from inhabitants of Verulam, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from A. Tennant, formerly Collector of Customs, for increase of pension.

from residents of Middelburg (Cape), for removal of the ‘colour bar” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.

from inhabitants of Greytown, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from residents of Queen’s Town, for removal of the “colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.

from the Right Rev. Bishop F. Roach, and other inhabitants of Pietermaritzburg, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from residents of Riversdale, for removal of the “colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.

from inhabitants of New Hanover, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

a similar petition from inhabitants of Pietermaritzburg and Estcourt.

a similar petition from inhabitants of Greenwood Park and Red Hill, Natal.

a similar petition from inhabitants of Harrismith.

from residents of Korsten, for removal of the “colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.

from inhabitants of Cape Town and Cape Peninsula, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto (fourteen petitions).

Report of the Director of Irrigation on various Irrigation Projects, provided for in the Loan Estimates for year ending 31st March, 1915.

Report of the Chief Commissioner of Police for the Union, 1912.

(for the Minister of the Interior): Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Colonial Medical Council (Cape).

stated that when this debate was adjourned on Friday, the question before the House was a motion by the Minister of Finance: That the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending 31st March, 1915, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbours Funds, respectively. Upon which the following amendments had been moved, viz.: By Mr. Andrews: To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “this House views with alarm the increase of poverty among large numbers of the population, the prevailing acute pressure of unemployment and the continued emigration of large numbers of white citizens from the Union. It is of opinion that one of the principal causes of these evils is the continued importation of cheap indentured Kafir labour and the general policy of basing South African industrial development on a quasi servile labour system, and it regrets that the Government has not seen fit to introduce legislation having for its object the reversal of the present pernicious tendencies.” By Mr. Jagger: To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “the Estimates of Expenditure be referred back to the Government for revision and reduction, with a view to avoiding the necessity of imposing any unnecessary taxation.”

said that with regard to the proposal from the cross-benches he found a great deal in it to agree with, but that was not the time to consider the questions raised by the hon. member for George Town. The motion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, dealt with the financial question, but the hon. members on the cross-benches gave no indication as to how they proposed to deal with the country’s finances. He could not, therefore, support it. He (Mr. Fremantle) would consider what the position of the country was in so far as it immediately related to the financial question. He did not agree with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. this year, as he did not agree with the hon. member last year, when the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) thought the Estimates were too optimistic. He (Mr. Fremantle) thought they were too pessimistic, and for once out of the mouths of babes and sucklings there came truth.

It is flowing out by Delagoa Bay.

went on to say that his hon. friend must admit that the imports of specie were considerably more than the exports at the present time. The financial health of the country seemed to be due a great deal to the policy pursued by the Government during recent years, by the remission of taxation and the Government fostering the sources of prosperity of the country as a whole. He hoped it would continue, not only in regard to development, but also in regard to taxes, because that was a most important matter. With regard to the mines, the president of the Chamber of Mines had said only the other day at the end of the financial year that the outlook at the present time was most promising. In April the gold output had been at a higher rate than during the last financial year, and they ought to calculate by the financial year and not by the calendar year. If they took the other great source of the wealth of the country, the land, everyone knew the enormous progress which had been made in various directions. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton), had referred to the export figures. He did not think it was quite fair, and he thought a stop ought to be put to counting their agricultural resources by means of the export figures, because his hon. friend must be well aware that a very large amount of agricultural produce might be said to be exported in the form of gold and diamonds, because, were it not for the mines, they would be exporting a very large quantity of agricultural produce. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had referred to the small export of meat and wool from that country in comparison with New Zealand, but that was largely due to the much larger population they had in that country (South Africa), whom they had to feed for themselves, and if they had the small population of New Zealand the export of meat would become a pressing question. Another sign of progress was the number of children in the schools—a most convincing and sure sign of financial prosperity. The number of children in school was increasing at an unprecedented rate at the present time. If they looked abroad—which was also necessary—the money market had not been for a long time in such a satisfactory state as at the present time, and, on the whole, he was at a loss to understand how it was possible for hon. members to take up a pessimistic view.

Clearances.

said that he quite agreed with what the Minister had said about clearances, but the April revenue for Customs clearly showed that the revenue Estimates of the Minister were too pessimistic that year, and there was good reason for thinking that. As to the railway revenue, was that due to clearances at Customs? It had shown a great recovery during the last two weeks, and showed the way the revenue of the country, as a whole, was going. It seemed to him that if they went on facts, as opposed to general feeling, one was bound to say that there was good reason for thinking that the revenue Estimates were too pessimistic, as they had been in every year since Union.

Still, there was an enormous discrepancy between the Estimates of Revenue and the Estimates of Expenditure. He did think that it was necessary for the House very seriously to consider the Estimates of Expenditure, and see whether it was not possible to reduce them. The Prime Minister, who he regretted to see was not present, had used the old argument, and had asked in what particulars were these Estimates excessive. He had said that the critics of these high Estimates had not given a single instance showing in what particular item they were excessive. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had, however, put his finger on several instances where these Estimates were excessive. But the whole case of the Government had been given away by the Minister of Finance. They had no detailed Estimates whatever. The Minister of Finance came to that House and said for the first time that there was £150,000 which could be struck off, but he could not tell them where it was—an unprecedented statement, which no Finance Minister of that, or any other, country had ever made. He (Mr. Fremantle) was sanguine on that occasion that it might be possible to find these superfluities which the Minister told them existed, and he wished the House to institute a careful search for that missing £150,000, to see whether that amount could not be largely added to also. As to excessive expenditure, of course they had it. They had a Civil Service which was extravagant, and until the whole system of the Civil Service was altered and put back to something like the sensible system which was in vogue in England and in almost every other civilised country, and until they had the courage to go into that, instead of taking the path of least resistance, he said they were bound to have an extravagant Civil Service in that country. They had two Civil Services in that and every other country—an administrative Civil Service and a clerical Civil Service, and they had not had the courage to separate the two. The result was that they overpaid clerks and underpaid the younger men who would be the future administrators, and failed to attract the right class of men into the Service—a maximum of extravagance with a minimum of efficiency.

Who will pay it but the taxpayer?

A certain amount is paid by the taxpayer, but the greater part is paid by the consumer.

Then it is a reduction of taxation.

It is not a reduction of taxation. I think, if the hon. gentleman had studied the question at all, he would know that the views I am putting forward are the views of the great majority of economists. You can easily put off simply an amount that is lost to the taxpayers of this country without being gained by the consumers of this country, and it would go a long way towards equalising your expenditure and your revenue. The hon. member went on to say that, not the preferential tariff only, but the whole of the taxes, required reconsideration. It was clear to him that they wanted a much more careful inspection of the taxes than they had got. Take the income tax. An income tax, even if it had a limit of £1,000, which made no differentiation at all between earned and unearned income, was a gross injustice. (Hear, hear.)

On a fresh valuation.

On a higher valuation than we have at the present time. This was the result of the Financial Relations Act. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn is as much responsible for this as anyone. (Hear, hear.) That is the second land tax imposed on us as a result of the policy of the present Ministry, which pretends to represent the interests of the farming community. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said the tax would cost a great deal to collect, and it was not worth while to have a land tax merely for the sake of £50,000. Hon. members on the Government side owed a duty to their constituents in this matter as well as to the Government. The farmers would look to the Government as one which had done more than any other body of men contrary to the interests of the land-owner. They were bound to go on with the principle laid down by the Government and by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) when he was Minister of Finance, which was that it was essential to deal gradually with the equalisation of taxation. A diamond tax had been suggested, also the equalisation of native taxation and the equalisation of death duties. Why was the Government afraid to deal with the latter question? Why was the hon. member for Fort Beaufort afraid to deal with the question? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had twitted the Ministry with being afraid to take responsibility, but when it came to his turn to deal with the death duties he said: “Excuse me; let me refer it to the Government.”

A vote of confidence.

Not at all. It was the practice for years in the Transvaal and Free State, and it was not regarded as a vote of confidence at all. Under our Constitution it would be wise for us to have a Budget Committee. I don’t think anyone is satisfied that the financial scheme of the Government has been thoroughly thought out. When was it that the Minister decided to adopt these taxes? Not more than a month ago. His scheme is a hasty one, which ought not to be adopted by the House. It was well enough for Ministers and others (went on Mr. Fremantle), who did not recognise the extreme gravity of the position and the extreme importance of nursing back the country to health after the crisis of last year. It was natural for them to think they could deal with this question by laughing and jeering. He trusted the Government would see its way to accept a Budget Committee, and he would move as an amendment “That the Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to report within one week as to the best method of bringing about an equalisation between revenue and expenditure for the year 1914-15, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to consist of eleven members.” He was sorry that it should be necessary for the Select Committee to deal with the matter as hastily as he suggested, and probably it might be found possible to extend the time.

who seconded the amendment, said it might be argued that they were going back to the old republican days. That might be so, but at any rate in those days the position, as far as matters financial were concerned, was far sounder than it was now. The old Volksraden knew how to arrange their financial matters for the development of the country. They appointed Budget Committees, and conferred on them the right to make a thorough inquiry into both expenditure and revenue. So far as the Estimates before the House were concerned, every speaker had made it clear that the Government had acted hurriedly without considering all the necessary details. The statement before the House anticipated a deficit of £961,000. Every hon. member knew that Estimates were often drawn up with a view to suit the Government’s views. If a large estimated deficit was desirable, the Government could make the estimated revenue as small as possible, and the estimated expenditure as large as possible.

All this might, of course, be done for political purposes. In 1913-14, for instance, a deficit of £953,000 was budgeted for. They had then a credit balance over from 1910-11. A large number of nest eggs of the past had now disappeared, such as the credits from the late Colonial Governments, the contributions from the railways, etc. In this regard he wished to say that the time had come when they should once and for all deal with the bewaarplaatsen question. At present the Minister seemed satisfied to take £250,000 out of the £700,000 bewaarplaatsen money and cry quits. Then the Minister estimated to get £200,000 out of the revised Customs tariff, whereas the general opinion was that only £150,000 would result. Again, it appeared to him that the whole matter had been taken up by the Government with undue haste. This Customs tariff question was a most involved one, requiring the most careful consideration, and the Government, instead of asking the House to pass the whole subject in a hurry, should have the new tariff submitted to a committee of men who had experience of Customs questions of this kind. The Customs question was closely associated with the industries of the country, and, in the circumstances, it was extremely dangerous to deal with the matter in a hurry. A large number of new industries were on the point of being established. Was it fair, in the circumstances, on the part of the Government to ask the House to pass their proposals without due consideration? With due respect for the ability of the Minister of Finance, he wished to point out that in this matter they were dealing with great trade interests—interests which should be carefully considered. The Minister now proposed to continue the existing preferential tariff. Whenever anyone dealt with this matter, he risked being accused of disloyalty. Had anyone in this country ever asked for this preferential tariff? He held it was introduced here at a time when everyone in this country was opposed to it.

It was introduced at the Inter-Colonial Convention, but the people of the country had not been asked to say whether or not they liked it. Who benefited from this tariff? Not the Imperial Government. The only people who benefited were the British manufacturers, and these people benefited to the extent of £300,000 or £400,000. The time had come when this question should be submitted to the people of South Africa. And in connection with that question, the other question of reciprocity should be considered. There was no idea of disloyalty. There was the tie of Empire, under which every dominion should have the right of liberty to do what was in the interest of that particular dominion. If Australia wished to place an import duty on any article produced here it should have the right to do so. He did not want a tie of pounds, shillings, and pence. (Hear, hear.) The true and only bond which bound the Empire and the Dominions together was the right of every portion of the Empire to decide its own affairs in that way which appeared to be most to its own advantage. As to the Minister’s proposal for an income tax, everyone seemed to think, “Oh, I shall not be concerned in any way.”

said the Budget debate was the most interesting part of the session’s work. Almost everything there could be said had been said on the Budget, but he wished to emphasise one or two points. When he came down to Cape Town first, some years ago, he expected to find a considerable number of old and well-seasoned politicians and he was curious to see how these dear old former members of the Cape Parliament would manage their affairs. He had not been altogether disappointed. He had found them ever courteous, sometimes exciting, occasionally interesting, and now and then instructive, and so it had been with this Budget debate. They had had some very instructive and interesting speeches from both sides of the House. The speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) was full of instruction, and that of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), was full of facts and figures and intensely interesting.

The hon. member was understood to say that then there had been an effort at dragooning the Government on the part of his revered leader, which had been certainly exciting, and there had been the speech of the right, hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), which was intensely interesting, but had caused him some little alarm. They had heard the right hon. gentleman fencing and saw him doing a tight rope walk, because first he was a free trader and then a protectionist, and then a little of both. He had heard the right hon. gentleman described as “a free trader with a dash of protection,” but now he ought to be described as “a protectionist with a dash of free trade.” (Laughter.) He hoped it was only a passing whim. As to the Minister of Finance, he (Mr. Quinn) did not quite know how to address him on that occasion. (Laughter.) The Minister had tried to do an impossibility, and had tried to do too much, and more than was humanly possible for one man to do. He was trying to run the finances of that country and also the Defence Force, and he (Mr. Quinn) joined with what the hon. member opposite had said, that one man could not hold both portfolios. If the hon. Minister persisted in it, he would resemble the mines in one respect, and would become a diminishing asset to the country. (Laughter.) The Budget demanded all the time of the best man in the House, and if the Minister was the best man in the House to deal with the finances of the country, he (Mr. Quinn) did not think that even the Minister was capable of doing well more than that one task; and the sooner he dropped the other tasks the better it would be, for the country. The Minister resembled Mr. Gladstone in one way—the number of ways in which one could interpret his speeches— useful to a politician perhaps, but embarrassing in the case of a statesman.

The hon. member went on to deal with the proposed tariff, and said, did anyone believe that their tariff could be maintained as it was at present? It needed a thorough overhauling. Any disposition from a man to put money into industries of the country was killed by this constant change of tariff, and no business man from Europe or America or anywhere else was going to risk sinking large sums of money into the country with the prospect of changes of the tariff. He hoped that the Minister would have the tariff a simple one, and that it would be made with the long view always kept in sight, and not made final, because he did not think any tariff could be made final, but as final as it was possible to have it. He found that in the Transvaal they had had seven different tariffs in 18 years. Since then they had had another, and now still another, so that meant nine tariffs in 24 years, and how could a shrewd man of business be expected to embark on industrial enterprises in that country when there were so many changes of the tariff? The duty on some things was eight times as high as it had been in 1890, such as tea, where the duty was nearly 8½ times now what it had been in the other year. Other things were similar. If the Minister was going in for an extreme protective tariff he had better say so. “I am myself,” said Mr. Quinn, “utterly opposed to protection, but I don’t want to upset those who have done a certain amount of business on the present tariff. I am a free trader myself; but, rather than have this continual tinkering with the tariff, I would rather have an avowedly protective tariff, so that we can see exactly where we are. It is no use talking of starting industries, because industries cannot start here with this constant interference of the Minister of Finance with the tariff.” Proceeding, Mr. Quinn said that the Minister had said in his Budget speech that he would not increase the cost of living, but he could not mean that, seeing what the proposed changes in the tariff were. He did not know what the Minister meant by that. He did not understand him. He was not prepared to say the Minister was deceiving anybody, because what was the use of trying to deceive anybody when the figures had been laid on the Table? The Minister’s speech had been unintelligible to him. Luxuries had been fairly well taxed, but there were certain features in the proposed change of the tariff which were uncalled for and untried. There were changes such as a tax on butter substitutes, tea, and the like, which would immediately touch the poorest in the country. (Hear, hear.) What the Minister hoped to get out of those increased duties was £150,000, but there were those who said he would not get it. There could be no mistake about it that that increase was due to the foolish way in which the men had been led during the July strike. (Hear, hear.) That was the direct result; but the indirect harm which had been caused to the country was infinitely greater. (Hear, hear.) It was due solely to a lot of foolish, inflated political quacks trying to lead these people, and the effect would be found on the poor people.

Mr. Quinn added that he sympathised entirely with the speech made by the hon. member opposite as to the necessity for economy. If they did start economising the first place should be in that House, and with the Ministers themselves, although their salaries had been reduced.

Then the members.

Yes, unquestionably; and members ought to be getting a good deal less than they are getting. You would be able to take off the tax on tea and coffee and the like, if Ministers’ salaries were further reduced and members’ allowances were reduced. I hope it will be considered. The hon. member went on to say that, looking at the country generally, they would, he thought, be forced to go in for a big scale of retrenchment and economy. One of the attractions of Union in the days before Union was the idea that under Union the country would be run much cheaper than it had been possible to run the different colonies separately, in the days before Union. In the Transvaal numerous meetings had been held, and people there had not by any means all been in favour of Union He had himself never doubted the soundness of Union; but there was no doubt that a large number of people had doubted it. They had a society in the Transvaal in connection with Closer Union, and he had at its meetings used as an argument in favour of Union—as a minor argument, which might have greater force with people sometimes than a major argument—that they would be able to run that country much cheaper under Union than it was being run at that moment. Allowing for all the necessary extra expenditure, it was surely a fair thing to say that the amount of money they were paying at the present day was—he did not know exactly what word to use, he would say “preposterous,” for running that country. After four years of Union they were more heavily indebted than before. The food of the people was to be taxed, and there was to be an income tax. Was that satisfactory? Proceeding, he said that there was great dissatisfaction in regard to the public service. He did not suggest that they were paying clerks and assistants of that kind too much money, but he did think, and he had made some effort to find out, that there were too many clerks and too many highly-paid officials. (Hear, hear.) After all they could not feed a cow with its own milk, as they were trying to do in South Africa. There was no definite policy. Everything seemed to be a matter of muddling through. How often had that been said about the Old Country? That they were muddling through, but in South Africa there was infinitely greater muddling than in the Old Country. The Minister of Finance would never be a success in either of his positions as Minister of Finance or as Minister of Defence while he tried to do the work of both. It was impossible. To his (Mr. Quinn’s) mind the tariff was absurd. It could not go on. He was hoping to see industries started in the country, but nobody was going to come here with a tariff such as existed. The Minister should work at the tariff again.

That Budget should not be gone on with; it should be taken back, and some economy practised, for if it went on it would lead to a great deal of trouble.

said that they on the back benches were all prepared to pay high tribute to the brilliant attainments of the right hon. member for Victoria West, but they resented the scathing remarks he had made with reference to the hon. member for Middelburg. Those remarks were unworthy of the right hon. gentleman; to make them was bad form, and distinctly ungenerous, for whatever the shortcomings of the hon. member for Middelburg, at least he spoke with sincerity and had the courage of his convictions. The right hon. gentleman had lived long in a cultured atmosphere where he had been able to develop the great talents with which nature had so richly endowed him, but he should have remembered and not forgotten that those advantages and opportunities which were afforded him had been denied to the hon. member for Middelburg who, with others, as a mere boy, was pioneering the far North. They to-day were reaping the fruit of the strenuous life of those pioneers. Mr. Nicholson apologised to the House for that digression, and went on to say that so far as the hon. member for Barberton was concerned, the Prime Minister had made a most effective reply, and he had proved even to the hon. member how faulty his arithmetic was; but there were certain points that had been unanswered. Proceeding, he said it was a great pity that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had chosen the years 1908-9 as a basis for comparison, for by doing so he had discredited his arguments and comparisons absolutely. If the arguments of the hon. member meant anything they meant that the Union of South Africa should attire herself in the shreds and tatters in which the Cape Province was clothed in 1909, and which she discarded at Union. The Cape was then in such a state of rags and tatters that it was almost impossible to recognise in her a sister State. For the sake of decency Union threw a mantle over her nakedness until proper clothing could be prepared for her. Even that garment which is generally worn nearest the body of State (education) was in such a dilapidated condition and so ineffective that her nudity could hardly be disguised. They could gladly forget, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth compelled them to remember how poorly she was clad at that period and now, well robed and plumed in that which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth so admired, ostrich feathers, she was the most beautiful of all the four daughters of South Africa. If the hon. member’s arguments meant anything, they meant that they should go back to the miserly economy of that period and live a life of discomfort and misery. Even the Cape taxpayer would protest against that degeneration.

Question.

attributed the high house rent on the Rand to land speculation and not to the cost of building material. A gentleman had informed him that he had obtained a quotation for corrugated iron from a firm on the Rand at a very much lower figure than a quotation from a Cape Town firm. Mr. Nicholson expressed the opinion that owing to the drought we were going to have an increased importation of foodstuffs. He did not think this year was going to be any more prosperous than last, as we had not yet finished reaping the harvest of the industrial disturbances, a harvest which would be very much heavier than some people imagined. He wished to know how many of the 13 or 14 projected irrigation schemes were to be utilised for putting deserving poor whites back on to the land, on the system adopted at the Kakamas Settlement? Not enough attention, he complained, had been paid to boring for water. We had 42,000,000 acres of Crown land, the larger portion of which was fit only for stock raising purposes. The time would arrive when our mineral exports would sink into insignificance in comparison with our export of meat. The Leader of the Opposition had suggested—and it was refreshing to be able to agree with him for once—that proved men from Kakamas should be settled on the borders of German South-West Africa as cattle farmers. If that were done their places could be filled by other poor whites, and thus assist in the solution of a most pressing problem.

said that the hon. member for Waterberg had been so exhaustive in the matter of financial criticism that he (Mr. Duncan) did not intend to devote much time to that point. The hon. member for Uitenhage had complained that our financial policy was not a national policy. He asserted that we had no national financial policy. He (Mr. Duncan) supposed that was one of the reasons why the hon. member thought it necessary to keep the Government from going to sleep by the occasional assistance and advice he gave to it. The only way to obtain a national financial policy was to obtain it from Government and not from a Select Committee. (Cheers.) It was quite true that certain countries had found it desirable to have Budget Committees. An attempt had been made in this House to submit the Estimates to the Public Accounts Committee. He sat on that committee while it was acting as a Budget Committee, and his experience was that the time the Committee spent on the Estimates was very largely thrown away, and no adequate result in the way of economy was found. It was also found that the work of that committee in some way prevented a proper discussion of the Estimates in the House, because it was a constant temptation for a Minister, when he was challenged on some particular point for which he had no adequate defence, to say: “This was before the Public Accounts Committee, which passed it.” That was a most unfortunate result.

Hence the land tax.

Whom is this land tax going to affect? Was it, he asked, going to affect any land which people wanted to get on? It was going to affect almost alone the land which was held by the large land companies, such as they had heard of in the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg. It was not land that was readily available for settlement. In so far as it would make that kind of land more accessible, he welcomed the land tax. He would admit that it was a sign of grace that the Government had ventured on a land tax at all, but it was leaving untouched that land which ought to be settled here and now. It had been carefully prepared to avoid touching the land most desirable. (Labour hear, hears.) How should the Government proceed in the matter? It was no use talking about confiscation, appropriation, and so on. They did not want to confiscate anybody’s land or even enforce powers of compulsory expropriation. Other means would prove equally effective. In Australia and New Zealand they had seldom found it necessary to exert such powers There was something nearer home, and that was that ownership of land should be made to bear its fair share of the financial burdens of the country, not merely income which could be assessed in pounds, shillings and pence, but the increase in the valuation of the land that went on year by year by the building of railways, and in other ways. If the Government would adopt that policy of putting on to the ownership of land, on its unimproved value, a fair share of national taxation they would be putting into action an influence which would year by year silently tend in the direction of encouraging people who had more land than they could use, to part with some of it for the benefit of those who could make use of it. As a matter of fact, the Government was pursuing an exactly opposite course, and encouraging people at public expense to hold on to more land than they could use. They were preaching also throughout the country a kind of patriotic doctrine that it was a sin towards one’s country for a man to sell any of his land. That was a hopeless policy to put before the people of the country. This holding of land which could not be used had been a millstone round die necks of the present generation, and had done no good to them. Even with the present moderate progressive policy suggested, the Government would find in time that they would be able to get back land not merely to put the people on who had drifted into the towns, but the policy which they on the Opposition side of the House urged, would not only attempt to stop people being driven off the land to become demoralised, but it would enable land to be made use of and would encourage others to go on the land and develop it. Let them not hear any more about the thousands of people who were driven off the land. But the Government would never be able to find land for those people, not for people coming into the country, by pursuing their present policy.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his speech, referred to the system of railway rates. He supposed they must now take it for granted that the reductions in railway rates which were looked forward to as one of the results of Unification, had come to nought—with the single article. If they were to have no more reductions in these railway rates, then the inhabitants of the inland districts would have good cause to be disappointed. One of the attractions which was certainly held out to the inland parts of the Union as a result of Unification was that railway rates, and the taxation which they had suffered through railway rates, would be reduced.

He would repeat, if the present railway tariff was to be regarded as the last word in respect of the benefits of Union, then they had not much to be satisfied with. Why, for instance, should a product like candles made in South Africa, on being sent a 300 miles” journey, if carried at the Cape or in Natal Province, pay £2 13.4d. per ton, while if carried the same distance in the Transvaal or the Free State they had to pay the sum of £3 5s. per ton? Why should that be? Surely that was a rate which ought to be equalised without any serious disturbance to railway rates generally. The same inequality ran through a whole string of articles, and what was carried in Cape Colony and Natal was charged less than one-half than if carried over the railway in the Transvaal or the Free State. Of course, that was a state of affairs which existed before Union, but it was surely one of those things which ought to have been adjusted.

He would put it to the Minister of Railways: Why was it that no attempt seemed to be made to make any of the branch lines contribute to the revenue of the country on a more equitable basis than they were doing? Was it reasonable or just that these branch lines should continue to bleed the inland Provinces for the benefit of the country districts? If they referred to the report on railways they would find that on system A, covering a distance of 405 miles, the loss for 1912 was £144,000. The Midland Division, known as the Port Elizabeth line, consisting of 1,180 miles, was responsible for a loss of £90,000, and on the Eastern Division lines, a loss of £22,000 But when they came to the Free State Division there was a profit of £238,000, and that profit increased as they went further North. The Johannesburg Division yielded a profit of £930,000, and the Pretoria section £415,000 profit, while the Natal Division was also responsible for a profit of £442,000. Thus they found that the country lines and the Cape lines were being maintained at the expense of the inland centres. Was that a fair system of taxation? Because, after all, it was a system of taxation. The dwellers on the Rand and the Northern parts of the Union were being made to pay through their railway rates for the service of the Union. The time, however, would come when the last straw would be placed on the camel’s back, and the back would break. It had been said with some satisfaction that during the past year the proportion of traffic to the competitive zone had come down to 51 per cent., while Natal had gone up to 34 per cent., and the Cape to 15 per cent. Of course, it was satisfactory that trade should shift from a foreign port to a Union port, but this had been accomplished by loading up the rates to Delagoa Bay. That might be a satisfactory thing in a way, but who had to pay for it? Well, of course, the inhabitants of the Transvaal had to pay the difference. Before Union, 63 per cent. of the traffic to the competitive zone came from Delagoa Bay.

Sixty-six per cent.

said that that result was accomplished because Delagoa Bay was the nearest and cheapest port for the Transvaal.

You handicapped the Cape.

No, there was no handicap upon the Cape. You could have reduced your rates.

You would not let us reduce our rates.

said that the Transvaal was perfectly prepared to see the division of traffic agreed upon at Union carried out—(hear, hear)—but he would ask them to remember that this was done at the expense of the Rand.

said that the speech to which they had just listened must have caused a considerable amount of discomfort in the ranks of the party opposite, when the hon. member (Mr. Duncan) dealt with land settlement. In the first place, he tried to lay aside the charge made by his own side that there had been extravagance in expenditure, and he had warned the House to be prepared for more expenditure. He thus entirely knocked the bottom out of the case of the leader of the Opposition in regard to the charge of Government extravagance. With regard to his land settlement policy, the hon. member had told the House that he should entirely oppose expropriation and confiscation, although he (Mr. Krige) well remembered that, when the Land Settlement Bill was introduced, the hon. member, supported by the leader of his party, favoured expropriation. (Opposition dissent.) Although he had told the House that he was against expropriation and confiscation, he had advocated the gaining of the same object by means of administration. He had said that they should not assist the farmer with communications, they should not build railways to open up the country, they should not assist the Land Bank, and, last of all, he said they should tax the land, and tax it to such an extent that it would be an incentive to the farmer to sell. His speech was most inconsistent. He had objected to the old sound system of the Dutch South African that he should bequeath his land to his sorts. (Laughter.) He was quite sure that the hon. member had said that. Coming to the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, Mr. Krige said that he could not help smiling when the hon. member had advocated and mentioned the Karoo as a suitable place for land settlement. Did he not know that a person had to live on the Karoo for generations before he could stay there? (Laughter.) If they got men from oversea to come and live on the Karoo, how long would they stay there? He would like to refresh the memory of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) knew that in the early days, when he was a young man, about 30 years ago—(laughter)—he practised in Caledon as a medical man. He could not deny that at that time there were about 30 or 40 farmers from oversea settled in the district of Caledon. They owned the best farms in the district. To-day, with one honourable exception, they had all sold out and left the country, and the ground had gone back into the hands of the old settlers. Hence, he (Mr. Krige) said that they must be extremely cautious in advocating land settlement. He would refrain from criticising the speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage, who spoke from a very lofty pedestal, opposed everything the Government did, and appealed to the House on national grounds to support his amendment. He (Mr. Krige) did not know whether that national idea was a re-echo of the National Congress of January last, but it reminded him very much when he heard that amendment of the methods of the Labour Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council. Everything was to be taken out of the hands of the Government of this country, and to be ruled by Select Committees.

It would not do.

proceeding, said that the framers at the time put in a provision that they could draw from the railways for a certain number of years. Clearly that was a temporary expedient, and after the time had expired, they expected to fall back on taxation. Curing three years they had drawn over four million pounds, and the Government was now proposing to face the music a year before they need have done so.

Are you getting value for your money?

was understood to say that he would refer the hon. member to the Provincial Councils. Continuing, he said that as regards the defence scheme, they deliberately called that scheme into being. Could they seriously argue that they should not aim at being self-sustaining in the way of defence, in building up a nation? The hon. member had objected also to an increase of expenditure of £93,000 in hospitals and asylums. When he (Mr. Krige) considered the state of the hospitals and asylums in the Cape in 1910 he felt ashamed that the hon. member should call into question that amount. With regard to the increased expenditure on printing, he agreed with the hon. member that there should be a proper inquiry into that account. It required seriously looking into. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth had advocated economy and retrenchment before taxation. Well, he (Mr. Krige) fully agreed with that claim, but was the House, irrespective of party, prepared to stand by the Government in retrenching Civil Servants?

was understood to say that if a fair price had been charged, the profit would have been still greater.

said that it was the poor farmers, like the small men at Kuils River and elsewhere, who bought two or three bags of guano, who would be affected if the prices were raised, and it would be these small men whom the hon. member was getting at. Then the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had referred to the Union Buildings at Pretoria and to their high cost. It was an honourable agreement, however, which had been arrived at to erect these buildings, and he wanted the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) to be quite fair. The other day, proceeded Mr. Krige, he had taken a constituent of his to the new Law Courts in Cape Town, and this constituent had asked him, “Krige, wat maak jullie met die marinere zalen hier?” (Laughter.) (“Krige, what are you doing with these marble halls here?”) It reminded him, on a somewhat small scale, of the Palace of Justice in Brussels. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had said that 1,000 officials were housed at the Union Buildings, which cost the country £44 per head per annum. The buildings cost £1,180,000, exclusive of cost of site, so that came to £1,180 per head. The Law Courts in Cape Town, he was informed, could accommodate 150 officials, but let them say that they could house 160. Exclusive of site, these buildings had cost £219,000, so that figured out at £1,368 per head, or nearly £200 per head more than at Pretoria. (Ministerial cheers.) Let them be fair. Let him tell the hon. member for Cape Town, Central that notwithstanding what he said, agriculture was making vast strides in that country, and the annual value of the agricultural production of the country totalled 60 or 70 millions, as against 40 millions of the mines. Let them work and develop that great agricultural asset which they had, and when the time came when the mines were worked out, they would have such an asset that they would be the best part of the dominions of the King. In conclusion, Mr. Krige said that he would reserve his remarks about the taxation proposals of the Government on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means on the taxation proposals, and then his remarks might not be so complimentary to the Government as his present remarks had been.

said that the hon. member who had just sat down had been at once amusing and a despair to him. He talked of the motives of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) and of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton), and to talk of the motives of these hon. members as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) had done, filled him with despair There was a suggestion that they on the Opposition side of the House were not actuated by the same patriotic principles as the hon. member for Caledon was, and there was a suggestion that they who had not been born in that country were not qualified to advocate such a policy of developing the assets of South Africa, and that they were prejudiced. He would have thought that the hon. member for Caledon, of all men, would have realised that what they wanted was the development of the country. Unfortunately the hon. member's policy was a standstill one. They on the Opposition side of the House were as thoroughly and honestly desirous of the advancement of South Africa as any man born in this country. (Cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Baxter said he desired to say a word or two from the point of the commercial community. He wished to express the extreme disappointment of the commercial community that nothing had been done towards the unification of the commercial laws of South Africa although Union had been in existence for four years. The commercial law was in as great a muddle as it could possibly be—(hear, hear)—there being a different set for each of the four Provinces. If a man desired to take out a patent he had to do so in all four Provinces. A Commission of two Judges and an eminent lawyer had gone into the matter and had drafted a Bill which could go through the House in three or four days, yet it was not introduced. Then there were four separate sets of insolvency and company laws and laws regarding the registration of trade marks. Another matter in which the Government had failed was to unify the commercial licences. (Cheers.) He was not referring to the licences which were handed over to the Provincial Councils last year, but to those licences which were reserved to the Union with the idea of unifying them. Nothing had been done, yet if the Minister would only make a proposal for the unification of these licences the matter could be dealt with in a few hours. The subject was an important one, for these licences were an impediment to trade. (Hear, hear.) For instance, a firm desiring to send a traveller through the Cape would have to take out a licence for him in each division. Another grievance of the commercial community was the lack of statistics of production. Cases had occurred when, because of the absence of this information, products had been exported which had to be re-imported owing to the erroneous impression as to the amount of the article that was available in South Africa. He would commend to the Minister what other Dominions of the Crown were doing in this matter. The year-book of the Australian Commonwealth was an instance, it being a mine of information within a small compass. When anyone in South Africa tried to find out the trade and financial position, he had to go into all sorts of side-ways in order to arrive at it. Our statistics of exports and imports were admirable, but if one wanted to know how the country was progressing in the way, say, of fruit production, the only statistics available were those dealing with exports. From the railway figures, however, he found that 84,000 tons of fruit were carried by rail last year, while we exported only 6,000 tons.

Why?

I can’t tell you why, but I know that it does not produce enough. The whole effect of your high duties upon your foodstuffs has simply been to increase the price to the consumer and to increase the cost of living. He proceeded to say that it was a disappointment to him that there was no attempt on the part of the Ministry there to cheapen the cost of living. There were many items in that tariff which he thought the Minister would admit would have to be altered, and he hoped that the Minister would be reasonable when they who knew something about various items of trade brought certain matters to the Minister’s notice. As to what the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had said about the preferential tariff, he could not see that the hon. member’s speech upon the actual effects of the three per cent. preference on British goods added to his reputation as an expert on economics. Could the hon. member not see that the effect of the three per cent, preference was not to give a present to England, but to induce your merchant to place his order in England? If they were going to take away that three percent., it simply meant an increase in their Customs, and they had to get that half-a-million out of their own pockets.

On previous Budgets he had argued in favour of South Africa placing a sum on its Estimates to encourage oversea tourists and visitors to come to that country, and he had done so because he honestly believed that if they spent that money judiciously abroad they would get it back manifold. He had seen that through the experience of other countries which did not have the attractions which South Africa possessed. He felt that South Africa had been far too modest in regard to her possessions—(hear, hear)—and that if she would only cast off her mantle of modesty and realise that by bringing it home to the vast numbers who regularly left England and the Continent of Europe and America (which was the biggest of them all) to go abroad for a few months in winter or summer—if they could only induce them to add South Africa to the list of favoured countries, it would mean a great deal of prosperity to South Africa. He had every confidence in that country and in its potentialities, and he would feel more confidence in the immediate future if he saw more effort on the part of those in authority to go in for a proper, earnest, progressive policy of development, and to go hand in hand with them. (Hear, hear.)

said the many speeches he had listened to had undoubtedly taught hon. members a great deal. He (the speaker) was not a Provincialist, and in the circumstances he greatly regretted the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Nicholson), who had said that the Cape at the time of Union was in such a bad financial position that the Transvaal had hesitated to enter Union. Did the hon. member know that the district of Oudtshoorn produced more in agricultural production than the whole of the Transvaal? He wished hon. members would not always speak in such a patronising way of the Cape, because the Cape was quite able to look after itself. (Hear, hear.) Dealing with the remarks of the Minister of Finance made last year as to the necessity for fresh taxation, he wished to point out that last year, when fresh taxation was foreshadowed, he (the speaker) had informed him that economy was the first essential. Undoubtedly the country had gone through a very trying time. The drought in the Cape, Free State, and Transvaal had been most severe, and no one could help the losses suffered in this regard. There was, however, something else which one could prevent. Last year the industrial troubles had cost the country £500,000. He regarded troubles of this kind as a pest, as a disease which should be eradicated. The Minister had already made a good beginning in that direction. In the speaker’s opinion laws should be made which would make strikes impossible, and those who objected were free to return to their own country. (Hear, hear.) The debt of the country was a very heavy one, but on the other hand they had assets here such as very few countries could boast of. Yet they should be careful and not be rash in their expenditure. When the Union started they had a credit balance of one and a half millions, while now, four years later, they had a deficit of a million. So that in the four years of Union they had spent some two and a half millions more than they had got in. That was undoubtedly a very serious position, because it showed that every year they had spent £600,000 in excess of the revenue. That could not be called sound finance. The estimated expenditure again showed a large excess over the estimated revenue.

He thought some means should be devised to prevent this excess. Seeing that they had had all these excesses in good years, be wondered what the position would be if they were faced with lean years, and there was no doubt that they were faced with lean years. The salaries of officials since Union had been increased by a million pounds, and they should be willing to sacrifice a little to help the country out of its difficulties. They could begin with members of Parliament. Mr. Kuhn proceeded to urge that instead of so many articles of food being imported here, more should be produced here. God and nature had done much for this country, but what had man done? He was convinced that there was no need to import any flour or meal at all for instance, and why should they, as they wore doing now, send away large amounts of money for the importation of such articles. In his district he could show the Minister of Lands ground which was waiting for development. They had the best ground in the world between Upington and Kakamas. The people were crying out to have the land placed open for them, and high prices would be paid. But it was useless giving the ground unless a reasonable transport facility was provided. It was a shame that a Province like the Cape should be obliged to import meal, butter and eggs. Did hon. members realise that in some parts of the country large quantities of butter and eggs were perishing simply because there was no possibility of getting them to the markets? And while they here were sitting still the neighbours in German territory were developing at a great rate. Did the Minister know that German South-West Africa was exporting meat to Germany? Did he know that they had two big railway lines from their harbour to the Cape border? Every police station there had either a telephone or telegraph connection, whilst the farmers were helped and supported to develop the country. But how was it in the Cape? The ground in his constituency was full of the greatest possibilities. At a place named Rietfontein a camel farm had been established, but the people there were waiting for communication. He had taken the trouble last recess to go to that part with two water bores, and be could say that he had never seen ground which was more suitable for cattle breeding and such purposes. But if they wanted to have an answer to a letter from Rietfontein they had to wait a month. A journey to Rietfontein occupied eleven or twelve days and cost £30 or £40. The best way was to go by sea to German South-West Africa and thence by train, and that only cost £7. The hon. member proceeded to urge the necessity of railway construction beyond Prieska to the Groot River and through Gordonia. It was also essential that telegraphic communication should be established in these outlying parts. At present farmers were sending their telegrams over German territory. There were inhabited islands in the Groot River, and the people there had asked for irrigation works to be constructed. But nothing had been done. Dealing with the Railway Department, he said it was terrible to think that the railway revenue should have suffered to the extent of £150,000 through the railway strike. It was a pity that the whole country should have to pay for the sake of a few Labour people, who themselves got off scot free. He could not agree to the proposal that the people in the country should now be taxed, and that those who had caused all the misery should not contribute at all. Let them educate their young men, so that, if the others struck, these others could take their places. Generally, he thought they should economise before imposing new taxes. He trusted that the railway tariffs would not be increased as a result of the deficit. The reduction of the tariffs had had the effect of the merchants receiving great benefits, but the people as a whole had not benefited, although they would suffer if the tariffs were increased. He trusted, however, that some way would be found out of the difficulty. He was in favour of an income tax, but he held that such a tax should be general, and not apply to one class. If a man earned £100, he should pay some tax; otherwise, he should not have a vote. The Prime Minister’s explanation of the land tax sounded very well, but the question was, was the principle sound? Should they punish their friends to catch the enemy? He was opposed to the principle of a land tax, which, he held, was not desired by the country. It might be justified in the case of people who bought up land for other than farming purposes, but it was unfair to the rest of the country which had not bought for speculative purposes. If an election were fought on the question, the whole country would be against it.

said that after the long speeches which had been delivered it was rather difficult for him to add anything new. He was, however, sorry that the Government had proposed some new taxes, as he had hated taxes from his childhood. He had always looked on a country where taxes had to be paid as a badly governed country.

Formerly under the old Republics they paid a poll tax, and he was in favour of the old system of imposing a poll tax of 18s. 6d. each. However, as the poor whites in the country districts would fall under such a tax, he proposed to support the Government’s proposals. The strike had cost them some £30,000 extra. In his opinion those persons who had caused the expenditure should be made to pay for it, but under the Government’s proposals they would get off free. That was wrong.

In his opinion it was a deplorable thing that for the sake of the strikers who had cost the country that £30,000 they had to submit to additional taxation. He thought, however, that the proposals which the Government had made were necessary, and in any case he was glad that incomes of less than £1,000 were to escape taxation. He agreed with the principle of the proposed land tax, especially as it affected the enormous holdings of companies. He could not see how it would be possible for a Select Committee to improve on the Estimates which had been laid before the House. He quite agreed that the taxation of natives should be made uniform throughout the Union, but was unable to see how it was going to be done during the present year. Still, he trusted that something in that direction would be done, and that in a following year the Government would be in a position to lay its proposals before the Parliament. Under Union the rights of all the people must be made uniform, and it was in that expectation that he had supported the bringing about of Union. He hoped that the Transvaal system would be adopted.

With regard to what had been said on the subject of the Civil Servants, he did not believe that they were being paid such excessive salaries as had been made out. He feared, however, that many of them were getting fat on the pensions which were being paid out to them in England. In his opinion the payment of Civil Servants had not yet been placed on a proper basis, because those who were doing the most work were getting the smallest salaries. He complained of the manner in which the appointments of officials took place. Those of them who knew nothing but English were sent into rural districts where 95 per cent, of the population spoke Dutch. He thought that was both unfair and unjust to the people, and it was in conflict with the terms of the Constitution. He feared that the Government was not fully acquainted with all the facts in this connection, and he proceeded to give examples of the annoyances which the public had to submit to owing to the fact that the officials were only able to understand one language, and that language not the language that was in common use at those places. An official who refused to qualify himself in both of the languages spoken in South Africa ought to be made to find it impossible to find standing room for his feet.

A scab inspector had been appointed in the district, a most capable man, but he had been imported from elsewhere. He had nothing against the man personally, as he was quite unobjectionable, but he (the speaker) protested against the appointment of a man from elsewhere so long as they had local field-cornets available who were fully capable to do the work. The result of that kind of thing was that the people became discontented and opposed the Government, although it was very probable that the Government were not fully acquainted with all the things that were going on.

With regard to the liquor law in the Transvaal, he disapproved strongly of the manner in which it was being applied. The result of the present application of the law was that innocent persons were placed under arrest on false accusations. He reminded them of a case at Rayton, where an old man was dragged out of his house at night and arrested on a charge of illicit liquor dealing, though he was afterwards able to prove that he was innocent. Such things caused a vast deal of discontent, and they ought not to be allowed to happen.

He was strongly in favour of supporting local industries by means of protection. He pointed out that the pottery works at Olifantsfontein, which employed many sons of the soil, was now about to close down owing to the absence of sufficient protection.

In America he reminded the House industries were protected to the extent of sixty per cent., in Australia forty percent., but in the Transvaal only fifteen per cent. It was no wonder, therefore, that potteries such as those at Olifantsfontein were unable under the conditions stated to continue operations. The hon. member for Pretoria District, North, had invested £250,000 in that factory. He had imported qualified men from England, and after that he had taken on about a hundred sons of South Africa to work in the factory. Moreover, he had found a good deal of work for the poor whites. The factory would, in fact, be a success were it not for the insufficient measure of protection which it enjoyed. The result of its closing down would be that there would be many additions to the unemployed, and there would be forty families put out in the street. That showed how necessary protection was.

He proceeded to discuss the question of co-operative dairies, etc., which had been established in the Transvaal, and which had found it impossible to continue to exist. They found it was impossible to get any sort of price for the commodities that were produced. Then without factories it was impossible for the farmer to dispose of his produce. On the whole, therefore, he was strongly of opinion that it was about time that the Government levied such taxes as would provide sufficient and adequate protection for such industries. Under the present conditions it merely meant that a large number of farmers were becoming impoverished, as they could not obtain reasonable prices.

On the 12th July last an announcement appeared in the “Gazette” to the effect that the Government were willing to pay half the third-class fare of persons who were willing to come from abroad in order to work here as farm labourers. The object of the Government in that respect was undoubtedly good, but in the speaker’s district they protested most strongly against such a plan. They had already such large numbers of unemployed that it was not right to import people from abroad, and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would see fit to cancel the notice to which he had referred.

With regard to the leper institutions he complained that the patients in the Pretoria institution were not being properly looked after. Many of them were only slightly affected with the disease, and the Government ought to give them more freedom, so that they would be able to exercise their political rights.

He earnestly hoped that the Government would be able to do something on behalf of those who had contracted miners’ phthisis before the war, and who did not come under the provisions of the present Act. Seeing that they helped those who had been wounded during the war, he thought these other poor people ought also not to be forgotten.

Protection was also needed in regard to the tobacco industry. The Transvaal tobacco was being adulterated with all sorts of substances, and in that way the farmer was being shamefully defrauded. It was the duty of the Government to do something in that connection.

During the period of the recent strike a number of oxen had been commandeered at a certain price, but those prices were not being paid out by the officials at Pretoria.

In former times the burghers were willing to sacrifice everything in the interests of freedom and justice, but they were not willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the strikers. If cattle were commandeered at a certain price, that price ought to be paid out.

He was very much opposed to the mixed riding of coloured persons and whites in the same railway carriages. It was a dangerous system, and the Minister should so arrange matters that the two classes were kept apart on the railways.

He regretted to say that amongst the natives in the bush-veld small-pox had broken out, and they became a great source of danger to white persons who were compelled to ride in the same railway coach with them, and to drink water out of the same glass. The Government should give the matter their serious attention.

A certain number of brickmakers in Pretoria South had lost their erven, and were now bereft of their only source of income. In his opinion those people were entitled to receive compensation, and he appealed to the hon. member for Pretoria West to support him in his contention.

There had been some complaint on the score of the heavy expenditure which had been incurred by the Provincial Councils. But those Provincial Councils were unable to spend enough money for educational purposes. He knew of course that normal education came within the province of the Provincial Councils, but he wished to point out that it was Parliament which provided the Provincial Councils with the money for education, and they were therefore entitled to have something to say on the subject. Why were they building big schools in Pretoria two storeys high, and the same thing in other large towns, whilst at Stompiesfontein and Strydpan the poor people there had to put up for the past five years with worn-out tents as school-rooms? Why were the people treated in that way? He hoped the eyes of the Minister of Lands would be opened to these facts, so that there might be an end of them. Speaking generally of education in the country districts, he thought they were very badly treated in comparison with the treatment which the towns enjoyed. Why had the teachers in the country parts so few privileges as compared with teachers in the big towns? And why did not teachers get the same scale of pensions as was paid to Civil Servants?

He further wished to complain of the manner in which registration took place in the rural districts. Those districts were so extensive that it was impossible for the appointed officials to get all the voters’ names on the lists within the appointed time, and the result was that some of the best people were omitted from the lists. The Government should take immediate steps to bring about a change in that respect.

Finally, he said that the parties in the House should stand together like men and Christians in order to see that the great ship of State was properly managed, so that the Union might prove to be a blessing to the whole population. That was the only object that the speaker had in view. (Hear, hear.)

moved the adjournment of the debate.

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