not repay anything like the capital invested on them. They also represented unproductive debts. They were all valuable things, but when they borrowed money for roads and only paid interest they were involving themselves in an unreproductive debt. He thought that the finances of the country were not in a sound position, and that they were not meeting their obligations as they should. The principle they were following was a dangerous one.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours was very anxious that they should not penalise the present for the benefit of future generations. There was no danger with this present Government of that being done. What had been happening all the time was that future generations were being penalised for the sake of the present generation and that anything that could be got out of loan funds or could be done without being put on the present taxation of the country was gaily done. In another quarter of a century, unless some Finance Minister came in who took a much sounder view of their financial position than the present Minister, this country would find itself in a very unpleasant and uncomfortable position. The Minister of Railways and Harbours, who, they had hoped, would have had good old Cape ideas and have gone in for sound finance, had shown that he was a ready disciple of the Minister of Finance in this respect. He had told them that he had taken £100,000 less than a fair estimate for depreciation and renewal this year. Why? Because the finances were short. He had taken a large amount from the Rates Equalisation Fund.

Continuing, he pointed out that from 1898 the Cape took the surpluses of the years for extinction of that debt. There was no attempt made by the Cape to pile on taxation for the purpose of paying off the debt. Exactly the same course had been taken on the present occasion, except that now they were using the surplus which the Minister had accumulated during the last few years, exactly for a purpose of this kind. He thought the Minister was absolutely justified, and he failed to agree with the speech that had just been made. He wished that the Prime Minister would confine himself more to his own ideas, instead of attacking the ideas of other people. When the Prime Minister enunciated his own ideas, he (Mr. Fremantle) generally found himself in agreement, but when the Prime Minister attacked the ideas of other people, the reverse was generally the case. The Prime Minister talked about a sinking fund, and he took the opposite view to the hon. member who had just spoken. He talked of a 1 per cent. sinking fund. He (Mr. Fremantle) would like to know where the Prime Minister got that from. He was surprised the Prime Minister should talk of a 1 per cent. sinking fund, when they had only got about half per cent. One per cent was insisted upon by the Imperial Government, and he did think they might fairly consider that as a rather prudent sinking fund. With regard to the rest of the debts he thought the provision made for their extinction was none too large. The Prime Minister then tried to score a point: off the hon. member for Barberton by referring to native taxation, but he did not say what he himself intended to do. Was he going to approach the ideal of uniformity or not? He (Mr. Fremantle) recognised the difficulty of increased native taxation, but he recognised that uniformity in native taxation was bound to come, and he recognised that it could not be done without putting an additional burden on the natives of the Cape. He did not think the Prime Minister should throw aside the proposal of the hon. member for Barberton by talking about a war and other things.

If the natives were prepared to contribute when it was necessary it should be a time of great financial stringency, and it was a time like the present when these taxes would have to be reconsidered. The Prime Minister then referred to the strike expenditure, and said it was monstrous that one section of the people should pay for a thing that affected another. Was it not plain that the Prime Minister was looking more to party considerations than the finances of the country, and was it not desirable that they should get back to the old-fashioned Budget debate, which should not be an opportunity for party recrimination? He did not propose to vote against the Estimates, because he wanted to see the business of the country progress, but that did not mean to say that he was voting confidence in the Government. The Prime Minister said that the hon. member for Rustenburg had al ways been crying out for a tax on the rich, and that when such a tax was introduced he was opposed to it. The hon. member for Rustenburg proposed a tax on diamonds, and that was not a tax on the poor. He thought that was an unfortunate misrepresentation of facts. The Prime Minister was very careful to avoid the question of the death duties suggested by the hon. member for Barberton, and this was one of the things that ought to be dealt with. If this was to be dropped don’t let the Minister say that they were afraid of a tax on the rich people, though he (Mr. Fremantle) did not like these distinctions, and thought taxation should be borne in a fair measure by all sections. The Prime Minister said that an automatic increase of expenditure had taken, place on account of the development of the country. That was a dangerous doctrine, and it covered a multitude of sins. He wanted to point out that there was no comparison between the increase in expenditure and the increase in the population. At the same time he wished to separate himself from the views of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth regarding the promises he made prior to the days of Union. He (Mr. Fremantle) never joined that chorus. It was a respectable chorus, he would admit. All the pundits of the time joined in saying there was going to be great economy, but he did not think so. He could understand the hon. member for Port Elizabeth not liking the idea of going back and telling his Constituents there had been no economy, because he was likely to have his old speeches flung at him, but he must be used to this, so the hon. gentleman was not likely to be disturbed unless more dangerous missiles were thrown. There might be something serious at Port Elizabeth if the hon. member was going to say that there was extra taxation because of extra expenditure, because that was not justified by facts. It was only fair to any that while extra taxation had been to some extent necessary, greater expenditure would not have been necessary if it had not been largely due to lightening the burdens of the people by remission of taxation.

Proceeding, the hon. member said what he did feel was that the Government had put on a spurt this year. He did not understand why there had been so large an increase in expenditure. Why should they have an increase of £800,000 at the present time? Everyone knew this was a time of difficulty. The Government should have been careful in bringing forward their financial proposals not to bring forward more than was necessary. Yet, instead of bringing forward the automatic increase of half a million or so, the Government had put forward a large spurt. The Minister of Finance had concealed it to a large extent, but the spurt was there for all that. The Government had not made out a case for the accelerated expenditure contemplated for the coming year. For his part he believed that at least a quarter of a million pounds could easily be saved if the Minister merely put his mind to it. He had always supported the Government in regard to a scale of expenditure, but a change was being made this year at a time when it was most important to economise as far as possible. That spurt, to his mind, ought to be resisted by the hon. members in that House in the interests of their constituents.

He had an uncomfortable feeling that the Minister of Finance had not got a grip upon the finances of the country such as it was desirable he should have. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to urge in detail the necessity to insist upon a far better apparatus for statistics than existed at the present time. But he could not understand how the Minister could go on let-ting that scandal continue for years. Neither the Minister nor anybody else could understand the financial affairs of the country satisfactorily. Last year the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had devoted an enormous amount of labour in finding out certain figures, and nobody could criticise them because nobody had done the same amount of work. Now the official figures were put forward, which showed that the hon. member was not correct on certain points, and he would be the first to recognise that now that the House had got official information. But they had not yet got anywhere near where the Transvaal was or where the Cape was before Union, arid neither the Cape nor the Transvaal were quite satisfactory. It was very unfortunate that that essential had been so neglected by the Minister. The information that had been gained had been corkscrewed out of the Government. They had got statistics regarding education. When he asked the Minister of Education last year he was told it was a Provincial matter, and although he was glad to see the figures now he was still a little sore at his treatment by the Minister of Education. Before Union they recommended agricultural statistics should be compiled, and it had taken three years to carry out that essential proposal. The hon. member for Gardens some time ago asked for statistics of a most important kind with regard to the balance of trade. Nobody who had gone into the matter could deny how essential that was. There were the most glaring discrepancies between English statistics and ours. He hoped the Minister would give them the statistics. Then more information was necessary about the railways, and the Railway Department should give them the statistics which were really required. In 1912 they had a very satisfactory little Brown-book, showing them the position of the various railway funds; but now they had nothing of the kind, except some figures extracted by the hon. member for Durban, Central. With regard to the Public Debt Commissioners, why had they not given a full list of the loans and also the assets for 1913, as used to be done? Was this omission because the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had resigned from the Public Debt Commissioners? If so, he (Mr. Fremantle) was very sorry. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had drawn attention to the very important point of the dates on which our loans matured.

He hoped the Minister of Finance would excuse him if he said it was really a very serious evil, costing the country an enormous amount in hard cash, that he should combine the, functions of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence. (Opposition cheers.) He did not wish to make any sort of personal attack on the Minister. He found that a most dangerous thing to do, because the other day he made a most harmless attack on the Minister on political grounds, and subsequently he was reported all over the country as having called the Minister a “national traitor,” when he aid nothing of the sort. The work of the Minister of Defence was so urgent and important that it was very desirable that he should devote his whole full attention to it. (Hear, hear.) If any Portfolio must be added to that of the Minister of Finance, it should not be that of the Portfolio of Defence. Any Minister of Finance must, if he was worthy of his place, perpetually be carrying on a friendly warfare with all his colleagues representing spending departments. He did not know whether the combination was made on the principle of setting a thief to catch a thief, but he hoped very soon that the position would be changed. When we were introducing a new system of national defence, involving an extra large amount of work, and we were passing through a period of financial stress, no one could fill the two positions properly. The country had paid most heavily for this extra work imposed on the Minister of Finance He (Mr. Fremantle) did not think that the Expenditure Estimates had been controlled as they ought to have been. (Hear, hear.) It was most difficult for any finance Minister to control the Estimates of Expenditure, because the expenditure was made little by little, far away from the head office or the cognisance of the Minister. The Minister had to defend expenditure all over the country of which really he knew nothing, except in the documents provided for him; but unfortunately the heads of departments, who provided those documents, were not much better informed themselves. A system of efficient control had yet to be devised, and he was not blaming the Minister for rot having devised it, but the task must be fought out in the interests of the country. The Minister was a great disciple of the doctrine of a large South Africa—the larger the better. Yet even now he could not control the expenditure.

Mr. Fremantle (proceeding) said that when he was in England he was informed that the finances of that country resulted in the waste of millions of pounds, and he was sure that there was a corresponding waste in this country. He was not satisfied with the taxation proposals that had been brought before them. When his hon. friend (the Minister of Finance) was at Cambridge he no doubt wrote essays about revenue and expenditure, but what they wanted from the Minister of Finance was something more than generalisations about those subjects. The taxation proposals did not give them any details. As he had much more to say on the subject he moved the adjournment of the debate.

The adjournment of the debate until Monday was agreed to.